Billing Errors in Health Care Abound as System Heads for More Complexity

May 14, 2012May 17, 2012 J Roberts

New coding requirements may create even more disarray in an already complex industry. The result could leave consumers with a greater sense of confusion in understanding medical bills.

Written by: Ruth McCambridge

Source: Cleveland Plain Dealer

As health care systems prepare for all of the many changes that the Affordable Care Act will entail, there is one that is relatively hidden from view: the ten-fold increase in billing codes that the federal government is planning to roll out next year (pushed back from a planned launch this year).

Stephen Parente, a professor of health finance and insurance at the University of Minnesota, claims that his research on medical billing found that up to 40 percent of claims sent between insurers and hospitals have errors. These errors, often caused by human error but sometimes the result of alleged fraud, may include double billing, billing for the wrong treatment, unexpected costs, or billing that is more than what an insurance contract allows. The American Medical Association claims these mistakes cost health care providers $17 billion last year and it blames insurance company practices, but others say the blame can be shared, and this article details many problems with hospital billing practices as well.

According to Kevin Theiss, a vice president at the Summa Health System, at the Summa Akron City Hospital, as many as 250 people may take part in the billing process, including intake workers, doctors and nurses and those who assign billing codes. He says that the potential for mistakes at the hospitals is “astronomical.” In the midst of all of this, a change is brewing that is likely to make the whole system even more impenetrable for consumers. That is, the federal government, which requires that all medical billing use the same set of 16,000 universal codes (called ICD-9 codes) to identify medical problems and treatments, is planning to increase the number of codes to 155,000. While rolling out these new codes has been delayed by a year, the project is apparently moving forward apace. Some, including the American Medical Association, are heralding the delay. Even before new codes are introduced, the complexity of the current system has created what the article describes as a “cottage industry” of experts that are there to advocate between institutional players.

“There are certified coders, ‘revenue cycle’ consultants, auditors who check claims, ‘denial management’ experts who step in for hospitals and doctors to help negotiate with payers for more money, and debt collectors who specialize in ‘accounts payable,’ or the bills hospitals and doctors think they can get the patients to pay if they press hard enough.

Consumers, in contrast, have no army of experts. They pretty much just have themselves and their bills.”

Insurers Alter Cost Formula, and Patients Pay More

May 1, 2012May 3, 2012 J Roberts

Beware of even greater out-of-pocket healthcare costs. Read the following article and learn how insurers are shifting the cost of out-of-network care to consumers.

Doug Benz / The New York Times

Despite a landmark settlement that was expected to increase coverage for out-of-network care, the nation’s largest health insurers have been switching to a new payment method that in most cases significantly increases the cost to the patient.

Jennifer C. Jaff, founder of Advocacy for Patients with Chronic Illness. She has Crohn’s disease.

The settlement, reached in 2009, followed New York State’s accusation that the companies manipulated data they used to price such care, shortchanging the nation’s patients by hundreds of millions of dollars.

The agreement required the companies to finance an objective database of doctors’ fees that patients and insurers nationally could rely on. Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, then the attorney general, said it would increase reimbursements by as much as 28 percent.

It has not turned out that way. Though the settlement required the companies to underwrite the new database with $95 million, it did not obligate them to use it. So by the time the database was finally up and running last year, the same companies, across the country, were rapidly shifting to another calculation method, based on Medicare rates, that usually reduces reimbursement substantially.

“It’s deplorable,” said Chad Glaser, a sales manager for a seafood company near Buffalo, who learned that he was facing hundreds of dollars more in out-of-pocket costs for his son’s checkups with a specialist who had performed a lifesaving liver transplant. “I could get balance-billed hundreds of thousands of dollars, and I have no protection.”

Insurance companies defend the shift toward Medicare-based rates under the settlement, which allowed any clear, objective method of calculating reimbursement. They say that premiums would be even costlier if reimbursements were more generous, and that exorbitant doctors’ fees are largely to blame.

But few dispute that as the nation debates an overhaul aimed at insuring everybody, the new realpolitik of reimbursement is leaving millions of insured families more vulnerable to catastrophic medical bills, even though they are paying higher premiums, co-payments and deductibles.

“They’re not getting what they think they’re paying for,” said Benjamin M. Lawsky, the superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, whose investigators recently found that under the switch, 4.7 million New York State residents — 76 percent of those with out-of-network coverage — are facing reimbursement reductions of 50 percent or more.

The switch “certainly creates the appearance that insurers are trying to end-run the settlement and keep out-of-network payments low,” Mr. Lawsky said.

