medical advocate

The Affordable Care Act after Six years

Doug Leave a comment

Excellent summary from the Kaiser Family Foundation that clears up some of the confusion around where the Affordable Care Act fits in the overall healthcare system

By Drew Altman, president and chief executive officer of the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The Affordable Care Act generates so much partisan heat and draws so much media attention that many people may have lost perspective on where this law fits in the overall health system.

The Affordable Care Act is the most important legislation in health care since the passage of Medicare and Medicaid. The law’s singular achievement is that 20 million people who were previously uninsured have health-care coverage. What sets the ACA apart is not only the progress made in covering the uninsured but also the role the law has played rewriting insurance rules to treat millions of sick people more fairly and its provisions reforming provider payment under Medicare. The latter is getting attention throughout the health system.

Still, while the ACA expands coverage and has changed pieces of the health system–including previously dysfunctional aspects of the individual insurance market–it did not attempt to reform the entire health-care system. Medicare, Medicaid, and the employer-based health insurance system each cover many more people. Consider:

Some 12.7 million people have signed up for coverage in the ACA marketplaces, and enrollment in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program has increased by 14.5 million from pre-ACA levels, the Department of Health and Human Services noted in December. By contrast, 72 million people are enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP, 55 million in Medicare, and 150 million are covered through the employer-based health insurance system. The latter is where most Americans get their health coverage (Medicare and Medicaid share 10 million beneficiaries covered by both programs). All these forms of coverage have been affected by the ACA but operate largely independent of it.

In one presidential debate the moderator confused premium increases in ACA marketplaces (some of which are high, though the average is moderate) with premium increases in the much larger employer-based system. The tendency to overattribute developments, both good and bad, to the ACA is a product of super-heated debate about the law.

Given what the law actually does, it is not all that surprising that half of Americans say they have not been affected by it. Kaiser Family Foundation polling consistently finds that while the political world focuses on the ACA, the public is more concerned about rising deductibles and drug prices and other changes in the general insurance marketplace that have been developing with less scrutiny while attention has gone to the ACA. With so much published and said about the ACA since 2010, these and other important issues have received less attention from policy makers, the media, and health-care experts.

The ACA could get hotter before it cools. There is a case on contraception coverage under consideration at the Supreme Court–with oral arguments heard Wednesday–and another big debate about the law is likely if a Republican wins the White House in November. Such a debate would probably involve legislation characterized as “repealing” the ACA, though such a bill is more likely to focus on changes that stop short of rolling back the law’s popular coverage expansions and insurance reforms that benefit tens of millions of Americans.

Read More

No Easy Answers on Financing Long – Term Care

Doug

By JUDITH GRAHAM, NY Times

This article points out the difficulty in financing long term care for the elderly.  Experts believe more focus should be on finding ways to provide affordable care within the efforts to reform Medicare and Medicaid.  For now, families continue to bear the brunt of the cost associated with caring for the elderly.

The federal Long-Term Care Commission published its full report on Wednesday, but it did little to change the perception that substantial relief for caregivers will be a long time coming.

The commission had endorsed a package of 28 recommendations late last week, prior to the release of the full report. Among other measures, the recommendations call for recognizing caregivers as members of “care teams,” including information about caregivers in patient records, assessing caregivers’ need for support, and making services like respite care more widely available.

But this group of 15 experts couldn’t agree on how to pay for long-term care services needed by frail older adults or people with disabilities. The full report doesn’t change that.

Currently, only those who are impoverished and qualify for Medicaid get significant assistance from the government for long-term care. For the most part, middle-class families are left to bear the burdensome expenses: $18 an hour on average for homemaker services, $19 an hour for home healthcare aids, $3,405 a month for assisted living, $230 a day for a private nursing home room, according to the latest report from Genworth Financial.

How to ease this financial burden was the most important issue facing the commission. In the end, the report proposed two alternatives: some kind of government insurance program for long-term care, or some kind of private insurance option. Then commission members essentially threw up their hands, admitting they couldn’t agree.

