Beware, parents of kids in public schools!

[Gina B]

This is real and happening.

Schools are allowing mobile units to come in and pull teeth and do other invasive medical treatments to children...even when the parent has stated they do not wish it to happen and as this parent states, when the child already had seen his own dentist and needed no work done. They traumatized the poor boy and he ended up not going back to that school. His poor mom was a wreck when her son came home. What a horrible thing to have happen! Can you imagine your little kid coming home and having been held down to have root canals or pulled teeth while they scream in pain, all without your knowledge or permission?!

How frightening is it that they're allowed to do this and only now that one strong mom has chosen to scream foul and stand up for son, that's what it has taken for them to start being exposed and for this to come to light.

They've gotten away with SO much. I really hope this comes to an end, but it probably won't unless more people speak up and force a stop to this insanity.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-17/dental-abuse-seen-driven-by-private-equity-investments.html

 

[annsni]

Yet you can't send your child with a medically needed inhaler. Unbelievable.

 

[mandym]

Yet you can't send your child with a medically needed inhaler. Unbelievable.

That must be a NY thing.

 

[saturneptune]

I have raised kids through the entire range of public school, and do not recall anything close to that happening. In fact, if someone had done that to my kid here, someone would be in jail, lots of people fired, and I would be lots richer.

 

[annsni]

That must be a NY thing.

The parent gives it to the school nurse with a letter of medical necessity from the doctor. If the student needs it, they must go to the nurses' office to use it.

 

[mandym]

The parent gives it to the school nurse with a letter of medical necessity from the doctor. If the student needs it, they must go to the nurses' office to use it.

Hmm, overkill :laugh:

 

[Don]

Won't Obamacare fix this?

 

[InTheLight]

This is real and happening.

Schools are allowing mobile units to come in and pull teeth and do other invasive medical treatments to children...

...if you are lower income and the child is Medicaid eligible. Mobile dental companies are bilking the Medicaid system.

Can you imagine your little kid coming home and having been held down to have root canals or pulled teeth while they scream in pain, all without your knowledge or permission?!

No, because I'm not a Medicaid recipient. It's deplorable, but you should have given the whole story.

 

[matt wade]

...if you are lower income and the child is Medicaid eligible. Mobile dental companies are bilking the Medicaid system.

Let's also be clear that the parents had to sign consent forms in order for their children to even be seen. Let's also be clear that if a parent let's their kid be seen by any medical professional, without them being there, they are an idiot.

 

[Oldtimer]

The state is taking over biblical parental responsibility just as fast as parents are willing to give it to them. How far are we from the tipping point where the state has assumed enough of those responsbilities that it can take the rest without much, if any, resistance? Already there?

 

[menageriekeeper]

These parent signed a consent form for all sorts of treatments that had NOT yet been prescribed! I can bet you, that since these companies are targeting low income and Medicaid patients that not a sole explained to the parents that they were basically giving away their rights to direct their child's care in exchange for the convenience of having the work done at school. The parents, likely being undereducated, probably had no conception that it was a possibility. That's a problem. But who is responsible for the parent's lack of understanding/education?

I agree, this wouldn't be happening in schools where the majority of children were not on Medicaid. And that is another problem.

But yet, this is an example of free enterprise and therefore shouldn't be regulated.

 

[Gina B]

In the Light, what do you mean, I didn't tell the "full story?" I LINKED it!

MK, these parents signed a generic form like EVERY parent does at the beginning of the year, expecting it to be used for emergency care.

The one particular parent in this story, if I remember her words right, specifically said NO and didn't sign permission for this, yet her son was held down.

To those who would say "tough nuts, that's what you get for being on Medicaid," it's not just poor, stupid people on
Medicaid. Some just need the help and a number of people with kids on Medicaid have it because they ADOPTED and part of adopting a special needs child from the foster care system includes the state providing the child with Medicaid because their medical costs can be outrageous, which would severely limit the possibility of kids with special needs being adopted. No matter how much one would love to care for a child, there aren't a lot of millionaires out there who are ready and willing to adopt these special need kids.

I don't find it to be the parent's fault that they didn't inform themselves that crooks are out there preying on their adopted children, which is what happened to the family at the heart of this story. You honestly believe that when she adopted a child with special needs, she would have any inkling that one day a mobile unit would go to her son's daycare school, three adults would take her adopted son who had a traumatic brain injury, hold him down while he screamed, and do unneeded work simply because when she adopted him, part of the agreement the state made was that they would provide the child with Medicaid to cover the bills?

