Slashdot Mirror


The Medical Bill Mystery

HughPickens.com writes: Elisabeth Rosenthal writes in the NY Times that she has spent the past six months trying to figure out a medical bill for $225 that includes "Test codes: 105, 127, 164, to name a few. CPT codes: 87481, 87491, 87798 and others" and she really doesn't want to pay it until she understands what it's for. "At first, I left messages on the lab's billing office voice mail asking for an explanation. A few months ago, when someone finally called back, she said she could not tell me what the codes were for because that would violate patient privacy. After I pointed out that I was the patient in question, she said, politely: 'I'm sorry, this is what I'm told, and I don't want to lose my job.'" Bills variously use CPT, HCPCS or ICD-9 codes. Some have abbreviations and scientific terms that you need a medical dictionary or a graduate degree to comprehend. Some have no information at all. A Seattle resident received a $45,000 hospital bill with the explanation "miscellaneous."

So what's the problem? "Medical bills and explanation of benefits are undecipherable and incomprehensible even for experts to understand, and the law is very forgiving about that," says Mark Hall. "We've not seen a lot of pressure to standardize medical billing, but there's certainly a need." Hospitals and medical clinics say that detailed bills are simply too complicated for patients and that they provide the information required by insurers. But with rising copays and deductibles, patients are shouldering an increasing burden. One recent study found that up to 90 percent of hospital bills contain errors. An audit by Equifax found that hospital bills totaling more than $10,000 contained an average error of $1,300. "There are no industry standards with regards to what information a patient should receive regarding their bill," says Cyndee Weston, executive director of the American Medical Billing Association. "The software industry has pretty much decided what information patients should receive, and to my knowledge, they have not had any stakeholder input. That would certainly be a worthwhile project for our industry."

361 of 532 comments (clear)

  1. FTYF, Submitter by idontgno · · Score: 4, Funny

    An audit by Equifax found that hospital bills totaling more than $10,000 contained an average undocumented "because STFU" surcharge of $1,300.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    1. Re:FTYF, Submitter by SacredNaCl · · Score: 5, Informative

      $1300 or roughly the cost of a single injected dose of morphine from my last hospital bill.

      --
      Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
    2. Re:FTYF, Submitter by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yea this.

      When I read that line I said to my wife, "ERROR implies that it occasionally benefits the patient. This shit is on purpose."

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:FTYF, Submitter by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1, Informative

      $1300 error for a $10,000 hospital bill. That is a three hour Emergency Room visit, maybe less.I know, I've had to go to the emergency room for an eye injury and the bill was close to $15,000 (Fifteen Thousand), and including waiting time to release was about 4 hours. You want to know why this shit is expensive? I saw a dozen "Non-emergency" patients in the waiting room, a number of them went in before me (my eye was gushing blood). I won't tell you why, because you'll call me a troll. My guess is my bill paid for their bills, and a few others.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re: FTYF, Submitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can guess all you want, you don't know them or their medical needs.

    5. Re:FTYF, Submitter by swb · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm pretty sure there are acute illnesses that don't involve gushing blood. And sometimes your only recourse is the emergency room because the doctor's office is closed, the urgent care clinics only want to treat strep throat, yeast and bladder infections and won't prescribe any pain killer stronger than baby aspirin.

      The NY Times has chronicled many explanations for high bills that have nothing to do with overuse of services. Like every person with a pulse in the ER bills their services separately, even if they don't do a damn thing. I badly mangled (and ultimately need to amputate) my left ring finger and I had a $1300 bill from the ER physician whose only "service" was to ask me if I did it on purpose.

      And God forbid you should need surgery and the surgeon brings in his "out of network" business partner to consult in the surgery and you get hit with an uncovered four or five figure bill from them, too. I honestly think they overcharge on purpose so that both the "negotiated balance" is nothing to sneeze at for an hour of "work" (I'd like $5k/hr, too) AND they can write off the unpaid portion of the bill as a tax loss, too, cutting their gross income.

      All of this is just bullshit designed to run up fees as high as possible. Which I guess was all part of the grand game when comprehensive insurance actually was, but now that it's not it's just so crystal clear how it's nothing more than a money grab.

    6. Re:FTYF, Submitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Any DocInTheBox location can do a test for blood in the urine and probably even an x-ray to confirm a stone and then give you a shot of Demorol and an Rx for some for of codeine for less than $100-$200. Been there Done that.

      Not sure I buy the emergency surgery thing because after having had about 6 stones myself, I've never needed that.

    7. Re:FTYF, Submitter by SydShamino · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And God forbid you should need surgery and the surgeon brings in his "out of network" business partner to consult in the surgery and you get hit with an uncovered four or five figure bill from them, too.

      We had something similar happen. The lead surgeon for a scheduled surgery never told us that he would need to bring in a second doctor, and of course his partner wasn't on our network. With no negotiated discount on service rates, his partner was paid more by insurance company (at 70% "out of network" payment on the full charge) than he was (at my 90% in network rate, after the massive "negotiated" discount). This was for a multi-hour invasive procedure where the book rates for the primary and secondary doctors were in the $40-50k range each.

      Supposedly we owed the 30% coinsurance for the partner ... but it's been five years now and he never sent a bill. I only know about this at all because of the insurance statements. I think they aren't going after us as I have a better fraud claim against them. (We confirmed in writing that the primary doctor was on our insurance prior to the surgery. I could argue that he should have mentioned that his partner wasn't. We never once met or even saw the partner though maybe he did show up during the surgery itself when no one was awake to notice.)

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    8. Re:FTYF, Submitter by cyberchondriac · · Score: 2

      My thoughts exactly, on just about every billing error ever.
      How often do you hear of (or more likely, have experienced) a billing error that benefits the customer? Not very damned often. Granted, if/when it does happen, it's likely the benefactor keeps his mouth shut so you don't hear of it happening as much, but then again, OTOH when they get "caught" (you know the accountants will track those errors down eventually), that nullifies it anyway. Yet I bet nearly every one of us has dealt with at least one error or oversight that benefits the company, anything from an overcharge to even just refusing to honor (or losing) a coupon or rebate, and they had no intention of addressing it on their own.
      Bottom line is, these things aren't errors so much as they are, at worst, malicious and deliberate, to at best, "yeah we suspect something is off but it's not hurting us so let's not look too closely into that".

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    9. Re:FTYF, Submitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "ERROR implies that it occasionally benefits the patient. This shit is on purpose."

      Depends what you mean by "on purpose".

      Are they purposely erring on the side that benefits themselves? Sure.