Mr. Lawsky, who worked for Mr. Cuomo when he was attorney general, is seeking legislation in New York State to require that minimum reimbursements be linked to the new database, known as Fair Health. (more…)

Health care mandate is about personal responsibility

April 9, 2012April 9, 2012 J Roberts

Is ObamaCare dead? The decision lies with the Supreme Court which is expected to rule sometime in June. Onething is for certain, the current model of paying for and subsidizing healthcare can not remain. Whether the law is repealed or not, the current system has to change. This, all of us can agree on.

Issac J.Bailey | The Myrtle Beach Sun

“Now, it is as plain as the spectacles on Antonin Scalia’s nose that opting out of the health-care market is about as realistic as opting out of dying.” – John Cassidy of the New Yorker.

Following the debate over the Affordable Care Act has reminded me of that old saw, everybody wants to get to heaven but nobody wants to die.

The public doesn’t want private insurance companies to be able to throw people off their rolls for the sin of getting too sick, or for denying them coverage because of a pre-existing condition, something they will no longer be able to do under the Affordable Care Act come 2014.

The public wants to keep in place the Reagan-era federal law that compels emergency rooms to treat whoever shows up, no matter if that person has not a dime to his name and won’t pay no matter how many harassing phone calls bill collectors make to their home.

But the public doesn’t want to be compelled to pay for those rights.

According to a variety of studies, from the independent Congressional scorekeeper the Congressional Budget Office to independent health care industry analysts, those with insurance are subsidizing those without to the tune of maybe $43 billion every year.

The annual premiums for those with health insurance are roughly $1,000 higher to make up for the unpaid bills of the uninsured.

According to the National Coalition on Healthcare, hospitals lose about $34 billion a year providing unpaid for care – services they are required to render because of federal law dating back to 1986. The group also said that “private insurance and some public payers pay an additional $37 billion on behalf of those with no insurance.”

What’s worse is that this is probably the least efficient, most wasteful way to operate the world’s most expensive health care system.

Justice Antonin Scalia alluded to it during this week’s debate when he said that one way to solve the problem would be to simply allow insurance companies the to right to throw sick patients off their rolls.

In fact, it is. Another way to solve the problem is to no longer guarantee access to emergency medical care, meaning that if you get into a car accident and can’t speak and your insurance card isn’t visible – or you don’t have insurance – medical officials should be able to deny you care, no matter how urgently you need it.

That’ll learn Americans who are not responsible enough to either purchase insurance without being compelled or have their insurance information tattooed to their forehead in case of an emergency. (Of course, if you suffer an ugly head trauma, that tattoo wouldn’t do any good.)

The Affordable Care Act has already done a variety of things, including slowing the rise in health care costs, convincing more medical institutions to go to a pay-for-quality rather than pay-for-quantity of care model, saving seniors tens of billions of dollars in drug costs and uncovering billions of dollars in fraud.

Because it has become a political lightning rod, all of those things and the contradictions being made by opponents are being overshadowed.

Conservatives have long claimed that they are the party of personal responsibility, yet conservatives have joined with a sizable number of liberals in opposition to the individual mandate, which will require everyone above a certain age who can afford it to buy health insurance.

The individual mandate is designed to make sure as many Americans as possible are paying into a system for which each of us is benefitting, to defray some of that $43 billion bill of annual uncompensated services, to assure that the insured no longer have to pay an extra $1,000 a year to pay for the uninsured.

If not the individual mandate, then something needs to be implemented that will accomplish the same goal – something those same conservatives seem to not want to do.

Or, we can take Justice Scalia’s advice and repeal all federal laws that compel medical officials to provide services to people who can’t pay for them, emergency or not.

The problem we’ve long had with balancing our books is that we too frequently demand things for which we don’t want to pay.

The individual mandate is unpopular largely because it threatens to shift that paradigm.

Insurance companies to blame for ‘surprise’ medical bills: state report

March 15, 2012March 15, 2012 J Roberts

Are you paying more for healthcare even when using an in-network provider? A recent report from the Department of Financial Services in New York State found that an alarming amount of consumers are faced with a greater out-of-pocket expense as insurers and providers are shifting the cost of care to them.

Greg B. Smith / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Big insurance companies and some greedy doctors are to blame for the growing number of New Yorkers whacked with “surprise” medical bills, a state inquiry has found.

Department of Financial Services Superintendent Benjamin Lawsky Wednesday released the results of his probe into the unanticipated bills that are slamming consumers.

“Simply put, surprise medical bills are causing some consumers to go broke,” the report states.

The Daily News has highlighted this problem with a series of stories over the last two months. Lawsky promised to push for reforms.

