Had family visiting us from overseas recently. One night their 9yo kid developed breathing difficulties and we had to visit the ED at a public hospital in Brisbane.
Family did not have visitor health insurance in Oz so we had to pay $1,200 before he would be looked at in the ED. The kid was treated with an inhaler and monitored for approx 7 hrs while the symptoms got better and the they were stable.
Subsequently the hospital staff asked the kid to be moved to "short stay" so they can further monitor before releasing. We specifically asked for any further costs that might be applicable, and the staff assured us that short stay was covered as part of the emergency fee we already paid and no further charges will be required for the move. The reason they provided for the move was that the kid no longer needed one-on-one care in the ED and just needs to be monitored. So we agreed and signed the paperwork for the move.
After about 5 hrs in short stay where he was occasionally monitored the kid was released.
Approx 10 calendar days after the incident, we received the receipt for the payment via post.
Approx 36 calendar days after the original incident, we received another invoice for an additional $2,050 in hospital fees for one day of stay at the hospital.
We were baffled at this and questioned the charge, and we were explained that this charge was for the admission to short stay. We explained to them in detail that in the conversations we (myself and the parents) had with the hospital staff, we were advised that the short stay was included in the fees already paid and that no further fees were required, and that our decision to agree the move was made based on this.
But the revenue office of the hospital is clinging on to a clause in the data collection form that says the fee estimate provided to us is an estimate only and further charges may be incurred. The best they can offer is an explanation that the staff has given us incorrect information at the time.
I understand that our rights under the ACL can't be just "signed away". The facts are:
- If the short stay is indeed chargeable then the hospital has seriously misrepresented the charges involved
- If we were informed of the charges, we would have politely declined the move and checked out as the kid was stable at that point
- How are we expected to make a sensible decision if we were misinformed of the costs involved?
Is this really how the system works? Is this the (frankly pathetic) standard of informed financial consent in our country?
Should we be fighting this? Is there any point?
We would appreciate any guidance or opinion the community has on this matter.
TLDR: Kid treated at hospital without medicare/private insurance. Hospital fees were paid before he was treated and we were assured by staff that no further fees were necessary. 1+ month later, hospital has sent a bill demanding further charges.
@R4: Someone gave you the logical explanation. This is what happens. Prior to hospital procedures you are asked whether you 'want a consultation' with aneasth. (as in at their office/practise). Even IF you opt out, they have a duty of care to dbl check (law) Yep, it has a fee. However it is WAY way lower than had you chosen a formal meet up as per the former choice. The biggest gravy train in health is at the top, where mates of one side of politics milk it. Go back to when the Howard? govt health minister told his mates there were millions $$$ up for grabs for CT scan implementation. Guess who rushed out and set up the early forays into that trough? It happens every day in aged,health and child care, and 90% from one side of the equation, and they control the market prices. Players are happy to go along with it cos $$$. Yes it's a gravy train, but I'd rather have that $80 safety net prior, than not. However, I'b be even happier if all of that $80 went to the professional treating me than the hospital admin ,company etc. eg the Catholic Church has a revolving door into care, via govt back doors, and a conveyor belt from other countries to supply the front line pawns.
Just remember which side of the Medicare political bread is buttered on, is all I can say.