      Are they deliberately tacking on bogus charges? Maybe, but erring on the side of caution to your own benefit doesn't prove that.

    10. Re:FTYF, Submitter by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not only do we have medical bills (or EOBs) that are completely incomprehensible, we also have a price structure that's treated like a trade secret while also being a work of fiction. My medical expenses for the last year were billed at 4x the amount that was actually paid by my insurance company.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    11. Re:FTYF, Submitter by beschra · · Score: 1

      The numbers are silly, but they are real in the US.

      --
      It is unwise to ascribe motive
    12. Re:FTYF, Submitter by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      The last two times I was in the ER, I would have happily yielded to an actively bleeding patient.

      I am not a total anti-social psychopath despite what some of my posts might indicate.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    13. Re:FTYF, Submitter by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The NY Times had a whole article on this phenomenon:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09...

      One thing that wasn't clear is how successful doctors are in pursuing these charges if the patient actually refuses to pay (especially if in your case, as you confirmed in-network status ahead of time in writing).

      I have a hard time seeing patient responsibility for this out of network gambit if they didn't approve it up front. Of course like everything else, they will line up an expensive lawyer to chase you down and make you decide whether agreeing to settle for a reduced charge of $10,000 and making it go away is a better choice than rolling the dice on a $10,000 legal defense that you could lose, upping the ante by another $10,000.

      Imagine working as an IT contractor on a project and bringing in an outside consultant who then bills the company separately at 10 times the rate as the contractor. "Oh, I'm sorry but it was necessary due to project complexity." You'd get laughed at, fired and probably sued into penury if not brought up on criminal fraud charges.

    14. Re:FTYF, Submitter by kenj123 · · Score: 1

      I know where the 1300$ went to. when they tried to get one aspirin out of the bottle, one dropped on the floor and had to be thrown away. I think theres a code for that.

    15. Re:FTYF, Submitter by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      On an extremely minor scale, I was at a fast food restaurant the other day, and when I asked for a 30oz cup, the guy at the register rung up the 44oz. So I grabbed a 44oz, and he gave me the stink-eye. I wonder how many people he overcharges every day.
      Thankfully there is no "miscellaneous" charge at fast food places, unless you count chicken nuggets.

    16. Re: FTYF, Submitter by budgenator · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Oh bullshit, bleeding trumps everything except "can't breath" , especially if it's an eye.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    17. Re:FTYF, Submitter by cyberchondriac · · Score: 2

      That might've been an honest mistake..? It's not like they get commission or anything. Who knows.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    18. Re: FTYF, Submitter by wshs · · Score: 4, Informative

      Unexplained amnesia; unexplained edema; loss of eyesight or hearing; urinating blood; post transplant fever; chest pain; ischemic attack; blackening or other discoloration of body part; loss of sensation... all trump simple bleeding

    19. Re:FTYF, Submitter by schlachter · · Score: 2

      Or 13 patient gowns, at a cost of $100 each, from my last bill

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    20. Re:FTYF, Submitter by budgenator · · Score: 1

      EOBs, or Explaination Of Benefits, comes from Your insurance company, not the Provider. If you can't comprehend what is on the EOB, then You should call Your insurance company, and have the people You are sending the most money to explain it better. Remember the Providers of your care hate Your insurance even more than you do, and if something is worded obtusely it's usually so the bastards at Your insurance company will pay what they are obligated to pay for on Your behalf. You can also go to Fair Health Consumer and punch in the codes what it was for and what the 50th percentile expected costs in your area are; most providers bill in the 80th percentile in order to get paid around the 50th. You can always pay cash and have Your insurance reimburse you.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    21. Re:FTYF, Submitter by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      In other words, you have to go to a lot of bother that really shouldn't occur to begin with. ALL billing artifacts should make sense BY DEFAULT. It should not require extra special diligence on the part of a patient (or any other sort of customer) to get a real bill or see what the real costs are.

      The fact that this is not the norm is directly attributable to the "someone else will pay for it" mentality.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    22. Re:FTYF, Submitter by Livius · · Score: 1

      If it benefits the client 50% of the time, we should assume it's error.

      (So obviously it's not error.)

    23. Re:FTYF, Submitter by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      I'd give you the stink eye as well for drinking that much soft drink in one go. There's something like 90g of sugar in that drink there.

      Heh. So you're saying you give stink-eyes to people based on some fan-fiction you've written of them.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    24. Re: FTYF, Submitter by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Who says he drank sugar soda?

      Come now, do you expect us to believe that a guy who eats at a fast food restaurant and gets 30-44oz drinks is eating and drinking healthy? Fat chance! (pun intended)

      No, it should not be illegal (NYC) but at least be honest with people.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    25. Re:FTYF, Submitter by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      IF a dude (or dudette) came in with a gunshot or knife would or something like that, I could understand. Pain, even that I could understand. But many of those were simply some vague illness.

      But if this was an isolated case, then I would be in agreement. But it isn't. My wife/kids and mom were involved in a car accident, where my mom broke vertebra and ribs, and my wife and kids were in a great deal of pain. I watch a couple dozen people with "flu" like symptoms go in. A car accident verses the flu. You take the major injury car accident people first and you make sure they aren't suffering internal bleeding.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    26. Re:FTYF, Submitter by cas2000 · · Score: 1

      > You want to know why this shit is expensive?

      because your health "system" (for want of a better word) is run by and for corporate parasites who will overcharge for everything at every opportunity.

      it is not, as you implied, because "undeserving" poor people got treated at your expense - they probably ended up with bills at least as large as yours.

      in a civilised country with a decent public health system (i.e. all of the developed world except for the US. and also some of the "third-world" including cuba) a visit to emergency or even a month-long stay in hospital costs the patient exactly nothing, not a single fucking cent. because civilised countries believe that everyone deserves decent health care, not just those with jobs that pay for their health insurance. civilised countries also believe that an employer has no fucking right whatsoever to decide what kind of health care an employee is entitled to. that's just fucking barbaric.

    27. Re: FTYF, Submitter by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      Hey I get 44oz and even 52oz when I get a free drink at Speedway gas station and I fill it with a mix of Diet Dr Pepper and Coke zero

    28. Re:FTYF, Submitter by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Doctors cannot write off unpaid portions of bills as a loss for tax purposes. Don't confuse "writing off bad debt" (i.e., you'll never collect it, so quit listing it as an asset on your balance sheet) with "writing off taxes". However, should you wish to rapidly solve the problem of the uninsured seeking access to medical care, it would be a highly effective change in the law.

