No it’s not the Clint Eastwood movie; it is the cost of a premature birth. This is making the news in Canada and eliciting some of the usual ‘tsk tsk’ the evils of private insurance. Here is the brief version of the story: a Saskatchewan resident, Jennifer Huculak-Kimmel, went on vacation with her husband to Hawaii. She wisely purchased travel insurance; she was 24 weeks pregnant. However, she was told that she could get coverage since she was less than 36 weeks pregnant. Shortly, after arriving to their vacation spot, Ms. Huculak-Kimmel’s water broke resulting in the premature birth of Reece (who is now by all appearances a fine and thriving baby). Needless to say, a neo-natal unit is costly. The problem is that the private insurance company, Blue Cross, is refusing to pay citing a pre-existing condition. Now since Ms. Huculak-Kimmle was cleared by her doctor as being able to travel, what could be the pre-existing condition? Ms. Huculak-Kimmel did say she had had a bladder infection some time during her pregnancy but the doctor was not of the opinion that this should any problems (one would conclude especially one such as risk of premature birth which would have been considered by the doctor).
This case highlights several issues. The first is one that I feel compelled to note: Saskatchewan is the province responsible for Canada’s single payer health care insurance. Tommy Douglas became Premier and instituted (he cannot be thanked enough in my opinion) the province’s Hospital Services Plan in 1947. Then in 1961 the province adopted a comprehensive health insurance. This model was adopted by the federal government of Canada in 1966 as the Medical Care Act. This means, basically that if Ms. Huculak-Kimmel had given birth in Canada she would not face any cost nor any stress resulting from costs of care. Continue reading