17 year old dies of coronavirus after being denied treatment due to lack of insurance.

grasping the after wind said:

While the child did test positive for the coronavirus, there were “extenuating circumstances that pointed to an alternative diagnosis as well,” she said.

The death is no longer being counted among LA County’s 13 total fatalities from the virus. The county has tallied 799 residents who have tested positive.

Click to expand...

The odds of it ultimately being from corona is high. Even if it irritated an already existing condition, it's still the fault of having the virus while on the condition.

As an example, I know those who have had kidney failure from the illness is probably from a type of pneumonia that affects the kidneys, but it's still the fault of the Corona because the pneumonia wouldn't have come on without it in the first place.

Are Kidneys Targeted by the Novel Coronavirus?

It's showing we now know it affects the kidneys, not just in the lungs. So depending what this 17 year old had, I'd still assume it's from the Coronavirus. They likely wont release further details for HIPPA laws, so we can only speculate

essentialsaltes said:

The Republican Party when it removed the mandate?

Click to expand...

It's not your fault you don't have health insurance because you weren't threatened with tax penalties?

grasping the after wind said:

The person did not die from lack of health insurance. He died from whatever condition killed him. I have been to urgent care facilities. It is unreasonable to think that he would have survived by being treated at an urgent care facility. Urgent care facilities are not there to treat life threatening diseases. Had the person been seen by an urgent care doctor, that doctor would have sent him to the emergency room. Except for the fact the person would probably have died at the urgent care facility before being seen by the doctor.

Just out of curiosity though who was it that decided this person did not need health insurance?

Click to expand...

This patient wasn't an adult doesn't CA have a program that covers minors when their parents don't have coverage?

Hank77 said:

This patient wasn't an adult doesn't CA have a program that covers minors when their parents don't have coverage?

Click to expand...

I'd think the parents would have had to have applied and qualified in the past. There's not an automatic coverage for all minors.

Hank77 said:

This patient wasn't an adult doesn't CA have a program that covers minors when their parents don't have coverage?

Click to expand...

I don't have any information on California laws. All I know is that health insurance is available for anyone that wants it. So, I just wonder why the parents of this person did not think it was a good idea to have health insurance for their minor child. Not that the health insurance would have saved the person's life but it seems irresponsible to refrain from having it unless one is so wealthy that one can pay enormous medical bills out of pocket.

High Fidelity said:

This is arguably the most damning statement of the system so far.

If it's an emergency and the hospital has an ER, they should be able to.

It's absolutely insane to think you or your loved one may be in dire need of medical attention and you have to check whether you have insurance, whether X or Y hospital will accept your insurance etc. Absolutely insane.

Click to expand...

This is the case. However hospitals in the ER do have to treat you. My daughter did not have insurance for years. Yet her kids allways got treatment. She always went to the ER.

So there is more to this story.

grasping the after wind said:

All I know is that health insurance is available for anyone that wants it.

Click to expand...

Well, they have to able to afford it also if it's private, or qualify for it if it's part of a program. And if they are on a program like Medicaid or Medicare depending on age, a lot of clinics won't treat them and will refer them elsewhere. Hospitals do accept those two programs, but the state will then limit certain services.

Either way it's a moot point arguing since we likely won't know the details in this particular case any further than we already do. Perhaps there will be a followup saying he died of another condition, but I'm still saying it's Corona likely irritating that condition enough to make it deadly

rjs330 said:

This is the case. However hospitals in the ER do have to treat you. My daughter did not have insurance for years. Yet her kids allways got treatment. She always went to the ER.

Click to expand...

Again, This is not true. They have to see you and assess you, but they do not have to offer medical treatment if they see it can "wait"

Uninsured and Facing an Emergency? Know Your Rights!
Now, if it was something simple, sometimes they still help you as well, like a fill of antibiotics. I am not saying they deny all uninsured, of course, I'm saying full treatment is not true for the uninsured, just evaluation.

Yet another source /Emergency Room Rights

What you're entitled to

In a nutshell, the federal patient-dumping law entitles you to three things: screening, emergency care and appropriate transfers. A hospital must provide "stabilizing care" for a patient with an emergency medical condition. The hospital must screen for the emergency and provide the care without inquiring about your ability to pay.

What you're not entitled to

If you're not experiencing an emergency, and you don't have medical insurance or the ability to pay, the hospital emergency room is not legally required to treat you. The hospital will most likely direct you to your own doctor or a community health clinic.

The patient-dumping law was passed to ensure people in distress get necessary medical attention. If you have health insurance coverage, the ultimate question of payment is between you and your insurance company. If you don't have health insurance, you will still be asked to make payment arrangements with the hospital.

Once your condition has stabilized, the hospital has the option of moving you to another facility.