    29. Re: FTYF, Submitter by kenh · · Score: 1

      in a civilised country with a decent public health system (i.e. all of the developed world except for the US. and also some of the "third-world" including cuba)

      Hold on there, Michael Moore conclusively proved that Cuba has a vastly superior healthcare system than America - he took a boat load of 9/11 first responders to Cuba to get them medical care.

      a visit to emergency or even a month-long stay in hospital costs the patient exactly nothing, not a single fucking cent. because civilised countries believe that everyone deserves decent health care, not just those with jobs that pay for their health insurance.

      Uh, your simplistic view of economics is showing - those 'civilised' countries have much greater tax burdens to pay for all that marvelous 'free' education and 'free' healthcare.

      civilised countries also believe that an employer has no fucking right whatsoever to decide what kind of health care an employee is entitled to. that's just fucking barbaric.

      Your perspective is a little off.

      Employees are offered subsidized healthcare coverage by employers, employees don't have to take it (many, not all, but many) employers will give you cash money in place of subsidized healthcare if you get outside coverage (for example, if your spouse has better/cheaper coverage available for you through their employer). Your employer in no way can limit What healthcare coverage it's employees can get for themselves. It's like this - I used to work in public school K-12 education, my employer, the school district offered me free lunches in the school cafeteria - I instead choose to go out for lunch. The school district by offering me one thing never removed any other option available to me. I also was offered subsidized healthcare by the school district, but since I already had superior coverage through my wife's employer, I opted out, and instead got a couple hundred extra dollars each month added to my paycheck. I wasn't limited to the coverage my employer offered, it was merely one of many choices.

      In the 'famous' Hobby Lobby case, the employer (Hobby Lobby) took the position that they, for religious reasons, did not want to pay for two (2) forms of 'birth control' of the twenty-three (23) forms the PPACA legislation mandated. The distinction was the two forms of 'birth control' they objected to were considered abortifacients, meaning they 'aborted' a fertilized egg/embryo after the fact. They had no problem funding the other twenty one (21) forms of federally-mandated birth control because they all prevented eggs from becoming fertilized. (Their religious belief is that life begins at conception.) But just because an employer doesn't pay for the form of birth control a female employee prefers, she still has the CHOICE to pay for it out of her own pocket - pharmacists and doctors don't 'check with your employer' before dispensing medicines, they WILL check with your insurance company and advise you about your options and what is and is not covered, but no patient is prevented from getting any procedure they want and are willing to pay for.

      One thing we really don't have here in the U.S. Is healthcare rationing - for example, we can get MRIs done the day the doctor prescribes it, we have no waiting lists. We have no 'doctor shortage' as our neighbors to the north do - yet. We don't have Emergency Rooms with ambulances idling outside, waiting for hours to 'check in' their patients because the ER is required to see patients within a certain window, and that requirement can only be met by slowing the admission of patients into the ER.

      Also, in America, any person that manages to get to an ER will receive medical attention, for free if they are without means to pay - this is a requirement that hospitals here have had for decades before Senator Obama ever ran for the Presidency - a failure to do so could cost the hospital their license to remain open.

      --
      Ken
    30. Re: FTYF, Submitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Relax with your nonsense!
      I am a trauma Surgeon.
      1) Most patients that I see have no insurance and never pay a cent. But guess what they are the most litigious bunch.
      2) I have 100% liability with zero pay.
      3) Drs can not write medical bills as losses. Surprised?? And the charges have no relationship to what actually get paid. - too long to explain why/how on this medium.
      4) I have spent 15 years of my adult life in school and training. I am exposed to untold number of deadly biological contagious agents on a daily basis.
      5) I have saved thousands of people, all ages. What is the dollar value on that??
      6) the problem is mostly with over charge of price of drugs, use of too much technology and testing due to the overwhelming use of litigation in the USA. And too many middleman.

    31. Re:FTYF, Submitter by budgenator · · Score: 1

      EOBs almost always have "This is not a Bill" plastered on it in big bold letters, EOBs are Explanation of Benefits, they come from the company that is paying a portion of your financial responsibility on your behalf.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    32. Re:FTYF, Submitter by siliconsmiley · · Score: 1

      It goes hand in glove with the medical insurance industry all attempting to fleece patients for as much as they are worth. Try asking a care provider how much a service will cost if you happen to be uninsured. I've only been told, "we cannot tell you how much it will cost without insurance." WTF?

    33. Re: FTYF, Submitter by Copid · · Score: 1

      Uh, your simplistic view of economics is showing - those 'civilised' countries have much greater tax burdens to pay for all that marvelous 'free' education and 'free' healthcare.

      It's worth noting that if you add the portion they pay in taxes to the portion they pay out of pocket, they still spend way less of their GDP on healthcare than we do.

      Employees are offered subsidized healthcare coverage by employers, employees don't have to take it (many, not all, but many) employers will give you cash money in place of subsidized healthcare if you get outside coverage (for example, if your spouse has better/cheaper coverage available for you through their employer).

      That's true (although I'd dispute the "many" claim--neither my wife nor I have ever worked somewhere where that happens, and when it does, I strongly doubt it's likely to equal the amount they pay for your health benefits), but there are some major structural problems with it being the way it is.

      We do the employer sponsored healthcare thing for two reasons: First, it gives you a group rating which is hard to get on the solo market. Second, it's a way for your employer to give you part of your income untaxed. That tax break is problematic: It's a subsidy on health insurance spending that drives the price up, and it's a subsidy that not everybody gets, so a lot of people are out of pocket more if they need to buy insurance on their own. It's a massive market distortion that causes a lot of issues.

      One thing we really don't have here in the U.S. Is healthcare rationing - for example, we can get MRIs done the day the doctor prescribes it, we have no waiting lists.

      We absolutely do ration healthcare. We just ration it based on different variables. Some countries ration it by waiting list and or the severity of the illness. In the US, we ration by how much money people are willing to pay. That's how we ration most things. Some people just don't agree that it's the best way to ration medical resources.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    34. Re: FTYF, Submitter by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      I believe the original charge was "sugar loaded", but as for healthy, there are always trade-offs involved WRT health. Something that improves your mental health can be health neutral or bad for your body

    35. Re: FTYF, Submitter by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Haha.. no. Attempting to redefine things to suit your previous statements will not make you correct. Cocaine is not "healthy" even though it can make you more alert for a short time. Nobody in their right mind would ever make such a claim.. which leaves you not in a right mind.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    36. Re:FTYF, Submitter by davester666 · · Score: 1

      You really want to change into one that has already been used by someone else? Who knows what that skin condition was, House never did figure it out.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  2. nonsense by jjeffries · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Screw this crap... Single payer soon, single provider eventually. Let's try to be a first-world country and not just the world's largest provider of bomb craters.