When my colleague Paula Span wrote about the commission earlier this year, she asked whether its work would elicit a yawn or a cheer. For many, the answer is neither. Even some commission members feel a sharp sense of frustration and disappointment.

One is Judy Feder, a professor of public policy at Georgetown University, who voted against the commission’s final recommendations on the grounds that they didn’t fulfill Congress’s charge to come up with a comprehensive solution. I asked her about a statement from six of her fellow commissioners insisting that any new long-term care program not enlarge public budgets.

“The current system has a budgetary implication,” Dr. Feder said. “It sticks it to families.”

Another disappointed member is Judith Stein, executive director of the Center for Medicare Advocacy. “The vision in the majority report is not much more than we have now,” she said. “It is, ‘Plan, understand, think about savings and insurance, and provide for those who are impoverished.’ That kind of approach doesn’t meet our long-term care needs now, and it won’t meet them in the future.”

While several of the commission’s recommendations are welcome, they will make a difference only “around the margins,” Ms. Stein said.
Families will bear the consequences, said Ms. Stein and other experts. Elderly spouses will continue to struggle to care for each other, and adult children will strain to balance jobs and the needs of frail parents and their own children. Untold numbers of aging Americans won’t get enough care, and caregivers will suffer from stress and depression, endangering their own health.

If a public insurance program is unaffordable, as several commission members claimed, might the private market supply a solution to the aging population’s need for affordable long-term care? That seems unlikely. Premiums for private long-term care insurance have been rising dramatically, policies are becoming more restrictive, insurers have been exiting the market, and bureaucratic red tape makes it difficult for many individual and families to receive expected benefits.

Financially, the only way to make private insurance work is to spread risk over a wide base of policy holders. But the cost of long-term care coverage makes it unlikely that millions of healthy people will purchase policies. This was the economic calculus that doomed the Class Act, the voluntary long-term care insurance program that was originally part of the Affordable Care Act.

Is there a way forward? The long-term care commission recommended two options: convening a White House conference on aging to consider long-term care policies, and establishing yet another advisory committee to continue its work. But, said Dr. Joanne Lynn, a geriatrician who directs the Center for Elder Care and Advanced Illness at the Altarum Institute, “The administration has shown no interest in having that happen, and here we are on the cusp of the largest generation in history growing old.”

She believes that it’s a mistake to separate long-term care from broader reforms of Medicare and the health care delivery system. The two systems of caring for people with disabilities and older adults need to be much more tightly integrated, Dr. Lynn said. Savings from eliminating inappropriate medical care — by some estimates, as much as one-third of all care — could be used to finance the expansion of long-term care services, she suggested.

As for another commission, is there any reason to hope it will be more successful in tackling critical issues when advocates of smaller government are committed to standing against a new federal insurance program for long-term care that might rely, at least in part, on public financing?

“I think this will be a hard discussion, but it is one that we as a country will have to grapple with,” said Dr. Bruce Chernof, the commission’s chairman and president of the SCAN Foundation in California. He sees the seeds of a potential compromise embedded in the commission’s report. The two primary financing options considered by the commission share “some commonalities,” he said, including agreement on the need for strong public programs and a role for the private sector.

“If you look carefully at these two perspectives, you can begin to see a way forward.”

Read More

Three Ways to Slash Your Medical Bills

J Roberts

Medical Cost Advocate’s CEO Derek Fitteron was recently interviewed for Fox Business. Read the following BLOG post to learn more about reducing medical costs. Dont forget to negotiate your medical bills and save money. It’s worth the effort. In these difficult economic times, why pay list price when you may be able to save.

By: Donna Fuscaldo

FOXBusiness

Published July 10, 2012

Many things in life are negotiable, including medical bills.