“Every time I have mentioned this issue to a crowd of people, I see nodding heads,” he said. “If that’s happening, it is a huge issue.”

His agency reviewed 2,000 complaints from 2011 and surveyed the 11 big insurers and HMOs who cover 95% of the New Yorkers who have health insurance.

The review found that patients who went out of their way to make sure the non-emergency treatment they sought was covered by their plan still wound up with bills from specialists — such as assistant surgeons, anesthesiologists and radiologists — who were outside their plan.

That’s because insurers often don’t make clear who will be involved and how much it will cost, the report found.

One patient who complained to the Financial Services department made sure to go to an in-network hospital for brain surgery but wound up with a surgeon who wasn’t in his plan. The surgeon billed him $40,091 and the insurer covered only $8,386 – leaving him to cough up $31,704.

Sherry Tomasky, advocacy director of the American Cancer Society, praised the report and criticized the “undue financial burdens that are often placed on (patients) at a time when they are least able to handle it – both financially and emotionally.”

DFS quoted ridiculously complex language one insurer cited in claiming it met its disclosure requirements: “reimbursement is based on a percentile of national prevailing charge data compiled for a specific procedure and adjusted for geographic differences.”

“Unfortunately, language such as this does not provide consumers with meaningful information,” the department wrote.

The review also documented complaints that a “small but significant number” of doctors “appear to take advantage of the fact that emergency care must be delivered” by inflating bills for treatment that’s not covered.

The survey found out-of-pocket costs for out-of-network radiology or x-ray services during emergency care averaged $2,910; for anesthesiology it was $1,794.

The Health Plan Association, the lobby group representing insurers, praised the report for shining a light on excessive bills by doctors for ER care.

“These egregious practices contribute to the rising cost of health insurance for New Yorkers,” Paul F. Macielak, HPA president, said.

The report also noted that insurers have been reducing coverage for out-of-network care and making it tougher to file claims.

Cancer costs put treatments out of reach for many

June 14, 2011August 23, 2011 J Roberts

Medical costs are on the rise again. Read about the high costs of cancer treatments that are unfortunately becoming more and more out of reach, not only for the uninsured, but for the insured as well.

By Debra Sherman

(Reuters) – The skyrocketing cost of new cancer treatments is putting advances in fighting the deadly disease out of reach for a growing number of Americans.

Cancer patients are abandoning medical care because the costs are simply too high and medical bills — even among the insured — are unmanageable and put patients at a greater risk of bankruptcy, studies show.

“There’s a growing awareness that the cost of cancer treatment is unsustainable,” said Dr. Lee Schwartzberg, an oncologist who did a study examining the factors that contributed to patients quitting their oral cancer drugs.

Cancer is one of the most costly diseases to treat, largely because many patients are treated over a long term, often with expensive new drugs that are complicated to produce and not available in generic form. As insurance companies cut all benefits, reimbursements on cancer treatments have also declined.

“When it’s an expensive drug, we have to have the hard discussion about a very substantial out-of-pocket payment. I ask: ‘Do you want to spend this money for an average improvement of just a few months of life?’ I’m very uncomfortable having those discussions because I want to focus on the patient getting better,” Schwartzberg, medical director of the West Clinic in Memphis, Tennessee, said in an interview.

Schwartzberg’s and other cost studies presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting come as U.S. lawmakers battle over ways to reduce the national debt, including cuts in healthcare funding. (For full ASCO coverage, see [ID:nN05141382] )

ASCO president Dr. Michael Link, a pediatric oncologist, said access to healthcare should be a national priority.

INSURMOUNTABLE BARRIERS

“We’re thrilled with what we consider to be breakthroughs and wonderful new therapies … yet the barriers for some patients to get them is insurmountable. It is an indictment of how we take care of patients in the United States,” Link said.

Cancer is the second-leading cause of death in the United States, after heart disease. The incidence is expected to increase with an aging population.

The costs for cancer care topped $124 billion in 2010 in the United States, led by breast cancer, according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI). That number is expected to rise as more advanced treatments — targeted therapies that attack specific cancer cells and often have fewer side effects — are adopted as the standards of care. The NCI projects those costs to reach at least $158 billion by 2020.

Until recently, almost all cancer drugs were administered intravenously. Today, about a quarter of them can be given orally, which means fewer visits to the doctor. But pills are often more expensive, have higher co-payments, and are reimbursed by insurers at lower rates than IV drugs, he noted.

Using a database of pharmacy claims paid by private insurers and Medicare, he found, not surprisingly, that those with higher co-payments quit their drugs more often.