    1. Re:nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Did you read the article? That wastefulness was hidden more before when less people actually had to shoulder part of the burden - the corruption was just hidden, and seeing the bill brings it to light more often -- how would 'single payer' do anything beside create more of a shadow for corruption to hide in?

    2. Re:nonsense by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      Single payer just means no options. If your single payer is great, wonderful. If it's not, you're hosed and have no options.

      Personally, I think it's just a pipe dream/standard appeal to authority. "Somebody else handle this and do a good job!" Well, yeah, sure. What if you give it to someone else and they do a bad job?

    3. Re:nonsense by sideslash · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I disagree. Government is force/power/compulsion. It does not inherently seek the good of the populace. The more you hand over to the government, the less recourse you will have when faced with incompetence, corruption, and overall indifference to the needs of ordinary people.

      I worked in the medical software industry for about 4 years. Funny enough, I actually wrote an ICD9 lookup UI. Medical software is mostly pathetic and dysfunctional, but government isn't the solution -- holding private companies accountable is the solution.

    4. Re:nonsense by TWX · · Score: 2

      How is it no options if basically all medical professionals bill to the same entity now, so that the patient can go to essentially any doctor or hospital in the country and not have to worry about some junior assistant to the anesthesiologist screwing them for thousands of dollars for being 'out of network'?

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    5. Re:nonsense by will_die · · Score: 1

      As a person living in Germany I love single payer/single provider.
      I call up my doctor and dentist and make a reservation and am in with a few days and at a time I want, never fails.
      Do feel sorry for the people who actually are having to use that horrid system of single payer/single provider because when I was depend on that I was waiting weeks and months for similar visits, but since I don't have to use it any more all is good.

    6. Re:nonsense by EzInKy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "holding private companies accountable is the solution"

      So government regulation is the answer then?

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    7. Re:nonsense by H3lldr0p · · Score: 2

      I think they meant that there's no longer an option to think that society is just them and their immediate family & friends, that they could no longer ignore the plight of other people who are so much more than what you see on the surface, and all that mucking about with taxation, a subject much like society itself, is a complex thing that is full of nuances and consists of more that what you had for breakfast yesterday.

      But that's just what I think about people who choose to jump right away on the if the government does it, it's bad bandwagon.

    8. Re:nonsense by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Boy, having socialized health care has really taught Israel, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Japan, Denmark, etc etc etc a lesson. That's why they're all full of "Bolsheviks" now. Hell, you go to Singapore, and it's nothing but Bolsheviks all the way down.

      You stupid SOB.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    9. Re:nonsense by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 2

      Yes, there are too many market forces keeping the prices down. It's a race to the bottom. People, stop all this miserly shopping for the cheapest medical care! Sure, your tiny Wal-Care bills look attractive but have you considered that if you keep doing this, you're going to cut more mom'n'pop providers out unless they are also able to viciously cut costs?

      We need to put Wal-Care (and other super-slim-margin health care providers) out of business, in order to protect the health care profession!

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    10. Re: nonsense by rickb928 · · Score: 2

      "taxpayer control"?

      You don't live here, do you?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    11. Re:nonsense by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      How is it no options if basically all medical professionals bill to the same entity now, so that the patient can go to essentially any doctor or hospital in the country ...

      That is not how socialized medicine works. You can't just go to the doctor whenever you feel like it. Single payer healthcare reduces costs, and people with SPH are generally happier with their care, but there are tradeoffs. Long waiting lists for many ailments, and reduced patient choice, are among those tradeoffs.

    12. Re:nonsense by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      In the U.S., the single payer would not be great. It would be just as wasteful and inadequate as all the other programs that single payer runs now.

      And the care providers will get the same treatment - arbitrary fee reductions, slow payment, random denials, paperwork.

      Let's see how this works. It COULD work well, if competence was a desirable trait for our single payer, but it hasn't been for a while now, and I see no signs of that changing.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    13. Re:nonsense by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      Single Payer doesn't solve the problem.

      You want to fix the problem, make it "single price", where insurance pays what cash pays. Right now, "negotiated pricing" is fraudulent pricing.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    14. Re:nonsense by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Just for the heck of it, how does this work when you wake up with a sore throat? Do you get an visit in a few days when the worst is past?

      Same problem in the U.S.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    15. Re:nonsense by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Funny

      A dose of socialism is just the bitter pill that might finally convince .....

      Bitter pill ,,, that will by $275 please

    16. Re:nonsense by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Um, that's not even accurate. Our medical care is second to none in quality and capability.

      You're complaining about the payment process. It's useful to go back and remember exactly what the problem is we are trying to solve, or we get solutions that don't fix anything.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    17. Re:nonsense by Zeek40 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Canada is the only country with a single-payer system that is looking for private sector solutions and that's because they're also the only country with a single-payer system that made it illegal for private corporations to compete with the goverment to provide healthcare. Canada is literally the only country in the world struggling with the problem you mentioned. European countries generally have large private health care industries that make significant income performing optional and cosmetic procedures. Medical tourism is a thriving industry in Europe. Germany alone makes about €1 billion in revinue per year on medical tourism. http://www.medicaltourismmag.c...

      For some reason, pretending that a single poorly implemented health care system is representative of all single-payer systems has become an American past time.

    18. Re:nonsense by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Government is force/power/compulsion. It does not inherently seek the good of the populace. The more you hand over to the government, the less recourse you will have when faced with incompetence, corruption, and overall indifference to the needs of ordinary people.

      If your government is like that it is badly broken. In the US it seems to have been taken over by lobbyists and rich people. In Europe our governments mostly do try to improve our lives, and healthcare is one area that they largely succeed at. It isn't perfect,but it's a hell of a lot better than what the US has.

      What you describe is not an inherent property of government, it is what Americans have allowed theirs to become. In any case, I'm no expert but from what I hear if you look at it impartially Obamacare has been a net benefit for the majority of people, despite the problems which don't see to be any worse than similar size corporate operations.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    19. Re:nonsense by sideslash · · Score: 1

      Government has to get involved when people do bad stuff. That doesn't mean that the government should decide how much our doctors get paid. There is lots of lovely gray space in the middle between the stark black and white of extreme positions.

    20. Re:nonsense by Xrikcus · · Score: 1

      Before even reaching single payer, there needs to be a legal requirement for a single charger! If you go to a particular doctor for treatment, ALL bills should come from that doctor or his facility. If they contract, that doesn't matter, that doctor is responsible for telling you how much you owe, being in-network with the insurance companies and so on. The current situation of going to an in-network doctor only to find he uses an anaesthetist or lab who is out of network and thus only partially covered is insane.