“More and more billing offices, whether it’s a hospital or doctor’s office, are much more receptive to bargaining,” says Nancy Fase Guernon, director of operations at CareCounsel, an health advocacy firm. “There’s definitely ways to negotiate the bill.”

 According to a survey of Angie’s List members who asked for discounts from their doctors, 74% said they were successful. “We’ve heard some great success stories from members who have successfully negotiated with their health care provider,” says Angie Hicks, founder of the peer-review website. “It doesn’t hurt to ask. You’ll be amazed at what you can save and still get great care.”

 From making sure your bill is correct to negotiating ahead of a procedure there are ways to get as much as 40% off your medical bill. Here’s how:

Step One: Check the accuracy of the bill

Medical billing mistakes are common, so review the invoice carefully before submitting payment.  Experts say it’s common for a procedure to be coded wrong by the doctor’s office and lead to excess charges.

 Patients should review their health insurance plan to know what is and is not covered. “You want to make sure if it’s the insurance company’s responsibility to pay it, it’s paying what it should according to the plan,” says Fase Guernon.

 If you don’t have insurance or are going out of network and are paying out of pocket, Derek Fitteron, founder and CEO of Medical Cost Advocate, advises getting a full cost estimate of the procedure upfront to avoid any surprises at the end and you avoid getting overcharged.

 Fitteron also suggests asking for an itemized bill so you can review the charge for every procedure. “Sometimes there are mistakes and those mistakes might include bills for the wrong procedures or procedures that didn’t happen.”

 Step Two: Negotiate Up Front

Think of negotiating health care like shopping for a car. A dealership wants your business and will working with you—same idea applies to a doctor. For instance, many times doctors will reduce their price if you pay in cash or pay for the procedure ahead of time.

 According to Hicks, some hospitals and doctors will cut a health-care bill by as much as 50% if you pay in cash on the day of service. “We had a member from Washington D.C. who saved $9,000 on his mother’s in-home care by bargaining ahead of her treatment.”

 To negotiate ahead of time, experts say it pays to do your homework. Procedure prices vary be region, so know what know what is common in your area before negotiating. “Do the research so you are not throwing out numbers. That can be insulting,” says Fitteron.

 Step Three: Be honest about your financial situation

 If you get hit with a medical bill that you can’t afford, the best thing to do is call your doctor or hospital and honestly explain your financial situation. Often times the medical facility will be willing to reduce the bill as long as you agree to pay something.

 “If you ask the billing office for a discount and you are willing to pay something right then more times than not they will knock down the bill 30% to 40%,” says Fase Guernon.

 Some providers will set up interest-free payment plans. Hicks points to one member who saved $4,000 by talking to her doctor about her financial concerns. The member couldn’t afford the costs that weren’t covered by the insurer so the doctor agreed to collect just the insurance portion, she says.

 “Too many consumers aren’t aware of just how much power they have to negotiate their health-care costs. There are many great doctors, dentists and other health-care specialists out there who are willing and eager to work with their patients to provide them with high quality, affordable care,” says Hicks.

Read More

How the seemingly largest hospital bill came to be

J Roberts

Read about the world’s largest healthcare bill.

By Karen M. Cheung

It may be the largest hospital bill ever. Estimated at $9.2 million, including interest, the bill is from Tampa (Fla.) General Hospital for the care of deceased Tameka Jaqway Campwell.

Although the American Hospital Association, the Health Care Financial Management Association, and even the Guinness Book of Records couldn’t confirm the highest hospital bill in history, according to Associated Press (AP), the $9.2 million in charges for one patient certainly draws questions into high healthcare costs and end-of-life decision making.

Campwell had an incurable disease, progressive demyelinating neuropathy. The patient’s mother Holly Bennett accused the hospital of not feeding her daughter and giving her too much morphine, which, she claimed, resulted in the patient’s weight falling to 37 pounds, reports the AP. Campwell died two years ago.

The hospital is suing the patient’s estate for the outstanding bill.

