If a parent has full custody of a child who is and has been on medication for ASD, does the noncustodial parent have a right to interfere with the route of medication delivery (a physical pharmacy vs. a mail order) because the noncustodial parent has been ordered to provide insurance coverage?
Method of Prescription Delivery
- Thread Starter CallaLily
- Start date
cbg
Super Moderator
Unless the custody order expressly and in so many words states that only the custodial parent can decide the delivery method of the child's medication EVEN IF the insurance is provided by the non-custodial parent, then yes. The non-custodial parent can.
There are often cost advantages to mail order vs. retail pharmacy. Why should the custodial parent get to make the decisions about how the non-custodial parent's insurance works?
There are often cost advantages to mail order vs. retail pharmacy. Why should the custodial parent get to make the decisions about how the non-custodial parent's insurance works?
The non-custodial parent has switched without notice in the past causing a month wait time. The result was no meds which led to behavioral problems and a lengthy readjustment to medications.
There is secondary insurance in place which pays for anything that the primary does not. However, they would not pay in this last instance. The non-custodial parent has not paid any out-of-pocket costs, with the exception of an outstanding cost from the last switched delivery method when they did not include the secondary insurance.
If the non-custodial parent has not been involved in the child's life, do they really have the right to switch things they are not familiar with when it can lead to such disruption for the child and when it does not affect out-of-pocket costs?
There is secondary insurance in place which pays for anything that the primary does not. However, they would not pay in this last instance. The non-custodial parent has not paid any out-of-pocket costs, with the exception of an outstanding cost from the last switched delivery method when they did not include the secondary insurance.
If the non-custodial parent has not been involved in the child's life, do they really have the right to switch things they are not familiar with when it can lead to such disruption for the child and when it does not affect out-of-pocket costs?
Last edited:
cbg
Super Moderator
One more time.
Unless the custody order expressly says that only the custodial parent gets to decide how the medications are delivered, then the non-custodial parent has the right to determine how best to use his insurance. Whether you think it is fair or not.
Unless the custody order expressly says that only the custodial parent gets to decide how the medications are delivered, then the non-custodial parent has the right to determine how best to use his insurance. Whether you think it is fair or not.
army judge
Super Moderator
Many health plans require long prescriptions, meaning medication that a person must use for extended periods of time to be dispensed by a mail order pharmacy.
Such a process is alleged to reduce the insurer's costs.
The decision to procure the medication at your local pharmacy was taken out of he hands of the insured by his insurer.
Even if you were to obtain a court order, it wouldn't have any effect on the insurer.
I suggest you simply plan carefully, and adapt to the changes and challenges the insurance company has sent your way.
We can all thank the one in the White House and the ones who voted for him TWICE for creating havoc this and the other disruptions in our once fine health care system.
cbg
Super Moderator
Just FYI, when I first began working in employee benefits Carter was president. The requirement to use mail order pharmacies for maintenance medication was in place on many policies long, long before the current occupant of the White House took up residence there.
However, I do agree that a court order would not be binding on the insurance carrier. The insurance policy is a contract; the court cannot order the insurer to violate their own policy.
However, I do agree that a court order would not be binding on the insurance carrier. The insurance policy is a contract; the court cannot order the insurer to violate their own policy.
I suggest talking to the child's doctor if you find yourself in that situation. They may be able to assist. The best you will probably be able to achieve is a requirement that the insurance carrying parent notify the non-insurance carrying parent when the plans change. That is pretty common. I have typically seen a 30 day notice clause when practical.
army judge
Super Moderator
The mail order pharmacy capability may have occurred under his short tenure as president.
It wasn't, however, what Carter would call his signature piece of legislation.
In fact, many historians would argue that Carter had no such legislation.
Some would argue that Carter was noted for Camp David Accords and The Canal Zone Treaties and give back of the Panama Canal.
http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/documents/keylegis.phtml
As far as Carter fiddling with our nation's health care, his key legislation was Hospital Cost Containment Act of 1977 (H.R. 6575 - S.1391).
It was never passed by Congress, only the Senate, thus never signed into law.
Carter was able to effect some voluntary health care cost reduction measures during his time in the White House.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/9/3/66.full.pdf
Mail order pharmacies have operated for a century in the US.
The major focus was to serve rural areas.
The US Veterans Administration began using mail order refills in the late 1940s, early 1950s, and the growth continued.
The OP makes a great point, in that mail order pharmacies can save patients money, planning must be paramount.