    21. Re:nonsense by tompaulco · · Score: 2

      Dude, we are the only first-world country with a third world healthcare system. Wake up

      Anybody who thinks that our healthcare system is third world has obviously never been to the third world. I have been to several third world countries and I can tell you that our system is hundreds of times more functional then theirs.
      The biggest problem with our system is that the costs are spiraling out of control. This is due mainly to the spiraling malpractice insurance due to the litigious nature of Americans, and due to Obama's handing tens of billions of dollars of our money to the insurance companies, who already make record profits every year.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    22. Re:nonsense by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      No, holding the companies accountable is the solution. Regulations don't do anything, we need willpower. We already have regulations against fraud and gross negligence, we just need to use these.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    23. Re:nonsense by danbert8 · · Score: 2

      This is one of the biggest bullshit issues with the system. Why is a simple prescription $550 "retail" but the negotiated insurance rate is 1/5 of that? It's like they are trying to screw over people who have to pay out of pocket.

      When you go to the urgent care they ask questions that shouldn't be relevant like "how close are you to your deductible?" That just tells them how much shit to tack on the bill to try to get away with before insurance decides they are only paying 40% of the bill anyway. Somewhere in there doctors' offices are claiming fraudulent "losses" and insurance companies are inflating their "value." At the end, it's the consumer getting a walletbotomy.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    24. Re:nonsense by TWX · · Score: 1

      You're describing one system, not all systems that use single-payer. I can't remember if it was Germany or a Nordic nation that was profiled, but for them you just showed up for GP visits.

      No system is perfect. Our system is so far from perfect that there are very few changes that could really make it a lot worse.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    25. Re:nonsense by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Health care is socialism, even in the USA, so pussyfooting around and pretending it's not just gets you the worst of all worlds.

      It's inherently the case that medical care is socialist because in any civilised society, the idea that someone dies of a preventable illness just because they're poor is unacceptable. Wealth comes and goes, illness is random. Even rich people would not accept stepping over bodies of people who just dropped dead in the street because they couldn't get basic medical care. Even rich people would not accept their child being infected with TB because they happened to wander into a ghetto of poor people where disease was rampant, and even rich people do not accept the idea that if in a couple of decades when their awesome corporation has been outcompeted in the market, bought by a competitor and they were then fired, that they might be left to rot at home, being eaten by a treatable cancer.

      The moment a society accepts that someone who turns up at ER with an injury gets treated even if they can't afford it, that country has accepted a socialist idea. America has accepted that idea, which is why hospitals have to provide emergency care to even uninsured people and they pay for it by effectively taxing people who need other kinds of work. At that point you don't have a free market any more - free markets are not defined by customers who cannot negotiate and governments that step in to pay whatever price is demanded at the last second. So you might as well go all-in and just get it over with.

      People often argue that this would result in no accountability and the like, but the example of the UK seems to show otherwise. The NHS (national health service) is always a huge factor in elections. Politicians fight over who is best for the NHS constantly. In America politicians try and motivate voters by painting their opposition as weak on the war on terror. In the UK they motivate voters by claiming the opposition is engaged in a war on the NHS. Yes, the accountability is very top down and hardly local - it's a flawed system in many ways. But at least the UK calls a spade a spade.

      The usual arguments as to why

    26. Re:nonsense by itzly · · Score: 1

      Depends. When you make the appointment, you tell them how bad it is, and based on that, you get an early or later appointment.

    27. Re:nonsense by EzInKy · · Score: 2

      What force do you propose to enforce these regulations?

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    28. Re:nonsense by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's not true at all, at least in my experience living in Canada. You can go to the doctor whenever you please. There are certain procedures they aren't supposed to do because they aren't necessary.

      They got rid of yearly medicals where they would run a bunch of blood tests even if you lacked symptoms or reason to be testing it. If they think there's something actually wrong with you, a blood test is no problem, and is done. But there's very little reason to send people for blood tests when from all other accounts they are perfectly healthy.

      But if you actually have something wrong with you, or even a medical concern you want to ask about, you can just book and appointment, or walk-in to a local clinic or the emergency room, depending on the severity. There's also other options like a nurse hotline to answer your medical questions. Call up a 1-800 number and you get a registered nurse to talk to about your concerns. They can tell you if it's worth going to see a doctor, or if you should just take an over the counter remedy so we don't waste the doctor's time.

      Also, it's worth pointing out that with a system like they have in the US, some people with lots of money have lots of choice and can see a doctor whenever they want. However, the vast majority of people are not that well off, and actually can't possibly afford the care they need. Their waiting time is forever, because they will never be able to afford the care they need. They can either choose to get care and go bankrupt in the process, or fore go care and hope it clears up on it's own.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    29. Re:nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Our leaders (Dave cameron the moron) are wanting it for his mates in medical insurance and private companies that are salivating over the £££££ to be made from ripping the NHS apart, he's bought and paid for by them, if tomorrow goes badly we will end up with the shitty American health system.

      We don't want it, only scumbags looking to profit want it!!!, fucking basterds

    30. Re:nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And most British people look on the American healthcare system as a stark warning about what happens without an NHS.

    31. Re:nonsense by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Government is force/power/compulsion. It does not inherently seek the good of the populace. The more you hand over to the government, the less recourse you will have when faced with incompetence, corruption, and overall indifference to the needs of ordinary people.

      Sure, government is never a great solution, it's just that sometimes the other solutions are even worse.

    32. Re:nonsense by jythie · · Score: 1

      Well, yes. If one is going to bring up examples of how something can work, one generally pulls from examples that, well, work well.

    33. Re:nonsense by Xrikcus · · Score: 1

      Have your French cousins experienced American healthcare? One of the big things British and French expats miss when living in the US is the healthcare.

      If you are wealthy and have good private insurance, then American healthcare works well. British and French top up insurance and private care is comparable, though. If you are not rich, and had to rely on the government healthcare in Europe, then the American version is inferior.

    34. Re:nonsense by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

      American healthcare compares favorably with European healthcare when you take everything into account.

      What aspects specifically? In the US the most common cause of bankruptcy is medical bills. That just pushes the unrecoverable costs on to other people who then have to pay even more. Insurance companies get to decide what you can be treated for, rather than doctors allocating resources by medical need. While there is some excellent care available in the US, it isn't universal so basically you either get really good but expensive care or can't afford it and get terrible care.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    35. Re:nonsense by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      You either call several doctors searching for one who has time for an appointment at the same day or you go to the doctor's office without an appointment and accept some waiting time (one or two hours for a GP, longer for a specialist).

