In the early 90s my wife racked up some serious medical bills. WHen the bills came, they were sent to me…not her. When I called to correct this, I was told Missouri law requires that the husband be responsible for the wife’s medical bills. Pissed us both off.
Note that this isn’t the wife is responsible for the husband’s medical bills, or that both people in the couple are jointly responsible for the medical bills of each.
It was clearly the wife’s bills are sent to the husband, because he is responsible for his her medical bills. It was simply an antiquated sexist policy that relegated the woman to a second class status of being treated like a minor child.
Can anyone tell me if this policy is still in place, or has it been changed in the last few years. I was shocked to find out it was still going on in the 90’s.
The health system I was dealing with told me clearly that it was Missouri Law.
On edit
She was on her own medical insurance too, not on mine
Just curious if it was addressed Mr. (what your name is), or just what your name is?
In ‘conventional’ marriage at the time the wife willingly takes the husband’s name so a bill to your name would classically be a bill to both without demoting anyone to a child status.
The bills were addressed to me by First and Last name; I don’t recall they even had a Mr. on them just
First Last
xxxxx
xxxxxxx Missouri zipxx
Note that when I called and complained, I was told the woman wasn’t responsible for her medical bills, the husband was.
I don’t have my google-fu right now, but it is the law in many (a few?) states that spouses are responsible for each other’s “necessities” of which medical bills would be included. I would think that any law which provided that only the husband is responsible for the wife (and not equally vice versa) would be held to be unconstitutional or at least reframed so that all spouses are responsible.
I don’t get what you mean here. If Mary Smith (John Smith’s wife) goes to a doctor who then sends the bill to “Mr. Smith,” that would seem to be demoting Mary to being John’s dependent. Or am I misunderstanding your point?
If I’m understanding you correctly , it was a clerk in the hospital billing office who told you this. One who almost certainly isn’t a lawyer, who wouldn’t necessarily know if court decisions have changed the interpretation of a law that says “husbands are responsible for wives” to " spouses are responsible for each other" ,who may be loath to admit that the bill was addressed incorrectly and who really just wants somebody, anybody to pay the bill.
I’m pretty sure most states (probably all) changed those laws to be gender-neutral by the '90s.
I found this Missouri law office talking about the doctrine of necessaries. Here is the actual case they’re talking about. Short version, it was ruled that he had to pay her bills, but the appeals court found that the hospital couldn’t prove the medical procedures were necessary so they reversed the decision to make him pay.
Buried inside is this gem:
*Although Husband strongly urged at oral argument that the doctrine of necessaries is anachronistic and should be abolished, we are an error-correcting court, not a policy-making court, see State v. Freeman, 269 S.W.3d 422, 429 (Mo. banc 2008) (Wolff concurring opinion), and “[t]he common law doctrine of necessaries is the law in Missouri. Medical Servs. Ass’n v. Perry, 819 S.W.2d 82, 83 (Mo.App.W.D.1991). **Historically, the doctrine required only a husband to pay the necessary expenses of his wife, but the doctrine is now applied in a gender-neutral fashion. *St Luke’s Episcopal–Presbyterian Hosp. v. Underwood, 957 S.W.2d 496, 499 (Mo.App.E.D.1997) (case reversed for new trial concerning wife’s liability for husband’s medical expenses). Because Husband was not a party to the contract embodied in the consent forms, the doctrine of necessaries requires Hospital to “establish that the services [provided to Wife] were necessary in order to hold [Husband] liable for payment for such services.” Id.
ETA: That doesn’t say when the law was changed, but what you were told was apparently true at some point.
As I understand it, after marriage, if the wife takes the husband’s name ‘John Smith’ becomes a joint name, Mr John Smith and Mrs John Smith are the individual names classically speaking, and why I asked if Mr was included in the bill.
So yes, if it was to Mr Smith that would indicate that they man is responsible for the woman, but John Smith could indicate a classical joint marriage name.
Nope. “Mr and Mrs John Smith” means John Smith and his wife who I can’t be bothered to name or whose name I possibly don’t know (and it means that even if she has retained her maiden name). But “John Smith” always means just John Smith.
Actually, kanicbird is quite correct. Until recent decades, in many parts of the English-speaking world, it was common to refer to married woman with the form “Mrs. John Smith” even without mentioning their husband.
My wife’s bills come to me, regardless of the state we’re living in. I hold the health insurance policy, and sign the paperwork as the responsible party.
As I mentioned in my original post. She was on her own medical insurance, not mine. I may have understood the reasoning if that was the case; but it wasn’t.
We were essentially told (for real, not hyperbole), that since the wife, as a woman, would be unable to care for herself, the husband was the responsible party.
I’m glad it has changed, I wish it were changed earlier.