Patient Financial Responsibilities: Fill & Download for Free

Consent to treat at the hospital. If you are signing the consent to treat for a family member don’t. Not until you read it very carefully. There are (or at least there were when I worked in a hospital) two signatures required when you sign the consent to treatment. One is to actually consent for treatment of your loved one. The other one is the assumption of financial responsibility. Trust me they don’t make that especially clear when asking you to sign it. I should know. It was my job as the ER intake to have people sign them. We were told to say here is the consent for treatment and you need to sign it in two places. But that wasn’t true. One was for treatment and the other states that the person signing is responsible for any costs not covered by insurance.So only sign the statement giving permission for your loved one to receive treatment. Do not sign the other statement. If they tell you you have to make it clear that you are not financially responsible for the hospital bills of your loved one. The patient can sign it themselves once they are able.

Let's imagine for a moment that this question were about anything but vaccinations. For example, should cooks be held responsible if they don't wash their hands and give customers foodborne illnesses? Most people agree the answer is "yes".Ethically, parents who voluntarily choose not to vaccinate are in a very similar position. Sure, it's possible that no one will get sick, just as the unwashed cooks' customers might be okay. But they are knowingly putting other people at an easily avoidable risk.In most cases, it is very difficult to figure out who infected whom. But there are times when it can be shown through DNA analysis of strains and a strict chronology, such as in a school outbreak. Just because liability can't be proven in many cases doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.One obvious exception is that voluntarily unvaccinated people and their parents shouldn't have the right to sue for damages. Those who contribute to the problem should pay their own way. But that leaves the others who suffer from the choices of anti-vaxxers: children too young to receive the vaccine, those who can't get it due to medical reasons, and those who were vaccinated but are still susceptible.Remember that in addition to children, adults who are immunocompromised are at tremendous risk from these illnesses. Transplant patients, people with autoimmune diseases, the elderly, etc. can all die from childhood diseases even if they were vaccinated themselves. So, we're not just talking about people being sick, we're talking about risk to life.The question asked about financial responsibility. However, the question is really a specific case of, "Should people be held responsible for knowingly risking other people's lives?" Yes, that's why we have a criminal charge of involuntary manslaughter. So, not only should these parents be financially responsible, if people die through their negligent choices then they should face prison time as well.

This is not a blood and guts all over the floor story, but it IS one of the most ridiculous things you'll ever see in any hospital department.I had a private duty patient that went critical on me at her home, so I had her transported to her usual ER via ambulance while I followed behind in my car. I took her ID and insurance cards to the check in area while they stabilized her in the ER bay. There was a big sign delineating what health insurances that rotten hospital was NO LONGER going to accept!!! Fortunately, hers wasn't among them. But if it had been, we'd have had to recall the ambulance, pack her back up and ship her to another hospital. She'd have been fully financially responsible for that ER visit plus additional ambulance fees.Imagine being a chronically ill patient and going to your usual hospital (where ALL your medical records are) only to find out they changed their minds and WON'T accept your insurance anymore!!! This was around 1990, before the ease of electronic record transfers…..