Showing posts with label hospital bills. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hospital bills. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Gee, Does Medical Tourism Mean I Can Go To Appleton???

by LAS

I ran across a mention that a hip replacement costs only about $27,000 in Appleton, Wisconsin, while it can cost as much as $126,000 in a major metro area such as Houston, Texas. Why the disparity?

Obviously wide variations in income levels between major metro areas and smaller towns are a big factor. But also the fact that the hospital has to pay much higher property taxes and other expenses in a big city is another major factor. It may also have to buy another lot to build a parking structure on for patients and visitors, while the small town has free street parking.


The small town hospital might also sacrifice some frills, too. 

Friday, July 12, 2013

Hospital “Merger Mania” Leading to Higher Bills for Patients

by LAS

Nationwide, we are seeing more and more concentration of medical care via mergers, acquisitions, joint operating agreements, and partnerships with doctors and other providers. However, these mergers rarely result in a cost savings for either the consumer or the hospitals themselves.

Over 100 hospital mergers took place in 2012, and the pace shows little sign of slackening. What advantage does this have for the hospitals? One effect is that by banding together, hospitals have greater bargaining power – but not, as you might hope, to negotiate lower prices with suppliers. Nope. The hospitals band together to bargain with the insurers for HIGHER payments.

This is partly due to less competition in a given city or county. With fewer providers or networks, the consumer cannot just go across the street for a knee replacement.

Less competition translates as higher costs to the consumer – a study published in 2011 showed that private insurers paid 13 to 25 percent more for procedures done in areas with less competition.

The increased cost is often paid by hapless consumers in the form of higher copays, higher insurance premiums, higher deductibles, and miscellaneous fees.

The real insult is that the quality of care has little relationship to the cost of care. Studies have not found any improvement in quality to match the increase in costs. 
A similar hospital merger boom in the 1990s resulted in increased patient costs of anywhere from 5 to 40 percent.


Tuesday, July 6, 2010

The REAL Reason Your Hospital Bill's Outta Sight (ps - it has nothing to do with insurance)

by LAS

Please read about this shocking story on Associated Content at http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5632476/the_real_reason_your_hospital_bills.html?cat=3

Please read the original article at Washington Monthly and then raise some hell with Congress: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1007.blake.html

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Do You Think Insurers Should Get Away with Denying Maternity Coverage by Calling a Prior C-Section a "Pre-Existing Condition"?

by L.A.S.

Another horror story seems too ridiculous to be true, but unfortunately it is. It seems that due to the lack of explicit regulation by some states, insurers can refuse to cover maternity care. This is not just a matter of a few cases of women being denied payment by the insurance company for their maternity stays in the hospital. This is built-in sexism.

Even though the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 requires employers with more than 15 workers to include maternity benefits in their insurance packages -- only 14 states require comprehensive maternity care to be included in coverage in policies sold on the individual market. Most individual insurers don't cover maternity care, and the number of plans without maternity coverage continues to rise.

See the article from SIEU at http://www.seiu.org/2009/09/insurance-companies-consider-c-section-birth-pre-existing-condition.php

Even those women who thought they had good insurance, and maternity coverage, have found themselves stuck with as much as $25,000 in health care bills that they were expected to pay out-of-pocket.

Funny, somehow it seems to me that if MEN had the babies, the insurance companies would not even try to pull stuff like this. What do you think?

Friday, September 19, 2008

State, insurers, doctors in battle over billing

-- from the Ventura County Star, Sept. 12, 2008
A person injured in a car crash is treated in the emergency room. The insurance company pays the out-of-network doctors involved in the care less than they think they're owed.
So a doctor or the hospital sends a bill for the remainder directly to the patient।

It's called "balance billing" and has spawned a turf battle among state officials who are trying to outlaw the practice, insurers who support the ban and doctors who fight it and see themselves as victims।

"Legislate, regulate and litigate। We'll do whatever it takes," said California Medical Association President Richard Frankenstein, before a meeting with Ventura County doctors this week. He laid responsibility for balance billing on insurers trying to protect their profits by underpaying doctors.

"It's a very clever ploy of multimillion-dollar companies to avoid their responsibilities," he said.
But some patient advocates say there's enough blame to share। They say the fight over compensation for emergency care ends up wounding patients who worry that if they don't pay the doctor's bill, their account will end up with a collection agency.

