Phuket hospital hits back over UK claims they put money first after tourist's motorbike accident

[webfact]

Phuket hospital hits back over UK claims they put money first after tourist's motorbike accident

 

Picture: TNews

 

PHUKET: -- The hospital in Phuket that is treating UK resident Jake Tobin has hit back at claims from his mother printed in the UK press that they refused treatment until payment was guaranteed.

 

And in a further development in the case the insurance company has explained in detail why they have refused to cover the costs of his "reckless behavior".

 

TNews reported yesterday that the family of Jake, 23, have raised 766,000 baht of a 1,120,000 baht target. Some 616 people have so far contributed to a crowd funding appeal.

 

Jake was riding pillion on Sunday when he came off a bike. The insurance company say it was a collision with an oncoming vehicle while the local information, according to the hospital, was that they were rear ended by a minivan.

 

Jake suffered head and brain trauma and a broken right leg.

 

Dr Dun Damrongsak the director of Sirirot Phuket Hospital confirmed that Mr Tobin entered the hospital on Monday 8th May.

 

He said in a statement: "We did not refuse treatment to Mr Tobin at all. We gave him all the help and assistance we could. He is now recovering and getting better by the day. We put our patients first not concerns over money".

 

Dr Dun said that as soon as Jake was admitted he was assessed and X-Rayed. Two teams of doctors then began his treatment. He was in a one hour 20 minute surgery as soon as the assessment of his injuries was complete.

 

He said that by Wednesday Jake was showing signs of improvement and he continues to progress well under the hospital's care.

 

Dr Dun said that when he was admitted they contacted the insurance company who told them they would not cover his accident. This was immediately communicated to the family.

 

His mother Jane, 62, had complained to the Manchester Evening News that her son was "left for dead" in Thailand and that the hospital concerned refused treatment until payment was guaranteed.

 

The insurance company Insureandgo said they would not pay even though they were "genuinely sorry" to hear about the accident which was Jake's second on a bike in less than three weeks.

 

In an online statement they said: "The reason Jake's claim has been declined is because, based on previous events, we considered him to have demonstrated reckless behaviour.

 

"This was Jake's second road traffic accident in less than three weeks. The first claim, submitted on the 26th April, has already been approved. However, Jake's decision to climb onto another moped just five days after undergoing major surgery on his injured arm was considered to be reckless behaviour by our assistance team, which means he does not qualify for cover in this case.

 

"With Jake's arm in a back slab, he wouldn't have been able to safely secure himself to the moped or the driver - he also risked exacerbating his existing injuries".

 

Source: TNews

 

-- © Copyright Thai Visa News 2017-05-12

[darksidedog]

So his travel insurance did cover traveling by motor bike, but only once a year it seems. To my mind riding pillion with a broken arm in plaster is not "reckless".

70% of the traffic accident victims leaving the hospital do so by bike. It is absolutely normal here. Many have no other way of getting home.

I hope the insurance companies miserable argument is seen for what it is, and others spend their money with a firm who can be trusted.

 

[retell]

should this not be on the insurance of the dricer of the van????

[stegee]

i personally never use more than one hand when riding pillion.. how would i catch pokemon if i was using both?!

Edited May 12, 2017 by stegee

[Old Croc]

12 minutes ago, darksidedog said:

So his travel insurance did cover traveling by motor bike, but only once a year it seems. To my mind riding pillion with a broken arm in plaster is not "reckless".

70% of the traffic accident victims leaving the hospital do so by bike. It is absolutely normal here. Many have no other way of getting home.

I hope the insurance companies miserable argument is seen for what it is, and others spend their money with a firm who can be trusted.

 

I think your argument that 70% of accident victims here leaving hospital on a bike is non relevant. He was a tourist on travel insurance not a local on the family conveyance.

The second accident was 3 weeks later and I can see the insurance company's reasoning that riding pillion with one arm in a sling could be foolhardy.

I'm not necessarily agreeing the company made the right decision, I do think the smaller cheaper ones sometimes seize any excuse to reject claims. Also the conflicting versions of the accident is concerning.