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    36. Re:nonsense by Miamicanes · · Score: 2

      This used to *really* piss me off when I had a pre-Obamacare individual policy (because I was a contractor) that excluded coverage for anything that I'd ever received treatment for in the past. Specifically, the fact that if they DID exclude something from coverage, they didn't even have the decency to at least soften the blow by letting you pay the steeply-discounted rate THEY would have paid the doctor if it were a covered procedure. It felt like getting doubly-screwed... not only did they refuse to pay, but the amount I had to pay was several times the amount they would have paid. It just seemed like the ultimate "fuck you" gesture from them.

    37. Re:nonsense by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    38. Re:nonsense by Rolgar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Single payer is bad. Do you want to know why? No competition. Imagine our politicians and doctors running our medical profession the same way our politicians and educational establishment worked together to destroy education in this country?

      Do you want to know what will work at much lower cost than what we have? Turn the hospitals into co-ops. Instead of paying an insurance company, you pay a hospital for a monthly membership. If you have to go in, everything is already paid for. But, if you live in an area with a large enough population, you'll actually have choices, which will force the co-op to compete on price, efficiency and results with other co-ops. Perhaps the various doctors and other medical professionals in the area then come to an agreement with the various hospitals that they will treat your hospital membership like insurance, and the hospital could pay out for your preventative care like your insurance company. Or perhaps the co-op will hire the necessary personnel to provide all care except for extraordinary things (Exceptional care only provided by research institutions, etc, which they could contribute a certain amount to whether used or not, or pay as you go like insurance.)

      With this model, you'll get the benefits of single payer with the added benefit of having choices, so you don't get stuck in a situation where there are 3 month waiting lists, but you can't do anything about it because you have no choice.

    39. Re:nonsense by sideslash · · Score: 1

      American healthcare compares favorably with European healthcare when you take everything into account.

      What aspects specifically? In the US the most common cause of bankruptcy is medical bills. That just pushes the unrecoverable costs on to other people who then have to pay even more. Insurance companies get to decide what you can be treated for, rather than doctors allocating resources by medical need. While there is some excellent care available in the US, it isn't universal so basically you either get really good but expensive care or can't afford it and get terrible care.

      Here's an article with a counterpoint to your view.

    40. Re:nonsense by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      I call up my doctor and dentist and make a reservation and am in with a few days and at a time I want, never fails.

      Oddly enough, that's just how it works here. Last time I came down with something (two weeks ago, still not quite over it, since it's a two-week+ disease), I called my GP, got an appointment later that morning...

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    41. Re:nonsense by Bongo · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I never quite understood what was going on in episodes of Nurse Jackie, being a UK viewer. And yeah, our 100 billion GBP NHS is pretty much the only thing that matters. That's the price of 2 coffees a day per person, by a simple estimate.

    42. Re:nonsense by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Well, if the government handling it is out of the question, I guess we're left with vigilante actions and hired private "enforcers". That's a much better solution, right?

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    43. Re: nonsense by bobbied · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Single payer would bring this under taxpayer control.

      The hell it would. Single payer would put it under the control of a HUGE bureaucracy. Bureaucracies, as they get bigger, NEVER lead to more transparency or control by taxpayers. In fact, they lead to exactly the opposite, less visibility into what's actually going on, less control because they are hard to change.

      What brings this under control is putting the customer who received the medical services in charge of paying the bills. If the customer doesn't have skin in the game, they won't care and if somebody else is paying the bills, I'm unlikely to care, Single payer only puts some low level government worker in charge of this, and they REALLY don't care. It's not their money, it's not their medical bill they won't care a bit.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    44. Re:nonsense by SacredNaCl · · Score: 1

      As to yearly physicals with labs -- the only times I see them here are for certain occupations where you need to be alert to not kill others (truck drivers, crane operators..etc), or when a company wishes to control you actions off of the clock (E.g. Mercy Health System that now tests its people for a variety of things that have nothing to do with job performance and everything to do with lifestyle).

      --
      Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
    45. Re:nonsense by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      People always say that, yet I have extended family in Canada who aren't happy with health care there.

      I'm expecting exactly what I said. Single payer means if that single payer screws it up, you don't have an alternative to jump ship. Sometimes the government does a good job at things. Sometimes they don't. I'm just choosing not to indulge in the naivete that some wish to and believe that giving a job to government automatically means it'll be done well.

      Really, if single payer is so wonderful, just let people opt in to Medicare for $amount. There's no need to conscript every living person in the US to go with you if they don't want to.

    46. Re:nonsense by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Yeah I can't wait to come to America, work two jobs with disjointed hours and far away from each other, earn $20k a year and spend $10k a year to get some basic coverage and still receive these kind of bills. Yea, great deal.

    47. Re:nonsense by SecurityGuy · · Score: 2

      No, they're simply not linked. That other people need stuff is a fact. I'm not averse at all to society helping out people with genuine need. My personal viewpoint is that my place in the world is just a moment in time. I as well as my family and friends could be in very different circumstances in the future. For that matter, some of my family are really not well off anyway. I just disagree with the notion that because a subset of people can't provide something for themselves, we should have the government provide it for everybody. There's another option, that being provide it for just the people who can't provide it for themselves who actually want it.

      Homeless people need somewhere to live, but that doesn't mean the government should start building houses and assign everyone one. Some people don't have food, but I don't want a government ratio crate on my doorstep every week. I want the right to pick my own provider, and the right to fire them when they do a bad job.

    48. Re:nonsense by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Open market medicine reduces cost for everyone who pays medical bills, including governments and charities. It does not have to mean that only those who can afford full service get care.

      For those of you unfamiliar with the American system, we have a requirement that hospital emergency centers provide free care to everyone who presents and can't afford the standard prices - which are in any case secret! This is, as you might expect, horrendously inefficient. If you go to an ER with a broken wrist, you first have fill out insurance forms for the company which will negotiate the secret prices on your behalf down to a treatment that can be afforded by your policy. Then you may have to sit and wait for treatment in line behind indigent kids with the flu.

      Having an increased open market in medicine would start with making the secret prices public, but hospitals adamantly refuse to do this, even in places like Arizona. They will cling to their assumed Guild of the Silversmiths set of privileges until the day Stalin comes to execute them.