"We're caught between these two institutional providers," said Beth Capell, an advocate with Health Access California. "It's a temptation to say a plague on both your houses."
Many of the problems occur in emergency rooms where neither patients nor doctors control who they see। People may be treated by providers who don't contract with their insurance company. The doctors are paid a lesser, out-of-network rate.

According to the California Association of Health Plans, 1।76 million Californians who went to emergency rooms over a two-year period were billed by doctors or hospitals for money not paid by insurers.

The total bill was about $528 million.
The California Department of Managed Health Care plans to roll out a regulation next month that labels balance billing for emergency care as an unfair practice, opening the door to enforcement action against doctors or hospitals।

A bill by Sen। Don Perata, D-Oakland, would ban ER doctors from balance billing and would set up a process to mediate insurance disputes as well as an interim rate of payment. The bill was approved by the Legislature two weeks ago and awaits Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's signature. It would supersede the managed care regulation.

The doctors' association will sue the day after the state implements its new rules, said Frankenstein, in Camarillo for a meeting of the Ventura County Medical Association. The state group also opposes Perata's bill, though a group of emergency physicians supports the measure.
Frankenstein said insurance companies need to expand their networks to include more emergency room and on-call doctors। They also need to pay more, he said.

"It's up to the health plan to either serve up the doctor or pay the bill," Frankenstein said, suggesting insurers maximize profit by saying, "This is what we feel like paying today."
Nicole Kasabian Evans of the California Association of Health Plans fired back।

"Health plans are not the ones that are sending the bill to the consumer," she said। "We don't think it's appropriate strategy to hold patients hostage."

Evans said the insurance group supports a ban on balance billing and an independent process to deal with disputes with doctors। But the group opposes Perata's bill because the rate of payment may be too high. Doctors who currently contract with insurance companies might drop out to get the out-of-network rate, she said.

Eliminating balance billing is great if it comes with reform that transforms the healthcare system and provides insurance coverage to everyone, said Jim Lott, executive vice president of the Hospital Association of Southern California। But hospitals aren't happy about measures that eliminate the bills but not the underlying causes, he said.

"Balance billing is a tool hospitals use to force health plans into negotiating fair rates," he said. "Consumers need to know. If their health plan is screwing up, they need to know that."
Patients shouldn't be seen as a tool, said Cindy Ehnes, director of the state Department of Managed Health Care।

"It's inappropriate to put a vulnerable, potential sick patient in the middle of a billing dispute just to provide leverage," said Ehnes, calling on doctors to take their disputes to her department.
Local doctors say balance billing isn't about getting rich but about staying in business। Some predict that eliminating the mechanism will amplify other healthcare problems such as getting doctors to serve on call.

"I think that will be the death knell to taking call in the emergency room," said Dr। Mark Ghilarducci of Oxnard.

Jerry Flanagan of the Consumer Watchdog group in Santa Monica feels sympathy for doctors who can't break what he called the stranglehold of insurance। But he also blames the medical association for holding up years of efforts to end balance billing.

"As sympathetic as we are for the physician, we think there is no excuse for billing the patient because of disputes between the doctor and the insurance company," he said। Referring to strategies that would solve the problem, he said: "That's what we've been waiting five years for."

Ventura County Star, Sept. 12, 2008, http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/sep/12/state-insurers-doctors-in-battle-over-balance/

Monday, July 14, 2008

AARP Files Suit to Release Medicare Claims Data

AARP and Consumers’ Checkbook have filed freedom of information act requests to get Medicare claims information released to the public. Their purpose is to better serve the public and provide a better understanding of the operations of this government agency. The court however did not agree, so now the suit has gone to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Maybe you feel, as AARP does, that the 43 million Americans who are serviced by this department deserve to have better information as a basis for comparing hospitals and other medical providers.
AARP’s brief notes that transparency is particularly needed because the current state of publicly reported health care quality and cost information is inadequate with regard to physician-level data in the Medicare program, which has lagged behind private efforts to make physician-specific health care information more transparent.
You may contact either of these two AARP employees to voice your concerns or give a show of support.
Stacy Canan at scanan@aarp.org -- Bruce Vignery at bvignery@aarp.org (202) 434-2060
Story URL: http://www.aarp.org/research/legal-advocacy/aarp_asks_court_to_order_release_of_medicare_data.html