And further down:

EMTALA is still no guarantee

Public Citizen, a consumer watchdog group, claims that despite the law some hospitals continue refusing to provide basic treatment for patients who are unable to pay. "It’s distressing that this law has been in place and hospitals are still flouting it," says Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group. "The government needs to do more to force hospitals to comply. People shouldn’t be denied desperately needed emergency medical care when they go to a hospital."

rjs330 said:

This is the case. However hospitals in the ER do have to treat you. My daughter did not have insurance for years. Yet her kids allways got treatment. She always went to the ER.

So there is more to this story.

Click to expand...

An urgent care clinic is not necessarily the same thing as a public hospital that receives government funding. Private hospitals do not have to treat anyone's children.
I'm pretty sure that this particular clinic in question is a private clinic or they wouldn't have turned him away.

Reading more of the article, it says he had no other health conditions?


“He had been sick for a few days, he had no previous health conditions. On the Friday before he died, he was healthy, he was socializing with his friends,” the mayor explained.

grasping the after wind said:

That paragraph refutes the headline of the article.

Click to expand...

Headlines are often condensed. Inserting "initially reported as a case of" is just not going to work.

JCFantasy23 said:

His story does not sound fishy to me at all

Click to expand...

No one said it sounded fishy just there is more to this than meets the eye.
In my 30 years in working in hospitals I have NEVER seen anyone turned away from the ER because they were unable to pay and needed treatment. They came in for help.....they got it......

JCFantasy23 said:

They have to see you, but if it something they rule needs follow-up with doctor or later surgery, not life-threatening, they do not have to offer the treatment there. They refer you to other care, then release you

Click to expand...

Which make perfect sense because ER treatment is expensive. Save it for those that truly need it....

Hank77 said:

This patient wasn't an adult doesn't CA have a program that covers minors when their parents don't have coverage?

Click to expand...

You would think since the state wants to insure illegal aliens......

civilwarbuff said:

In my 30 years in working in hospitals I have NEVER seen anyone turned away from the ER because they were unable to pay and needed treatment. They came in for help.....they got it......

Click to expand...

That's certainly not the case with all hospitals. Either way, he did not make it to the hospital, he died in route, so for this particular story, it is a bit of a moot point. The clinic did not have to provide services and told him to go to the hospital ER to try for treatment - he had the heart attack on the way. They said it was septic shock from the Coronavirus.

Now that they are trying to find another reason he died that's not related to the virus - probably because of this publicity? - they have removed that as the reason. The family said the 17 year old was previously healthy and did not have pre-existing medical issues.

The story will probably fade away and be forgotten like so many others.

essentialsaltes said:

Headlines are often condensed. Inserting "initially reported as a case of" is just not going to work.

Click to expand...

I could write a headline for that article that was not inaccurate and shorter but then I would not be able to give the particular spin the author wishes more than anything, including accuracy , to give to it.

JCFantasy23 said:

That's certainly not the case with all hospitals. Either way, he did not make it to the hospital, he died in route, so for this particular story, it is a bit of a moot point. The clinic did not have to provide services and told him to go to the hospital ER to try for treatment - he had the heart attack on the way. They said it was septic shock from the Coronavirus.

Now that they are trying to find another reason he died that's not related to the virus - probably because of this publicity? - they have removed that as the reason. The family said the 17 year old was previously healthy and did not have pre-existing medical issues.

The story will probably fade away and be forgotten like so many others.

Click to expand...

They should investigate as to the cause if for no other reason than it is an unusual death in this crisis. However, they need to say that they're investigating other causes because they don't want people panicking about their kids too. The knowledge that it's unlikely for children to get it makes it easier to live with.

grasping the after wind said:

I could write a headline for that article that was not inaccurate and shorter but then I would not be able to give the particular spin the author wishes more than anything, including accuracy , to give to it.

Click to expand...

We all know that headlines are written to draw attention to an article.
What would your headline say?

Hank77 said:

They should investigate as to the cause if for no other reason than it is an unusual death in this crisis. However, they need to say that they're investigating other causes because they don't want people panicking about their kids too. The knowledge that it's unlikely for children to get it makes it easier to live with.

Click to expand...

Children can easily get it, it just doesn't usually affect them that much. It's mainly safer for those under 9, and he was 17. It is very sad, and of course scary, but there is not a point of hiding the statistics of who really dies and their ages. He was quite young to have died from it but we seem to be seeing more "young deaths", at least from recent articles. People are theorizing that change with American numbers with differences in our percentages.

Edited to add: American and Europe with this trend, not just America, and they are focusing on higher hospitalization rate for the younger than 65 here, in critical condition, not just higher death rate.

Hank77 said:

They should investigate as to the cause if for no other reason than it is an unusual death in this crisis. However, they need to say that they're investigating other causes because they don't want people panicking about their kids too. The knowledge that it's unlikely for children to get it makes it easier to live with.

Click to expand...

They need to e tell the truth whatever the truth may be. The cause of death was the cause of death and a pretend investigation meant to fool people would be shameful.