“If they think they’re getting money from me, they’re crazy,” Bennett said in the article. “Who’s ever even heard of a bill that high?”

Although the hospital charges will likely drop to $2.25 million after readjustments, Bennett told ABC News she would not pay the multimillion-dollar bill. She said that she never received an itemized bill during the five years of treatment and that the lawsuit is a strategy to prevent her from filing her own lawsuit for medical malpractice against the hospital.

A frequent complaint from patients and providers alike, patients often do not understand the associated costs for tests and care with no clear prices for services.

“This is tragic,” said Alan Sager, a professor of health policy and management at Boston University School of Public Health, in the ABC article. “A patient apparently received costly care that might have made her more comfortable–and might have slowed the progression of her illness, but these interventions apparently could do little more than slow a steep decline.”

Hospital palliative care has doubled in the past decade, ranking as one of the fastest growing specialties with 63 percent of U.S. hospitals using palliative programs. According to a Center to Advance Palliative Care report this month, there are 1,568 palliative teams at nationwide hospitals, up from just 658 in 2000.

Read More

If Healthcare Reform Fails: Fewer Well-Insured Patients Will Leave Doctors Hurting

J Roberts

Is the current Medicare reimbursement method flawed?  It depends on your perspective, but one thing appears more and more apparent – the recent healthcare reform bill does not appear to be a solution to the problem.

BNET Today

Judging by the opposition of surgical societies and some state medical societies to the Senate healthcare-reform bill passed last December, many physicians — particularly highly paid specialists — are relieved now that it appears the legislation is on its deathbed. But they shouldn’t be too gleeful, because in the absence of reform, fewer and fewer patients will be able to afford their services.

Just ask Clyde Yancy, a cardiologist who heads the American Heart Association (AHA). Yancy cited a recent AHA survey of heart patients in explaining why he believes that reform of the system is still necessary. In the survey of 1100 adults who said they had heart disease, a stroke, or high blood pressure, 56 percent of the respondents — most of whom had insurance — said they’d had trouble paying for prescription drugs or medical care in the past few years.

In an op-ed piece about the survey in a trade publication, Yancy referred to the “collective sigh” of relief among physicians about the stalling of reform and suggested that it’s premature. “The need for the discussion has not gone away,” he said. “If anything, that need is highlighted by this survey.”

Of course, Yancy is walking a fine political line. He chose not to highlight the financial pain doctors will feel as insurance coverage shrinks, and instead focused on the problem of patients not receiving proper care because they can’t afford it. But his intended audience of heart doctors can certainly read between the lines, particularly since they’re already battling to preserve their incomes in light ofsome recent Medicare changes.

Last fall, Medicare announced changes in its reimbursement methodology that basically lowered payments to specialists while raising them for primary-care physicians. Cardiologists, among the hardest hit specialists, were slated to lose an average of eight percent in 2010 and more in the ensuing three years. The new fee schedule also slashed payments for nuclear scans by 40 percent and cut the fees for echocardiograms and other tests by about a third. In late December, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) sued HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to reverse the cuts scheduled to take effect Jan. 1. Two weeks later, a federal court in Miami dismissed the suit on jurisdictional grounds, but the ACC pledged to carry on the legal fight.

The cardiologists, of course, claim that the drop in Medicare payments for high-end imaging tests will drive some of them out of business and that they’ll have to cut back on the services for the poor. In actuality, though, heart doctors have steadily ramped up their use of tests and other services to maintain their incomes. A study released last fall by cardiology services provider MedAxiom found that visits to cardiologists had risen 12 percent in 2009 and that return visits had climbed 34 percent since 2000. Meanwhile, the number of echos that cardiologists performed jumped 15 percent in 2009 and 43 percent in the previous five years.