Medical problems can get in the way of such planning, as can items lost in the mail, misdirected, or delayed.
One could argue that the current occupant of the White House (whose lease will soon expire), had little hand directly in the increase of mail order pharmacies use by certain health insurers.
One could also argue, that is something isn't broken, its folly to call fiddling wit it, FIXING it.
My wife must use certain medications regularly.
She chooses to play the Tri-Care RX game.
I, on the other hand, bought what some would call a "platinum plan".
I pay dearly for it.
I'm grateful I can afford it.
My wife didn't want me to add her to mine, as I use Tri-Care as a tertiary insurer.
She manages the mail order minefields, and has received her meds on time.
Me? I obtain 30 day supplies, as needed, from my local brick and mortar pharmacies.
With each visit, I'm hounded to "join" the 90 day mail order scheme.
I smile, and decline.
I fear the day will come, if I live long enough, that my ability to choose will be taken from me by those who profess to know better what works for me.
Which is their way of beguiling most people into being used to pay for the needs of others.
It wasn't, however, what Carter would call his signature piece of legislation.
In fact, many historians would argue that Carter had no such legislation.
Some would argue that Carter was noted for Camp David Accords and The Canal Zone Treaties and give back of the Panama Canal.
http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/documents/keylegis.phtml
As far as Carter fiddling with our nation's health care, his key legislation was Hospital Cost Containment Act of 1977 (H.R. 6575 - S.1391).
It was never passed by Congress, only the Senate, thus never signed into law.
Carter was able to effect some voluntary health care cost reduction measures during his time in the White House.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/9/3/66.full.pdf
Mail order pharmacies have operated for a century in the US.
The major focus was to serve rural areas.
The US Veterans Administration began using mail order refills in the late 1940s, early 1950s, and the growth continued.
The OP makes a great point, in that mail order pharmacies can save patients money, planning must be paramount.
Medical problems can get in the way of such planning, as can items lost in the mail, misdirected, or delayed.
One could argue that the current occupant of the White House (whose lease will soon expire), had little hand directly in the increase of mail order pharmacies use by certain health insurers.
One could also argue, that is something isn't broken, its folly to call fiddling wit it, FIXING it.
My wife must use certain medications regularly.
She chooses to play the Tri-Care RX game.
I, on the other hand, bought what some would call a "platinum plan".
I pay dearly for it.
I'm grateful I can afford it.
My wife didn't want me to add her to mine, as I use Tri-Care as a tertiary insurer.
She manages the mail order minefields, and has received her meds on time.
Me? I obtain 30 day supplies, as needed, from my local brick and mortar pharmacies.
With each visit, I'm hounded to "join" the 90 day mail order scheme.
I smile, and decline.
I fear the day will come, if I live long enough, that my ability to choose will be taken from me by those who profess to know better what works for me.
Which is their way of beguiling most people into being used to pay for the needs of others.
cbg
Super Moderator
I didn't say Carter implemented any kind of health care legislation. He may or may not have, but that wasn't the point.
I said (1) Carter was president when I began working in employee benefits, thus I have experience in this area.
(2) Insurance requiring that mail order pharmacies be used for maintenance medication is not part of the ACA, but in fact pre-dates it.
I'm glad you have the means to obtain your prescriptions in the manner you prefer, but not everyone has that option.
I said (1) Carter was president when I began working in employee benefits, thus I have experience in this area.
(2) Insurance requiring that mail order pharmacies be used for maintenance medication is not part of the ACA, but in fact pre-dates it.
I'm glad you have the means to obtain your prescriptions in the manner you prefer, but not everyone has that option.
army judge
Super Moderator
I have, unfortunately, read the entire ACA.
The same ACA that many of those signing the legislation admitted to NOT reading.
Its a rather confusing read.
It was also very eye opening and draw dropping for me.
Perhaps the Supremes will be able to sort it out soon.
If not, hopefully I'll have assumed room temperature and been cremated long before the devastation it will eventually wreak if allowed to remain unchallenged.
cbg
Super Moderator
And we'll miss you.
But that does not change the fact that the ACA is not where mandated mail order prescriptions originated.
But that does not change the fact that the ACA is not where mandated mail order prescriptions originated.
army judge
Super Moderator
I never said mail order scrips were mandated. The ACA has stimulated the clever, cost conscious insurance companies to control costs. Despite what many believe, health insurance is no more a right than auto insurance, life insurance, or homeowners insurance. The Supremes will soon untangle this mess.
Ask a Question
Share this page