Seriously, there are people in this country that would imply she's to blame for not knowing that?

Wow. That's really wild.

For the record, one can be very rich and still have their kid receive Medicaid. It's very common for people who adopt special needs children, even if that person has a million or two in the bank. (which can easily be depleted if the adopter has to pay medical for the kid out of pocket) There is a false belief out there that the only kids on Medicaid are those that come from lazy, stupid parents. That isn't true. Please don't perpetuate the myth.

 

[InTheLight]

In the Light, what do you mean, I didn't tell the "full story?" I LINKED it!

It's been my experience that people don't always read the linked articles, they only go by the summary version posted by the OP.

To those who would say "tough nuts, that's what you get for being on Medicaid,"

Who said that?

For the record, one can be very rich and still have their kid receive Medicaid.

The article implied it was lower income people. Nothing was said about their intelligence level.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Gina, I think you read something I didn't write. Let's see if we can fix it.

The ARTICLE said (and remember we are talking about more than one kid): "Although she signed a consent form in September covering many procedures including extractions", but the mother of this child did go on to say that she hadn't signed the form for the particular procedure in which 4 of her child's baby teeth were removed. But she didn't have to sign that one, she'd already signed a consent form! I don't believe she had any idea that signing that one consent form meant that not signing any others that came in wouldn't be enough to undo the previous consent. Most parents probably wouldn't think that far ahead, but, certainly if she is poor and undereducated she wouldn't even know she needed to think that far ahead. The school and/or the company should have explained that the beginning consent form covered all services for whatever timeframe (timeframes weren't discussed in the article).

Yes, these businesses are certainly targeting low income populations: "After years of complaints that the poor were being deprived of such care under Medicaid, public pressure and class-action lawsuits opened the floodgates......Dental management firms can deliver patients and a six- figure income by sending teams to schools where they can treat Medicaid-eligible students in volume..."

And I said nothing about whether one could be rich or poor and still be on Medicaid, nor did I blame the parent for not knowing what she signing. I blame the company that sent out the dentist.

And no where in the article is it stated that the parents only signed a general emergency treatment form. It specifically says that in at least one case a consent for dental treatment form was signed. Let's not make the issue worse than it is. (it's already bad enough!)

 

[Gina B]

Gina, I think you read something I didn't write. Let's see if we can fix it.

The ARTICLE said (and remember we are talking about more than one kid): "Although she signed a consent form in September covering many procedures including extractions", but the mother of this child did go on to say that she hadn't signed the form for the particular procedure in which 4 of her child's baby teeth were removed. But she didn't have to sign that one, she'd already signed a consent form! I don't believe she had any idea that signing that one consent form meant that not signing any others that came in wouldn't be enough to undo the previous consent. Most parents probably wouldn't think that far ahead, but, certainly if she is poor and undereducated she wouldn't even know she needed to think that far ahead. The school and/or the company should have explained that the beginning consent form covered all services for whatever timeframe (timeframes weren't discussed in the article).

Yes, these businesses are certainly targeting low income populations: "After years of complaints that the poor were being deprived of such care under Medicaid, public pressure and class-action lawsuits opened the floodgates......Dental management firms can deliver patients and a six- figure income by sending teams to schools where they can treat Medicaid-eligible students in volume..."

And I said nothing about whether one could be rich or poor and still be on Medicaid, nor did I blame the parent for not knowing what she signing. I blame the company that sent out the dentist.

And no where in the article is it stated that the parents only signed a general emergency treatment form. It specifically says that in at least one case a consent for dental treatment form was signed. Let's not make the issue worse than it is. (it's already bad enough!)

Ah, MK, I must ask your forgiveness. My blanket post and response are posted in a few places and when I do that, the same response usually fits all without reading too close.

I have had some direct interaction with the mom of the one child, so it's more personal to me and thus more frustrating.

All of us with kids in public schools do sign a generic form, whether the kid is on Medicaid or not, but that cannot and should not be used for invasive stuff. It's a matter of trickery to go back and say that a paper signed that everyone thinks of as something to make sure that if your child has an accident at school and needs to be transported to the emergency room and be taken care of immediately (think hit by car, intense asthma attack, etc.) or to say it's okay to do a hearing and vision screening gives them permission to do this. I've signed that paper myself and that is the impression given from the wording and from what they say when you ask about it.

My kids have coverage through the armed forces, which is still a government program, so now I have to find out if this type of insurance is also one that they can do this with.

Again, I'm sorry for my blanket response. You of all people didn't deserve that!