OT: Who should pay?

[Casey B]

OK, this isn't about me but does involve someone in my family halfway across the US (Idaho). Some neighbors to the person in reference called the local police and said that the individual was suicidal. So following protocol the police responded and proceeded to take the individual to the mental hospital where the state can hold them for up to 72 hours until an evaluation can be done. This happened around midnight and the individual was released around noon the next day after being found that they were not a threat to themself. Now the person has received a bill from their insurance company for 25% of a $2000 bill. The company is paying 75% but the individual was taken against their will.



Is the state liable in this situation? I know it is drama, but it is real life drama. Any thoughtful advice that I can pass along?

 

[Thomas Rogers]

The person should pay.



I further suspect the person should get some serious help, because *IF* neighbors called the police with good intentions and were genuinely fearful that the person might hurt themself, THEN there is something wrong and the person should see this whole thing as a clear indication that they need help.



Depression is a sickness and sick people often can't make good decisions for themselves. This sounds like the first step to some real recovery and they are responsible for that recovery and its cost.



(now, if the neighbors had ill intentions, then...)



TJR

 

[Yardsale]

Assuming that there was some behavior that prompted the neighbor to call the police, there may be nothing that can be done – each acted responsibly. Such is the price of living in a society. If, however, there was not a real reason to call the police, then one has to wonder why the neighbor would do this. Is there a negative relationship or a grudge?



Regardless of the particulars, if the call to the police is not justifiable, in the tradition of the US, and if the person feels it is the right thing to do, sue both the police (who were merely following protocol) and the neighbor. Let the judge or jury sort it out. (The hospital was also following protocol.)

 

[Casey B]

From what I have heard (one sided) there was a justifiable cause for the call and I know the police did what they had to do. From what I understand the neighbors were having a cookout where alcohol was involved and money was loaned for a car repair and yada yada yada. I can imagine the thought process of thinking that my neighbors are partying with my money. My family member does have a big problem with alcohol and evidently jumped off the wagon a couple of days before hand. I thought the responsibility would be personal but just wanted to get some opinions.



There's not much more I can do for this individual but pray.

 

[Jo Wainwright]

The "police" were the ones who made the decision that this individual should go to the hospital for observation. Not your family member. The family member just brought it to the attention of the police.



Jo

 

[Richard L]

There is a very suttle bit of legal positioning done by the hospital. The person had to have signed a consent form, or the hospital would not be allowed to file a claim against his insurance. There has been a major crackdown on privacy issues related to Doctores, hospitals and other medical treatment.



Hospitals cannot release medical information to the patients insurance company unless that person, a spouse, or legal guardian signs a consent form. Also, how would the hosital know who their insurance company is unless that information was provided, and they would have signed the consent form to submit the claim to their insurance and to release the necessary medical information to the insurance company.



Also, most states have laws that allow police, paramedics and hospitals to override the patient's protests or wishes, it they feel that the patient may be incapable of making that decision. Suicidal tendancies or even suspected suicidal tendancies would qualify that person as mentally unqualified to object.



Since the person or some qualified family member provided the insurance information, and perhaps even signed for the patient.



...Rich

 

[Thomas Rogers]

C, sounds like alcohol and pettiness came together to fuel a larger problem.



I find it interesting your comments about the money loaned to the neighbors for car repair then them partying with the money. That's part of the pettiness I am talking about. One should never loan money to someone else if they are going to feel bad about or judge the other person on how they spend money.



To my way of thinking, if someone asks you for money, and you give it to them, then it is thiers, and the only real interest (no pun intended) you have at that point is when you get it back, not how they spend that or other monies they have. Why do I feel that way? Because people seem to always need loans when they have some "hard luck" case, and we as people want to help our friends and neighbors. But the reality is that MOST of us make our own "luck", and when you recognize that how can you really sit in judgement. Put another way, sometimes people don't have money to pay a car repair bill because the choose to spend their money on alcohol, or parties, etc, so don't be surprised that when you loan them some money that they continue to make those same decisions.



But, hey, that's just me. And, I tend never to loan money to people...which simplifies everything. Last money we loaned was $500 to my wife's brother over 6 years ago. He doesn't call us or return our calls now. He has let that loan come between us...and I pretty much wrote it off as a gift when my wife and I agreed to give it to him, because we knew the money would never come back.



TJR

 

[Bill V]

Richard, not necessarily. If what you say was the case, it would be impossible to ever provide medical treatment to someone injured in a car accident to the point of not being conscious. At some point, "assumed consent" kicks in. It definitely does in the case of unconsciousness that I mentioned, and I suspect it also does in the example you described, where the person at some point is determined to not be able to make a decision for their own good.



If the person wants to fight it, I suspect he's going to need to show that either the call by the concerned neighbors was not being made with good intentions, or that either the police or the hospital were negligent in their assessment that he was unable to make the decision on his own. I doubt either of those would be easy, and either may cost more than $500.

 

[Casey B]

Thanks for the input guys. Rich, I think the would have been given the info by the police and by running a social would have shown coverage by the VA. It's hard for me to make an assessment from a one sided story given over the phone. I did speak with the officer that night and he said the neighbors and some other people did cooborate that a statement was made about causing self harm. At first he said he would leave the individual there if I would call periodically throughout the night to check. After leaving the home and talking with the neighbors he came back, told me he would call me right back and then they went to the hospital. I called back about 30 mins later with no answer so that's when I called the police station to find out they were at the hospital. It was against will and I'm sure there was some paperwork signed in order to be released which probably wasn't read.



For the amount required to pay (about $500) I don't think a big hassle should be made but at the same time the person doesn't have any money.

 

[James B 3]

Ok Guys, I was a consultant for physicians and hospitals, along with being an MSO director for a hospital system for 6 years, I developed a surgical center, plus managed multiple physician practicies as a consultant. I say all of this so I can make a few comments:



1: Each state differs in civil committment law and who and how it can be done. If the police in SC deem you a threat to yourself or someone else then they take you to an ER for evaluation by an MD, who then determines if you need to be held against your will and will arrange placement in a mental institution for evaluation and treatment. This being in case of you or somone calling to say your are having a mental breakdown.



2: Most people carry insurance cards with them in thier wallets and/or have been treated at a local facility which has those files on record. So, noone may have provided the infomation at that visit. Under HIPPA, the patients usually has to give permission for the trasmittle of the HCFA1500 or other claim form to the insurance carrier for payment. However, thier is a such thing as implied consent for treatment, based on the persons ability to consent for themselves. Every person that is unconcious, a minor in an emergency etc... does give implied consent to treat those life threatening problems until they or thier family can make those decisions. In the effent that a family member is present then they have the obligation to make decisions on the patients behalf until such time as that person can make them.



3. Hospitals are like Gas prices, way overpriced. The insurance companys are even worse. My opinion really is 1) the state would laugh at any attempt to pay the bill and has more lawyers and money than the person does. time is on thier hands. 2) while I don't believe in being a deadbeat, the hospital cannot turn down payment in increments around the patients budget. ie $10 per month, 3) if the hospital is a nonprofit organization, it has the ability to make hardship adjustments to persons balances up and unto the full amount. All he has to do is provide financial information. They usually have a form for this. 4) if all else fails and the person credit is horible anyway, what is one more negative reporting.



Anyway, just my opinion.



James