These numbers highlight the main issue: the more Medicare cuts back on reimbursement, the more tests, procedures and follow-up visits physicians do. And the more doctors do, the more Medicare cuts its fees. The only solution is to dump the fee-for-service payment system — a goal that some of the provisions in the healthcare reform legislation would move us toward. Having to live within a budget would upset cardiologists even more than the recent Medicare cuts. But it’s hard to see how their patients will be able to afford their services in the long run under any other reform plan.

Read More

Hijacked, Stolen Health Care Reform: Why Health Care Costs Will Not Be Contained

J Roberts

Costs continue to rise even with the passage of landmark healthcare reform. Read the following article for an interesting take on outcomes of the new reform.

John Greyman

The passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Act of 2010 (PPACA), our new health care legislation, in March was hailed by its supporters as an historic event of the magnitude of Social Security and Medicare. But four months later, it remains controversial, with repeated polls showing three large groups of divisive opinion, including those who would work to repeal it and others who believe that it will make no difference. The Democrats have launched a $125 million PR campaign to defend the new law amidst growing signs that many Democrats facing re-election are failing to get political traction on the issue. (1)

We are being advised by many to “wait and see” how this complex new bill plays out over the next five to ten years, but we can already know what its outcomes will be. More than 30 years of health policy science, including documentation of the repeated failures of incremental changes built into the new law, together with well-entrenched trends in our market-based system, allow us to project its outcomes with confidence. For this legislation has been molded and crafted by the political power and money of corporate stakeholders in the medical-industrial complex.

Five previous posts in 2009 described the uneasy “alliance” of the five biggest players — the insurance industry, the drug industry, the hospital industry, business and organized medicine. They will do just fine with the new law at the expense of patients, families and Main Street.

Health care “reform” this time around was intended to address these four basic system problems: (1) containing health care costs, (2) making health care more affordable, (3) increasing access to care, and (4) improving the quality of care. This post introduces a series of five that will examine how well the PPACA will do on each of these four goals, followed by an overall assessment of the law. These posts will draw in part from my new book Hijacked: The Road to Single Payer in the Aftermath of Stolen Health Care Reform, soon to be released by Common Courage Press in both print and eBook format.

Continued Unrestrained Drivers of Health Care Costs

These are some of the many reasons that we can already conclude that health care costs will continue to run out of control at rates far exceeding the costs of living and median household incomes.

• No price controls. Wall Street has already factored in rapid expansion of markets for drugs, medical devices and other services in a system of expanded access. There is also a long line forming of providers of information technology and administrative services that will exploit the complex implementation of this law.

• No bulk purchasing. The PPACA has prohibited the government from negotiating the prices of prescription drugs and retains a ban on importation of drugs from Canada and other countries.

• Lack of control over perverse incentives that drive increased volume of services. These in turn are driven by retention of fee-for-service (FFS) reimbursement that encourages physicians and other providers to offer more services than are medically appropriate or necessary.

• No effective mechanism to rein in marginal or ineffective technologies. Coverage policies for new drugs and medical devices are still lax and not subject to rigorous evidence-based criteria for either efficacy or cost-effectiveness.

Although the PPACA does call for a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, its role is already neutered by not having the power to mandate or even endorse coverage or reimbursement rules for any particular treatment. (2)

• The dominant business model of health care prevails, with many facilities and services remaining for-profit and investor-owned and with an ongoing trend for increasing consolidation within industries.

• The PPACA has grandfathered-in specialty hospitals, typically physician-owned facilities that focus on well-reimbursed procedures in such areas as cardiology and orthopedics, whereby physicians can “triple dip,” earning high incomes as providers, owners and investors.