Patients with co-payments of more than $500 were four times more likely to abandon treatment than those with co-payments of $100 or less, Schwartzberg said. Claims with the highest co-payments had a 25 percent abandonment rate, compared with 6 percent for co-payments of less than $100.

“Prices of drugs can’t be set so outrageously high,” he said. “We have a problem with cancer care … All stakeholders have to get together and compromise to translate this great science into great patient care without breaking the bank.”

Dr. Yousuf Zafar, an internist at Duke University Health System, did a separate study on the impact high medical bills have on patients’ cancer treatment. (more…)

Consumer group says spending caps in national healthcare law will bring relief to people seeking medical care

March 2, 2011 J Roberts

There could be relief for out-of pocket costs under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Under the act, out-of-pocket costs will be capped at a certain dollar amount. Hopefully, this will protect consumers from increased debt and potential bankruptcies due to exorbitant medical bills.

Los Angeles Times

It’s a well-known complaint among consumers and healthcare advocates: The soaring cost of medical care is forcing millions of Americans to drain their savings, run up credit card bills, declare bankruptcy or lose their homes to foreclosure.

A report out Tuesday that examines the problem in California says the nation’s year-old healthcare law –- currently under assault by congressional Republicans — would help protect people in the Golden State from financial catastrophe.

In its study, the consumer group Families USA points out that the law would cap how much people with insurance must spend out of their pockets for healthcare services, starting in 2014.

If the law were to take effect this year, the group says, the caps would be $5,950 for an individual and $11,900 for a family of any size. Low-income people would pay less than higher earners.

More than 1.9 million Californians would exceed the spending caps if they were in place this year, the group reports. That extra spending would surpass the caps by more than $3 billion.

Once the new spending limits are in place in 2014, insurance companies will have to pick up the tab for essential medical services -– including the costs for doctors, hospitals, prescription drugs and emergency care — after consumers pay their share.

“These new out-of-pocket caps will protect families from catastrophic medical costs when illness or [an] accident strikes,” the report states.

The spending caps will apply to health insurance plans sold through new insurance exchanges scheduled to open in 2014 in California and other states. The limits also will apply to new insurance plans sold to individuals and small businesses outside the exchanges.

In addition to the report on California, Families USA produced data for other states. To read the reports, go to http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/publications/reports/health-reform/out-of-pocket-caps-states.html.

More Americans oppose health-care law, but few want a total repeal

January 31, 2011January 31, 2011 J Roberts

The nation still appears divided over the Affordable Care Act. According to the below Washington Post article, a recent poll by ABC shows an even split over those in favor of the law and those who want a total repeal. What’s your position? We’d like to know.

Jon Cohen

The Washington Post

Republican claims that the new health-care law will hurt the country’s fragile economic recovery and inflate the deficit resonate with the public, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. But few opponents of the law advocate an immediate, wholesale repeal of the legislation.

Overall, Americans’ views of the sweeping health-care overhaul, again under debate on Capitol Hill, remain firmly entrenched, with little change in stiff partisanship on the issue. Some 45 percent of those polled support the law, and 50 percent oppose it, numbers that exactly match their averages in Post-ABC polls going back to August 2009.

Three-quarters of Democrats support the new law, and 80 percent of Republicans oppose it; both are within a few points of their long-term averages. Independents tilt against the legislation, just as they have in most previous polls.

Republicans surveyed in the poll overwhelmingly see negative consequences if the law remains unchanged: 80 percent say it is likely to hurt the economy, 78 percent say it will increase the deficit, and 67 percent say it is apt to cost the country jobs. On each of these points, a majority of independents also take the pessimistic view.

On the economy generally and on jobs, most Democrats see long-term positive effects of the current law. But on the deficit, they divide down the middle, with 46 percent saying the law is more likely to increase the federal budget deficit and 46 percent saying it is more apt to decrease it.

Despite the relative popularity of the detractors’ arguments, there is still little consensus among opponents about the right approach to amending the legislation.

Those who do not support the law are split about evenly between advocating for its complete repeal (33 percent), a partial repeal (35 percent) and a wait-and-see approach (30 percent). Fully two-thirds of all Republicans say they want the law repealed, at least partly.

Recent polls on repeal yield very different answers depending on how the question is asked and how many answer categories respondents are offered. In every iteration of the question, a relatively split verdict on the law appears intact.

As reported Monday, for the first time in Post-ABC polling, congressional Republicans are now tied with President Obama on the question of whom the public trusts when it comes to dealing with health-care change. Overall, 43 percent of Americans approve of the way the president is handling the issue, matching a career low; 52 percent disapprove.