The mother telling lies about the level of hospital treatment to bolster funding efforts is lamentable. Some readers may be aware there is a government funding initiative now in place which requires hospitals to give free emergency treatment in circumstances like this.

 

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/976378-72-hour-emergency-treatment-for-free-at-any-hospital/

 

[Maverell]

31 minutes ago, retell said:

should this not be on the insurance of the dricer of the van????

It doesnt work that way in Thailand. You should know that :)

 

Edited May 12, 2017 by Maverell

[darksidedog]

2 minutes ago, Old Croc said:

I think your argument that 70% of accident victims here leaving hospital on a bike is non relevant. He was a tourist on travel insurance not a local on the family conveyance.

The second accident was 3 weeks later and I can see the insurance company's reasoning that riding pillion with one arm in a sling could be foolhardy.

I'm not necessarily agreeing the company made the right decision, I do think the smaller cheaper ones sometimes seize any excuse to reject claims. Also the conflicting versions of the accident is concerning.

The mother telling lies about the level of hospital treatment to bolster funding efforts is lamentable. Some readers may be aware there is a government funding initiative now in place which requires hospitals to give free emergency treatment in circumstances like this.

 

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/976378-72-hour-emergency-treatment-for-free-at-any-hospital/

 

I agree with you about the mother, and you are correct, the first 72 hours is supposed to be free anywhere.

Two accidents in 3 weeks is very bad luck, though this one can't be blamed on him, regardless of how the first one happened.

My point however was that a bike is the sole means of transport for a vast number of the population. Whether a local or a tourist. this is how people get around here.

The travel insurance was for a trip to Thailand and the insurance company must have been aware of this.

The situation in the UK is obviously very different and most people have  a car.

Where I live, I can find a motor bike taxi easy enough, but an actual taxi is not likely. And I like many others try not to use the taxis anyway, as I don't like bad manners, bad driving and being overcharged.

[steven100]

Try and get treated in the US or the UK after an accident ......

of course they want to confirm how the treatment is going to be paid ..... they are a business not a charity.

 

As for his insurance ....  inclusions and exclusions will be documented in the policy I would assume,  either he is covered or he is not ...  so if it only covers an accident on a motorbike once in a year and if that is in the fine print then thats it .....  you cannot argue if it's in back and white. The problem is not all the truth is told such as what is jake saying happened ? and what really happened ?   what has he told his family happened   ?

 

I am in no way defending the insurance company as I have little sympathy for the m .... just saying how it is.

Edited May 12, 2017 by steven100

[Old Croc]

7 minutes ago, darksidedog said:

Where I live, I can find a motor bike taxi easy enough, but an actual taxi is not likely. And I like many others try not to use the taxis anyway, as I don't like bad manners, bad driving and being overcharged.

 

Again, not relevant. You posted on the first thread where it was clearly stated he was on a friends bike.

Was that bike rented, was his friend also a tourist, was he an experienced rider or was it a couple of silly kids on holiday hooning around? What are the true facts of the accident?

I dislike Insurance Companies as much as any one, but two motorbike accidents, in 3 weeks when still trussed up from the first one, would raise concerns anytime.

 

[colinneil]

Well heres my bit.

When i was taken to Khonkaen hospital after my accident, the first question my wife was asked was how is he going to pay.

My wifes answer was, he is covered by my civil service health insurance, so no problem, i received the best possible treatment.

Edited May 12, 2017 by colinneil

[tracker1]

58 minutes ago, retell said:

should this not be on the insurance of the dricer of the van????

Thats if there one of the few that have insurance !

[stevenl]

35 minutes ago, Old Croc said:

I think your argument that 70% of accident victims here leaving hospital on a bike is non relevant. He was a tourist on travel insurance not a local on the family conveyance.

The second accident was 3 weeks later and I can see the insurance company's reasoning that riding pillion with one arm in a sling could be foolhardy.

I'm not necessarily agreeing the company made the right decision, I do think the smaller cheaper ones sometimes seize any excuse to reject claims. Also the conflicting versions of the accident is concerning.

