According to the case ruling, the insurance company/HMO can’t deny coverage due to the reason for the pregnancy. In many cases the parents who will be the parents usually foot much of the expenses which may or may not included the hospital and doctor costs.
In this case it appears the women were insured and the HMO went to court to avoid paying around $35,000 in charges. We have seen claims denied for other “odd” reasons as well with analytical data.
2 Year Old Skinny Baby Denied Healthcare – Height and Weight Did not Add Up to the Allowable Algorithmic Formula For Coverage
At any rate the ruling makes sense to me as once adopted more than likely too the child will be on someone’s insurance policy as well. BD
Insurance companies may not deny coverage to surrogate mothers, the Wisconsin Supreme Court unanimously ruled Friday.
The decision overturns a lower court's ruling that said Mercycare Insurance Co. and MercyCare HMO of Janesville did not have to provide benefits to two surrogate mothers who were denied coverage during their pregnancies. The companies had a policy of covering pregnant women, excluding surrogates acting as "gestational carriers" for other people's babies.
But the Supreme Court said insurance companies may not make routine maternity services unavailable to surrogate mothers based solely on their reasons or methods of becoming pregnant. The ruling affirms an opinion by the Wisconsin Insurance Commissioner that the HMO could not legally withhold coverage under its 2002 policy.
Dilweg said he wasn't aware of any other women in the state who were denied coverage and his office does not have figures about how many surrogate mothers there are in any given year in Wisconsin.
MercyCare HMO issued a statement saying it disagreed with the ruling and that requiring the coverage will increase insurance costs.