I am having problems with my insurer at this very moment. I went to an in-network hospital for an ER visit, which turned into an 8-day stay (yes, it was serious). Evidently, none of the doctors at the hospital are in-network, however, (claims from various technicians are still "in processing", so I don't know how they will turn out) despite the fact that the hospital itself is definitely in-network. I had no choice a…
The Company Behind Many Surprise Emergency Room Bills
281–290 of 481 posts
Re: The Company Behind Many Surprise Emergency Room Bills
#282Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sigh. Do you think I was suggesting that emergency rooms in Canada should adopt a FIFO approach? > Once you have you'll quickly realise that the 'long wait times' narrative is complete propaganda FUD. This is a decent example of the typical Canadian attitude I was referring to, blind refusal to even acknowledge any issues, such as the well documented long waiting times for non-emergency procedures, as well as the out…
My understanding, as an American, is that people in single-payer countries tend to see doctors much sooner than Americans do. Say I'm sitting around and I finally decide to get pain in my wrist looked at that I've had since I broke it ten years ago. I could see a specialist in less than a week. However, I probably would have had it looked at 7 or 8 years ago if I was in a single-payer system. Maybe I would have had t…
Re: The Company Behind Many Surprise Emergency Room Bills
#283Every time I read a story about ER-billing I have to fight the urge to spend a few hundred bucks on the materials and equipment required to produce "official enough looking" forms of ID. Seems like getting a hospital to think they treated someone who doesn't exist is a better bet and no more stressful than getting your insurance to cover things to the extent you are lead to believe they would be covered
Re: The Company Behind Many Surprise Emergency Room Bills
#284Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there are "bad" guys. I've pointed out to a doctor that their agreement said that I would agree to pay any charge they decided to bill me for. I pointed out that I was in their office because they were in network for my insurance and that I couldn't agree to pay literally anything they decided to bill. So, I asked them to tell me what the maximum they might bill would be. And, they kicked me out of the office…
>>So, I asked them to tell me what the maximum they might bill would be. And, they kicked me out of the office. There are of course shitty doctors, but playing devil's advocate for a minute: you were arguing about theoretical billing scenarios while there were other patients in line waiting to be seen. So it's not exactly surprising that he got fed up and kicked you out.
Re: The Company Behind Many Surprise Emergency Room Bills
#285Earlier quoted context omitted.
Changing things so all taxpayers are getting robbed rather than just the individual being treated seems like a sub-optimal solution.
> Changing things so all taxpayers are getting robbed rather than just the individual being treated Government programs set maximum reimbursement rates and also mandate cost accounting mechanisms to assure that actual reimbursement is not merely within pre-set rates but also justified by actual provider costs. The government isn't buying services with no advance information about what the charges may be. Private insu…
Re: The Company Behind Many Surprise Emergency Room Bills
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can someone knowledgeable on the subject comment on whether the "Obamacare movement" has been up front in acknowledging this aspect of the problem with health care in the US? My perception is that the problem is typically framed as a lack of insurance problem for financially challenged people, but the "abuse" on the billing side to me seems like at least as big of a problem. And if this is being conveniently ignored,…
The fact that the problems addressed by the Democratic health care bill are orthogonal to some other problem you care deeply about is not, logically, evidence that the Republicans and Democrats are "indistinguishable" when it comes to health care. The status quo ante of the ACA was a system in which millions of people were locked out of insurance by fiat due to pre-existing condition bans. For those people, all provi…
Re: The Company Behind Many Surprise Emergency Room Bills
#287Earlier quoted context omitted.
> which would eliminate abuse on the billing side, at least to the insured How does single payer fix that? If the hospital gives you a bill and won't negotiate down, how does the government "fix" this? Which is kind of what my question is: were specifics given in the ACA on how that problem will be fixed?
Well since single payer typically refers to the government being the single payer, the bill goes to the government because you the insured are not the payer of the bill.
Re: The Company Behind Many Surprise Emergency Room Bills
#288Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can someone knowledgeable on the subject comment on whether the "Obamacare movement" has been up front in acknowledging this aspect of the problem with health care in the US? My perception is that the problem is typically framed as a lack of insurance problem for financially challenged people, but the "abuse" on the billing side to me seems like at least as big of a problem. And if this is being conveniently ignored,…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Afforda...
Re: The Company Behind Many Surprise Emergency Room Bills
#289So, basically, if you visit any emergency room then your handing them a blank Check and they can write whatever number on there they want. That's egregious beyond belief. I'm never one to call for legislation and price controls, but in the face of such adversity, I think it may be our last hope. I think they should either provide a quote before they offer the services or there should be a law limiting the amount that…
Yep. Took my wife to the ER last week for suspect appendicitis or diverticulitis. Last time this happened a CT scan alone was $3k ($11k prior to insurance reduction). My HDP is $4,500 OOP max per family member; $8,500 for family. What really pisses me off is that the HSA max contribution has not kept up with family OOP max. I contribute the max every year and can't end up with $8,500 saved. I had a decent insurance p…
http://www.riverradiology.co.nz/diagnostic-solutions/price-l...
$500 NZ versus $11000 US - maybe there is something wrong with your health system.
Re: The Company Behind Many Surprise Emergency Room Bills
#290Over here (in Europe) we get the impression that US has such a crazy healthcare system. Why aren't people marching in the streets? Is it not as crazy as it sounds for most users? If you're taken to ER how are you supposed to know if the doctors are all part of "your network" (whatever that even means)?
It's primarily lots of Byzantine rules in small print buried in long policies that few people read and even fewer memorize. If you are lucky and are conscious when you need to use a policy to visit a health care provider, you can bring your policy with you to ensure you follow it, but it's not always that easy. The health insurance company claims they told you how to follow the policy, but they don't make it any easier than they legally have to.
If you skip a rule (like calling your health insurance company before you visit an emergency room), that might violate your policy. If you visit an "out of network" hospital when you should have visited an "in network" hospital, you may be liable for the difference in cost (which is huge due to health insurance distortions in the medical market). If you try to go to a medical specialist without first going to your primary provider (as defined by your health insurance company), they likely won't cover it. There are usually dozens or hundreds of pages of these rules in booklets that you get when you join an insurance policy. If you don't know about / forget about a rule, you are responsible for the costs associated with the violation.
It's easy to unwittingly ask a health insurance question about your policy to the office manager at a doctor's office (who isn't qualified to speak about specific health insurance policies) and getting bad information that you then assume is good.
> Why aren't people marching in the streets?
I think most people see this as a "free market" problem (since 60%+ are covered by their employer-sponsored health insurance), not a political one. ~20% of Americans are covered by Medicare (the retirement-aged national health coverage) or have military veteran benefits, which are generally considered pretty good (unless you listen to political arguments). How would "marching in the street" fix a problem that people have with the "free market"?
The remaining 20% are among the most politically apathetic. We are lucky to get 50% participation of the voting-eligible electorate, even in presidential elections (which have higher turnout than other elections).
I think lots of Americans pride themselves on being stubborn and pretending like painful things aren't painful, then trying to ignore them.
Lastly, I think most Americans simply don't think that marching works. Rural America doesn't march. Urban America only seems to march for generic social justice causes, not for specific policy improvements.