The mother telling lies about the level of hospital treatment to bolster funding efforts is lamentable. Some readers may be aware there is a government funding initiative now in place which requires hospitals to give free emergency treatment in circumstances like this.

 

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/976378-72-hour-emergency-treatment-for-free-at-any-hospital/

 

That 'free emergency treatment' does not cover foreigners.

[tracker1]

I also was asked about whos paying before an operation ! As for insurance companies as it can be seen they are not in the buisness of paying out and thats the world all over !

[Old Croc]

 

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

That 'free emergency treatment' does not cover foreigners.

Thanks Steven, my error.

 

Moving away slightly from this specific case.

I've travelled extensively, always purchased travel insurance at an ever increasing cost, yet have never made a claim.  I do resent the fact that I pay extra to cover careless idiots.

I've also paid huge  premiums for car, house and contents insurance for much of my life. Premiums that are greatly inflated to enable payouts to people who build in forests that are bushfire prone or on river flood plains.

[tonray]

32 minutes ago, steven100 said:

Try and get treated in the US or the UK after an accident ......

of course they want to confirm how the treatment is going to be paid ..... they are a business not a charity.

 

As for his insurance ....  inclusions and exclusions will be documented in the policy I would assume,  either he is covered or he is not ...  so if it only covers an accident on a motorbike once in a year and if that is in the fine print then thats it .....  you cannot argue if it's in back and white. The problem is not all the truth is told such as what is jake saying happened ? and what really happened ?   what has he told his family happened   ?

 

I am in no way defending the insurance company as I have little sympathy for the m .... just saying how it is.

When I was responsible for care of my elderly mom, at each hospital admission after providing insurance info, I had to sign a statement saying I would cover anything over and above insurance or they would  not admit her, they would provide emergency care but no admission unless I signed. This was in the US. If hospitals treated everyone for free, there would be no hospitals to treat anyone. Jake was not a taxpayer in Thailand so why would Mum expect free treatment ?

 

 

In fact at Samitivej Hospital in BKK, they will actually come into your room to settle payment if you cannot make it to the billing desk...555

Edited May 12, 2017 by tonray

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

"This was Jake's second road traffic accident in less than three weeks. The first claim, submitted on the 26th April, has already been approved. However, Jake's decision to climb onto another moped just five days after undergoing major surgery on his injured arm was considered to be reckless behaviour by our assistance team, which means he does not qualify for cover in this case.

There's a first.

 

I agree with the insurance company. 

[colinneil]

26 minutes ago, stevenl said:

That 'free emergency treatment' does not cover foreigners.

That free emergency treatment covers foreigners who have wifes civil service cover.

Most foreigners though are not covered.

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, Old Croc said:

I think your argument that 70% of accident victims here leaving hospital on a bike is non relevant. He was a tourist on travel insurance not a local on the family conveyance.

The second accident was 3 weeks later and I can see the insurance company's reasoning that riding pillion with one arm in a sling could be foolhardy.

I'm not necessarily agreeing the company made the right decision, I do think the smaller cheaper ones sometimes seize any excuse to reject claims. Also the conflicting versions of the accident is concerning.

The mother telling lies about the level of hospital treatment to bolster funding efforts is lamentable. Some readers may be aware there is a government funding initiative now in place which requires hospitals to give free emergency treatment in circumstances like this.

 

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/976378-72-hour-emergency-treatment-for-free-at-any-hospital/

 

I agree the mother is wrong to lie. 

 

If she is lying, that is...

[KittenKong]

1 hour ago, darksidedog said:

To my mind riding pillion with a broken arm in plaster is not "reckless".

 

To my mind even sitting on a stationary motorbike in Thailand is reckless. These things are hideously dangerous as this chap has discovered (twice).

 

I've not been on a motorbike anywhere for more than 40 years and have intention of ever doing so.

[impulse]

37 minutes ago, tonray said:

When I was responsible for care of my elderly mom, at each hospital admission after providing insurance info, I had to sign a statement saying I would cover anything over and above insurance or they would  not admit her, they would provide emergency care but no admission unless I signed. This was in the US. If hospitals treated everyone for free, there would be no hospitals to treat anyone. Jake was not a taxpayer in Thailand so why would Mum expect free treatment ?