• More preventive services will further fuel health care inflation. While the PPACA does provide new coverage for many preventive services, this will lead to increased costs due to additional diagnostic and treatment services engendered. (3)

• Private insurers can’t contain health care costs, even where they have dominant market power. A 2009 report by the Congressional Research Service, “The Market Structure of the Health Insurance Industry,” concludes that:

The exercise of market power by firms in concentrated markets generally leads to higher prices and reduced output — high premiums and limited access to health insurance — combined with high profits. (4)

• There are no controls over premium rate increases by insurers. Despite the outcry by government officials, annual premium rates are escalating at rates up to 56 percent (5), and there is no end in sight for continued exorbitant rate increases. Insurers will continue to game the system by extracting maximal profits and offering reduced coverage with actuarial values (the amounts insurers actually pay in coverage) as low as 60 or 70 percent.

• National health care spending will grow unabated despite the passage of
PPACA. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) projects that overall national health expenditures (NHE) will increase from its present 17 percent of GDP to 21 percent in 2019, a total of $4.470 billion. (6)

These well-documented trends leave no room to think that health care “reform” will have any chance to contain health care costs. Instead, health care inflation will be exacerbated by all the new incentives and inefficiencies in the new “system.” In our next post we will examine the impact of these trends on affordability of health care.

Read More

Study: Riskier surgeries for back pain raise costs

J Roberts

A recent study reveals that certain surgeries are leading to increased costs without producing better and healthy outcomes.  In fact, the article suggests that certain surgeries may be performed too often and for inappropriate reasons.  Perhaps changing the economics of medicine, to reward better care rather than simply providing more care is the answer.

Associated Press

A study of Medicare patients shows that costlier, more complex spinal fusion surgeries are on the rise — and sometimes done unnecessarily — for a common lower back condition caused by aging and arthritis.

What’s more alarming is that the findings suggest these more challenging operations are riskier, leading to more complications and even deaths.

“This is exactly what the health care debate has been dancing around,” said Dr. Eugene Carragee of Stanford University Medical Center.

“You have one kind of operation that could cost $20,000 and another that could cost $80,000 and there’s not good evidence the expensive one is being used appropriately in the majority of cases,” Carragee said.

Add to that the expense for patients whose problems after surgery send them back to the hospital or to a nursing home and “that’s not a trivial amount of money” for Medicare, said Carragee. He wrote an accompanying editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association where the federally funded study appears Wednesday.

The cost to Medicare, just for the hospital charges for the three types of back surgery reviewed is about $1.65 billion a year, according to the researchers.

All the patients in the study had stenosis in their lower backs, a painful squeezing in the spine that’s most common in people over 50. The researchers compared the risks for three different types of surgery for the condition: decompression, simple fusion and complex fusion.

“All operations aren’t the same and some seem to be associated with higher complication rates than others,” said lead author Dr. Richard Deyo of Oregon Health and Science University in Portland. “It’s not necessarily true that the more aggressive surgery is better, at least in terms of safety.”

There’s little agreement about the best way to treat chronic lower back pain, and much depends on what’s causing the pain.

Patients should ask their doctors about alternatives to complicated operations, Deyo said. Could steroid injections and physical therapy be tried? Would a simple decompression procedure be as helpful as a spinal fusion and with less risk?

In a decompression procedure, the simplest method in the Medicare study, a surgeon cuts away part of the bone that’s painfully pressing on nerves. It can cost about $30,000 in hospital and surgeon fees.

For a fusion, a surgeon binds two or more vertebrae together using a bone graft, with or without plates and screws. The researchers defined a complex fusion as one involving three or more vertebrae or more than one side of the spine. Fusions cost $60,000 to $90,000.

The researchers analyzed data on more than 32,000 Medicare patients who had one of the three types of surgeries in 2007.

About 5 in 100 patients who had simple or complex fusions suffered major complications such as stroke compared to 2 in 100 with decompressions. The risk of death within 30 days after surgery was different too: 6 in 1,000 for complex fusions compared with 5 in 1,000 for simple fusions and 3 in 1,000 for decompressions.

The study didn’t address how successful the various types of surgeries were at relieving pain.