    49. Re: nonsense by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Really? We in countries with single payer are clamouring for a system more like America's? That's fresh. America's healthcare system is a boogieman concept here, the sort of thing that one scares voters with - "my opponent's policies will make out healthcare system end up like America's!" Even conservative Americaphiles are usually scared of it.

      --
      Sigur RÃs: I didn't know that Heaven had a rock band.
    50. Re:nonsense by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is one of the biggest bullshit issues with the system. Why is a simple prescription $550 "retail" but the negotiated insurance rate is 1/5 of that? It's like they are trying to screw over people who have to pay out of pocket.

      Real-world example: When my wife, Sue, was diagnosed with a Glioblastoma multiforme (brain tumor) in Nov 2005 (she died 7 weeks later) the list price of a 1-month supply of her chemotherapy medication Temodar was $11,000. The co-pay on my BC/BS plan would have been $1,100 (10%). The co-pay on her Optima plan was $40.

      Pro-tip: It's never a good thing when the pharmacist says, "I hope you have insurance."

      Remember Sue...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    51. Re:nonsense by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Americans really do seem to see themselves as "temporarily embarrassed millionaires". Everybody wants to defend their right to access things for money, even if practically nobody actually has that money, because they will some day soon. They're willing to do anything to preserve their rights once they get rich, including things that will actually cost them a lot of money right now.

      I honestly don't know if a single payer plan would be best for America. But the majority of the arguments I hear against it are laughable. The country got to be rich and powerful by innovation and thought, but it seems simultaneously dominated by superstitious thinking.

    52. Re:nonsense by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      You're describing one system, not all systems that use single-payer. I can't remember if it was Germany or a Nordic nation that was profiled, but for them you just showed up for GP visits.

      Saying, in effect, that some countries do it right and some don't really makes my point. If you implement this in a nation of 300,000,000 people where moving to another country is kind of a very big deal, you're hosed if your country doesn't do it right.

      Now consider that I live in a country that periodically shuts its government down because they can't even pass a budget.

    53. Re:nonsense by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Well no, a thyme infusion with honey will do it, using a tea ball (or alternatively, just the thyme if you don't have honey or just honey if you don't have the thyme)
      I had to look up what cough drops are, it seems to be candy. Well that's charming I guess and I'm harping on a technicality, but it's more expensive and I don't eat candy.

    54. Re:nonsense by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Sure. That's exactly what we need: less transparency and less patient responsibility. That's just the "perfect" response to an OP that is complaining about the utter lack of accountability or auditability here.

      Plus you get the added bonus of no alternative options and no recourse for incompetence and delay.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    55. Re:nonsense by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      As opposed to:

      1. Sniffles
      2. Folllowed by Sore Throat
      3. Hacking cough, more sniffles, Full on post-nasal drip. This is the conversion from step throat to a sinus infection.
      4. Gradual decline into pneumonia.
      5. Finally resolving into a persistent asthma attack.
      6. Now I can go to the doctor and refresh my asthma med.

      At least, that;s how it works for me. Trading 2 weeks of misery and risking actual hospitalization to avoid the initial office visit to treat the strep.

      But you're right, it is wasteful to go in too early, and I've only been hospitalized once, and that wasn't really necessary, I just didn't have anyone available to watch me lest I get seriously ill and die in bed.

      Carry on.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    56. Re:nonsense by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      Americans really do seem to see themselves as "temporarily embarrassed millionaires".

      There's a lot of truth in that, tbh.

      The country that got to be rich and powerful by innovation and thought is all for more of that in the medical space. I switched insurance plans last year. Give me a better option and I'll switch again. All I'm saying is don't take away the thing I chose because I like it, then give me something else and tell me it doesn't matter if I like it because it's the only game in town. That's not innovation.

    57. Re:nonsense by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Japan and Germany are specially well suited to welfare programs in general because of their culture. They're not going to abuse it or run amok like Italy or Greece. You can't just rip a social system out of it's cultural context and expect it to just magically work.

      What I hear from Canadian patients inspires no envy what so ever.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    58. Re:nonsense by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      and due to Obama's handing tens of billions of dollars of our money to the insurance companies

      Technically, you mean the House and Senate handing that over, as they create the laws in this country.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    59. Re:nonsense by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      If I go to my doctor's office without an appointment I get a blank stare and 'if it's that bad, go to the urgent care or ER'.

      they actually work of of appointments, even if you made it 15 minutes ago. and if you show up, the appointment you get there and then will not be as soon as you were hoping.

      Yes, I need a new doctor.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    60. Re:nonsense by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      I can't remember if it was Germany or a Nordic nation ...

      Germany does not have single payer healthcare. They have a multi-payer system where the costs are shared by government, employer, and individual.

      ... but for them you just showed up for GP visits.

      I once got sick on a business trip in Germany. There was a nurse screening patients. The nurse could see that I had a standard bug that was going around, and gave me some pills. I never saw a doctor. This actually seems like a good system, and using nurses to handle the obvious 90%, while doctors focus on the 10%, certainly holds down costs. But I don't think you can just "show up" and see a GP. At least that wasn't how it worked for me.

      No system is perfect. Our system is so far from perfect that there are very few changes that could really make it a lot worse.

      Agreed. But so far our "reforms" have focused on coverage rather than cost. If we fix the costs, then fixing the coverage will be far easier. Germany's system seemed quite good. I have also used Canada's system, and that was good too.

    61. Re: nonsense by Rolgar · · Score: 1

      Let's see, things were a mix of great, OK and awful when completely decentralized. Now, we have moved toward centralization, and we've gone toward mostly awful with a few bright spots left (not counting private schools since they are mostly fine and decentralized).

      So where do I think it went wrong? The centralization of the money in the hands of the state and federal government, who have a strong incentive to cooperate with the union leaders who are probably friends of theirs since the unions help (re)elect those who promise to funnel more money their way.

      Do you know what, I'd hate to be a great teacher and stuck getting paid on a pay scale based on seniority with the lazy bum down the hall who doesn't do a good job. I'd much rather have a system that gives me the freedom to compete to be a superior teach who makes a superior wage, even if it results in inequality. Do you know why? Because prices send information to people who want jobs, or students who are interested in becoming teachers. If science teaching jobs make $70,000 instead of $50,000 for an English teacher, that's a good thing. Do you know why? Because young scientifically minded students will see that, and say "I can make $70,000 to teach science? Sign me up."

      I also think that the unions are a problem because all of the money being spent on education, how much is going to retirement benefits, with teachers claiming to be underpaid, but if you include their retirement, they may be making significantly above market value. How much is going to retired teachers who are outliving the administration's math on how much they needed to set aside to pay the teachers more in retirement than they made when they were in the classroom?