Another factor in the debate is that a quarter of those who oppose the health-care law say the legislation is faulty because it did not go far enough, not because it pushed change too far.

The poll was conducted by telephone Jan. 13 to 16, among a random national sample of 1,053 adults. The results from the full poll have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

A Guide Through a Medical Wilderness

August 10, 2009October 16, 2009 Doug

As the government churns through health care reform, the media has realized that consumers can negotiate their health care with doctors and hospitals. The article indicates that it is best to choose an advocate with a successful track record in health care cost reduction. Medical Cost Advocate is a leader in health care cost reduction through expert negotiation.

New York Times

By WALECIA KONRAD

THESE days, dealing with medical bills and insurance claims makes April 15 look easy. The medical jargon and inscrutable coding on invoices and explanations of benefits are indecipherable for most lay people. Worse, seriously ill patients may simply be too sick or too broke to deal with the mountains of red tape. That can lead to unpaid medical debts and even bankruptcy.

It’s no wonder that a cottage industry has sprung up to fill this void. Known as medical billing advocates, these middlemen and women help patients deal with the paperwork and haggling often associated with medical costs.

In general, medical billing advocates help you find errors in your bills, negotiate with your insurer to appeal coverage denials, or negotiate lower fees with your medical care providers. Some advocates do all three tasks equally well. But others, because of their training or background, may specialize in one area or another.

Still others give the client the ammunition he or she needs to negotiate. That’s what happened to Susan Redstone, a freelance fashion stylist and author. When she broke her back in a horseback riding accident last summer, she held only a bare-bones insurance policy. So Ms. Redstone, who has since recovered, knew that she would be responsible for the bulk of her medical expenses.

Five months after the accident, just when she thought she had paid everything off, she got a bill for $16,000 from the helicopter ambulance service that ferried her from the remote location in Colorado where the accident occurred to a large medical facility 75 miles away. “I was completely taken by surprise to get this bill so long after the accident happened,” Ms. Redstone said. She consulted with Victoria Caras, a medical advocate in Aspen, Colo., who coached her on how best to approach the medical transportation company to lower her bill. With Ms. Caras’s advice, Ms. Redstone was able to negotiate a 25 percent discount in exchange for paying the bill in full. (more…)

Insured, but Bankrupted by Health Crises

August 3, 2009October 16, 2009 J Roberts 1 Comment

Health advocates warn of the dangers of the underinsured – the millions of Americans who have a basic form of health insurance, but not enough to cover a chronic or catastrophic illness. This group of people represents a “great hidden risk to our health care system” according to the below article published in the New York Times. More and more people are facing financial hardship and burden due to the rise in healthcare costs and increased out-of-pocket expense.

New York Times

Health insurance is supposed to offer protection — both medically and financially. But as it turns out, an estimated three-quarters of people who are pushed into personal bankruptcy by medical problems actually had insurance when they got sick or were injured.

And so, even as Washington tries to cover the tens of millions of Americans without medical insurance, many health policy experts say simply giving everyone an insurance card will not be enough to fix what is wrong with the system.
Too many other people already have coverage so meager that a medical crisis means financial calamity.

One of them is Lawrence Yurdin, a 64-year-old computer security specialist. Although the brochure on his Aetna policy seemed to indicate it covered up to $150,000 a year in hospital care, the fine print excluded nearly all of the treatment he received at an Austin, Tex., hospital.

He and his wife, Claire, filed for bankruptcy last December, as his unpaid medical bills approached $200,000.

In the House and Senate, lawmakers are grappling with the details of legislation that would set minimum standards for insurance coverage and place caps on out-of-pocket expenses. And fear of the high price tag could prompt lawmakers to settle for less than comprehensive coverage for some Americans.

But patient advocates argue it is crucial for the final legislation to guarantee a base level of coverage, if people like Mr. Yurdin are to be protected from financial ruin. They also call for a new layer of federal rules to correct the current state-by-state regulatory patchwork that allows some insurance companies to sell relatively worthless policies.
“Underinsurance is the great hidden risk of the American health care system,” said Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard law professor who has analyzed medical bankruptcies. “People do not realize they are one diagnosis away from financial collapse.”
Last week, a former Cigna executive warned at a Senate hearing on health insurance that lawmakers should be careful about the role they gave private insurers in any new system, saying the companies were too prone to “confuse their customers and dump the sick.”

“The number of uninsured people has increased as more have fallen victim to deceptive marketing practices and bought what essentially is fake insurance,” Wendell Potter, the former Cigna executive, testified.

Mr. Yurdin learned the hard way.

(more…)