More than half the patients who had complex fusions had a simple stenosis, which usually calls for decompression alone. They did not have the curvature of the spine or a slipped vertebra — additional conditions that might suggest a fusion is needed. There’s not much evidence for doing a complex fusion for a person with simple stenosis, Carragee and other experts said.

“It certainly looks like there’s more complex surgery being done than we have very good evidence to support,” Carragee said.

Rates of complex fusions in Medicare patients rose 15-fold from 2002 to 2007, while decompressions and simple fusions declined, the study found. Although the overall procedure rate fell, hospital charges grew 40 percent.

Aggressive marketing of devices used in complex fusions is likely playing a role in the increase, Deyo said. The marketing includes ads in medical journals and lectures by surgeons on the payroll of device manufacturers.

Allegations of kickbacks to spine surgeons for using products and questionable financial arrangements to doctors as consultants have plagued the multibillion-dollar industry. One company, Medtronic Inc., reached a $40 million settlement with the U.S. Justice Department in a whistleblower case that included allegations the company paid doctors to use its spine surgery products. The company denied any wrongdoing.

Dr. Charles Rosen, a spine surgeon at the University of California, Irvine, founded the Association for Medical Ethics to nudge doctors toward scientific evidence over vested interests. Forty-nine spine surgeons have joined, pledging to refuse any type of compensation or earnings from companies for using a product.

Rosen applauded a provision in the new health care law that requires device makers and others to file annual reports to the government on their financial ties to doctors. Patients will be able to look up possible conflicts in a government database.

“Too much fusion surgery is done in this country and often for inappropriate reasons,” Rosen said. While complex fusions are needed for some conditions, he said, patients “should not hesitate to get a second opinion.”

Read More

Medical Advocates Save Money on Medical Bills

admin

The error rate in medical bills is astoundingly high. Fully 8 out of 10 medical bills contain errors of various kinds. At Medical Cost Advocate we believe there is no better way to reduce your medical costs than to have a professional review your medical bill and then negotiate the final reviewed amount as well. We provide these services to all our negotiation customers. The below story appeared on ABC’s Good Morning America this morning, April 7th. You will find a description of some of the errors we typically encounter when reviewing your medical bills.

 

Fighting Mistakes in Muddled Medical Bills

Advocates Can Help Find Typical Medical Billing Errors

ABC News

 

Expensive mistakes on medical bills are hard for most of us to detect, because the bills are written in a mysterious language that we don’t speak.

 

But eight out of 10 medical bills have mistakes on them, according to Medical Billing Advocates of America.

 

What if you could hire somebody to translate your bills and then do battle for you?

 

Turns out, you can. And it might not even cost you anything.

 

Finding the Mistakes and Fighting Back

Artist Cynthia Kulp thought being diagnosed with breast cancer was the worst thing that could happen to her. But, then, the hospital where she received her breast cancer treatment overcharged her.

 

“To have to fight a hospital going through cancer treatment, overcharging me, they have to be the lowest of the low,” Kulp said.

 

Before her lumpectomy, she said, the hospital told her the operation would cost $5,000. Instead, she got a bill for $12,700, right in the middle of her course of chemotherapy.

 

“You can barely function, you can barely get out of bed,” she said. “How can you fight hospitals?”

 

So she hired Holly Wallack, a medical billing advocate, to help. Wallack found all kinds of errors on Kulp’s bill, such as:

 

 Mismatches. These are drugs that appeared on the medical bill, even though they weren’t listed in the medical records.

 

 Double charges.The hospital charged Kulp for two “first” hours in the recovery room. So Wallack asked, “How many ‘first’ hours do you get? Last I heard, there was only one, then he was very happy to take that charge off.”

 

 Inflated charges. The hospital billed $192 for a postoperative support bra that Wallack found on the Internet for $19 — a tenth of the cost.

 

“That was one morning in one operating room in one hospital in one little town in the country,” she said. “If you extrapolate that out to what’s going on every day, it’s mind boggling.”

  (more…)

Read More