What's New

More In
Health & Wellness

Would You Change Your Delivery Date If You Didn’t Have Health Insurance?

Elizabeth Jacobs
Posted on Aug 18, 2010

This morning we stopped dead in our web-browsing tracks when we came across this article on CafeMom. Reportedly, a pregnant teacher lost her job (and her health insurance with it), so she moved up the date of her delivery to make the cutoff. Yes, this woman risked enormous health-related issues for her new child to avoid footing her hospital bill. But when we take a closer look, it’s hard not to understand her desperation.

We’re keen to the fact that a new baby means new big expenses. Before bringing your bundle of joy into the world, you have to make sure that your bank accounts are prepared. Pregnancy affects your finances. But before we even start shelling out dough for diapers and baby wipes, we have to pay for the delivery. Yes, that excruciatingly painful event will cost you more than just your sanity. CafeMom estimates that a normal vaginal delivery (devoid of any complications), can cost anywhere from $9,000-$17,000. A C-section can run anywhere from $14,000-$25,000! When we’re talking about this much money, it’s easy to see why someone would be desperate enough to move up the date of her delivery.

When Rhonda Hartwell changed her delivery date, she probably was not considering the increased risk of respiratory problems, and a lengthy list of all sorts of other complications, that arise when babies are delivered before 40 weeks. But desperate times call for desperate measures, and it looks like Ms. Hartwell did not see any other option.

LearnVest wants to know: Have you ever had to make a health decision based on money or your health insurance? Leave us a comment.

Follow Elizabeth on Twitter! @Nyliz1

Posted in: , ,
  • Roz

    I am extremely offended by the manner in which you have presented this article. The comment “When Rhonda Hartwell changed her delivery date, she probably was not
    considering the increased risk of respiratory problems, and a lengthy
    list of all sorts of other complications…” She is a high school teacher at a charter academy, who was currently pregnant and under the care of a physician. She wasn’t an uneducated ignorant person. She was firing as part of a union-busting move from the administration. http://www.chicagonow.com/district-299-chicago-public-schools-blog/2010/08/cmsa-pregnant-charter-teacher-fired-for-organizing/ She was already 8 months pregnant. I am 3rd year medical student at the University of IL, and I’d like to inform you that full-term is defined at 37 to 42 weeks. This is the definition of the World Health Organization. Since she was already 32 weeks pregnant and she moved up a scheduled delivery, it’s very probable that she delivery full-term. No MD in her right mind is going to electively deliver an otherwise healthy baby before 36 weeks. Ms. Hartwell has several options, including Medicaid, using her unemployment insurance benefits (since she didn’t quit and wasn’t fired for cause) or simply paying the COBRA insurance premiums. While her situation is certainly unfortunate and definitely further highlights the need for a public-option national healthcare, to imply that she is ignorant and imply that she put her child at risk is pure speculation and poor journalism. Also the stock photo you’ve added to the article is of a black women with a black newborn. This is Rhonda Hartwell. http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/6301/firing_of_pregnant_chicago_teacher_becomes_battle_over_charter_school_ Did you choose a black person because it made sense in your mind that an inner city Chicago schoolteacher had to be black?? Or because your implying that young black women out of ignorance make these sort of medical decisions?? I’m Asian-American, and this depiction of black Americans offends ME. This article is a shoddy rewording of the CafeMom Article and adds nothing to the discussion. Worse still, through your use of stock photos, you reinforce racial stereotypes about inner city women.