 

The trap in that US hospital policy is that the hospital can charge whatever they want, and the insurance company can pay based on whatever they think are "reasonable and customary charges".  I got caught out on several (fortunately minor) incidents where the difference between them was over 50% of the charges.  So, in spite of having 90% coverage, I was still out of pocket for 50%, with me being the only one of the 3 parties that had insufficient data to argue with either of the other 2.  Had it been, for example, cancer treatment I would have been bankrupted in spite of having very expensive "insurance". 

 

In the case of the OP, I can see where a mother sitting 5000 miles away may honestly believe her son isn't getting all the care he needs.  And I can see a hospital claiming they're doing everything to save the guy's life, while withholding other treatment to make sure he isn't maimed for the rest of his life.  Tough one to judge from the peanut gallery here...

 

[the guest]

Sorry to say Thailand is not a charity, especially to foreigners who either come to Thailand without insurance, or don't check their insurance policy on what it covers them for. If you think private hospitals operate the same way as the NHS, they don't. So if you can't pay, then of course they don't treat you, in which case you should go to a normal government hospital like the rest of the Thai population. 

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, colinneil said:

That free emergency treatment covers foreigners who have wifes civil service cover.

Most foreigners though are not covered.

The civil service cover for spouses is a completely different cover, and has nothing to do with the free emergency treatment.

[stevenl]

21 minutes ago, the guest said:

Sorry to say Thailand is not a charity, especially to foreigners who either come to Thailand without insurance, or don't check their insurance policy on what it covers them for. If you think private hospitals operate the same way as the NHS, they don't. So if you can't pay, then of course they don't treat you, in which case you should go to a normal government hospital like the rest of the Thai population. 

Still he was and is being treated.

[colinneil]

8 minutes ago, stevenl said:

The civil service cover for spouses is a completely different cover, and has nothing to do with the free emergency treatment.

You are partially correct, i have cover with the wifes insurance, but i am restricted to 2 hospitals, but can get only emergency cover at other government hospitals.

[boooker]

I worked here in a Hospital for 20 years rarely seen when not zero at all that a treatment been refused....what does happend if coverage is declined then assessment of financial payment is being addressed to relatives and further if does not work out than it is transferred to a gov. Hospital because of high cost associated in a private sector.

But this is a last resort private hospital direction they go...many 1000 had been treated and money annual lost because of coverage decline...

[moe666]

I do not believe there is such a thing as a charity hospital maybe at one time but not any longer. Even the ones owned by religious organizations still have bills to pay. 

[hansnl]

3 hours ago, retell said:

should this not be on the insurance of the dricer of the van????

What a good question!

Of course only a good question in the van had insurance beyond the legal requirements.

But, leave it to insurance companies to find any reason not to honour a claim.

[hansnl]

10 minutes ago, boooker said:

I worked here in a Hospital for 20 years rarely seen when not zero at all that a treatment been refused....what does happend if coverage is declined then assessment of financial payment is being addressed to relatives and further if does not work out than it is transferred to a gov. Hospital because of high cost associated in a private sector.

But this is a last resort private hospital direction they go...many 1000 had been treated and money annual lost because of coverage decline...

High cost in the private sector?

You mean bloated prices, unnecessary tests & all?

[Psimbo]

Over a million baht in just a week- sweet!

[Sooo Upto Me]

3 hours ago, darksidedog said:

So his travel insurance did cover traveling by motor bike, but only once a year it seems. To my mind riding pillion with a broken arm in plaster is not "reckless".

70% of the traffic accident victims leaving the hospital do so by bike. It is absolutely normal here. Many have no other way of getting home.

I hope the insurance companies miserable argument is seen for what it is, and others spend their money with a firm who can be trusted.

 

Sorry but disagree, if he's only just recovering from a previous accident then surely u wouldn't jump bac on a moped even as passenger. Get taxi or uber just as cheap as motorcycle taxi.

But agree with u on insurance companies coming up with their pathetic excuses for any claim we all make.