    62. Re:nonsense by mjm1231 · · Score: 1

      Um, that's not even accurate. Our medical care is second to none in quality and capability.

      By what measure? We probably rank first in cost per patient and expensive testing machines per patient. But I don't know of any measure of outcomes where the US ranks first (for most procedures, not even in the top 10-20).

      --
      Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
    63. Re:nonsense by Zeek40 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Your French cousins must be idiots. According to the World Health Organization, France has one of the best healthcare systems in the world. On top of that, your cousins already have access to American Health Care. All they have to do is come over here and bring a ton of cash. Unless they're independently wealthy, France and never speak ill of their healthcare system again after they saw the bill from an American hospital.

    64. Re:nonsense by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      It also has to be noted that the American poor do actually have a government option to fall back on. It's horrible. That's why many clued in Americans don't want that imposed upon them.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    65. Re:nonsense by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      If malpractice lawsuits are less than 1% of the cost of healthcare, then how come my Doctor friend has to pay over $150,000 a year for malpractice insurance? That is over half of his income. Of course, he is an Obgyn, and apparently they have he highest rates of any practice. In Florida, the cost of malpractice insurance is over $200k.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    66. Re:nonsense by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Informative

      What I hear from Canadian patients inspires no envy what so ever.

      You should update what you hear. Canada's health care system is ranked 7 spots higher than that of the United States, even before the ACA was implemented.

      Even Forbes magazine, no socialist propaganda sheet, ranks Canada's health care system higher. And Bloomberg ranks it twenty-three spots higher in terms of efficiency.

      http://thepatientfactor.com/ca...

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/da...

      http://www.bloomberg.com/visua...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    67. Re:nonsense by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Sure, pick the places that sort of work okay.

      You don't think the US has the know-how to do something better than Germany or New Zealand or Israel or Singapore?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    68. Re:nonsense by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      I have occasionally seen claims such as these contradict my own personal first hand experiences, so I am not sure I would take them on faith. Numbers can be twisted to suit any agenda and make even the most absurd claims seem legitimate.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    69. Re:nonsense by rfengr · · Score: 1

      All anesthesiologists work in pairs; as a double check. If you get a bill for one, expect another.

    70. Re: nonsense by Zeek40 · · Score: 1

      Not really. Please provide me a source that has manipulated the numbers in a way that presents the price of American healthcare in a positive light.

    71. Re:nonsense by rhazz · · Score: 2

      Canadian healthcare isn't perfect, nor will it ever be, but oh my god I cannot fathom what it must be like to need basic medical attention and have to decide if you can afford it. There may be a perfect solution, but if you can't figure out what that is then you start with something that is better than what you have (which is almost anything).

    72. Re:nonsense by Xrikcus · · Score: 1

      That is true, but maybe one reason for that is that only people the government doesn't care about, democratically speaking, suffer from it. The NHS in the UK affects almost all voters, even most middle class people use it for most things, and so there is more incentive to keep a reasonable standard of service. It also means the service for the very poor is integrated with the service for everyone else, so you don't end up in the same situation of a doctor restricting NHS patients in favour of private ones to anything like the same degree you see with medicaid.

      Dental care is a bit of an exception, but in part that is because while dental bills get high they don't generally reach bankruptcy levels in the way hospital bills do. A lot of UK dentist have dropped support for NHS dental treatment for adults. Not for children, though, which is probably why the UK rates so well on dental health.

    73. Re:nonsense by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am not impressed by the media narrative.

      You will have to do better than that.

      That's why I specifically picked media outlets from the "free market" Right. So how about the Wold Health Organization?

      How about the Kaiser Foundation? They know a little about health care.

      Have you ever wondered why you don't see people from Denmark or Germany or Sweden or Singapore flying over to the US for the superior health care? In fact, you know those stories about all the tens of thousands of Canadians running to the US for health care? It turned out to not be true.

      For that matter, have you ever wondered why you don't see those populations fighting to flee their Socialist hellholes and coming to the US as political refugees?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    74. Re:nonsense by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Are you seriously pretending that we have a free market in today's health care system?

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    75. Re:nonsense by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Well, there are some doctors who are "appointment only" but there are usually enough to chose from (although it might be more difficult in very small towns and villages). Many public health insurance companies have a service where they themselves can search for a doctor and make an appointment on request. Doctors usually also give private insured patients a higher priority (they pay better) . Some doctors only take private insured patients (either because they pay better - this is mostly relevant for specialists, less so for GPs - or because they have lost their public health service accreditation). Urgent care is normally meant for serious problems or for patients that arrive outside the usual working hours. The public health service accreditation also means that the doctor is not allowed to turn a patient down if he can somehow find time for the patient.

      All in all it is not a perfect system, it has its fair share of problems, but it usually works.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    76. Re:nonsense by dunkelfalke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The country that got to be rich and powerful by innovation and thought

      More like by having a large land mass and being mostly spared from WW1 and WW2.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    77. Re:nonsense by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      I imagine it depends on the doctor. It's pretty much a given that when I go for a Physical I'm going to have bloodtests done for some reason. The Doctor says he likes to do it, so he does. I imagine it probably helped him get in front of some illness once for a patient, and it stuck with him as a good idea. I don't love it as it's a PITA, and I have to make another appointment to get it done, but it's more of a PITA to try and find another doctor.

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    78. Re:nonsense by nbauman · · Score: 2

      Um, that's not even accurate. Our medical care is second to none in quality and capability.

      You're complaining about the payment process. It's useful to go back and remember exactly what the problem is we are trying to solve, or we get solutions that don't fix anything.

      I don't know where you got that from. There was an article in The Lancet comparing cancer outcomes in 4 English-speaking countries -- US, UK, Canada and Australia.

      They said that the first thing to do in comparing international cancer statistics is to separate the black and white population in the US. The white US population has outcomes comparable to the rest of the world. The black population has outcomes that are much worse.

    79. Re:nonsense by schlachter · · Score: 1

      perhaps in profit? not in outcomes. not in availability.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    80. Re:nonsense by schlachter · · Score: 1

      but with dental care!

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    81. Re:nonsense by schlachter · · Score: 1

      only $275 bc it is a placebo. you get off easy this time.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    82. Re:nonsense by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Perhaps your doctor friend is paying the bill for the entire practice, including nurses and other staff, because he's the owner?

      Or maybe it really is that high for just one person, but there are many other doctors paying much less to bring the average down.

      Like this guy: http://truecostofhealthcare.or...

      He pays about $5000/year it seems.

    83. Re: nonsense by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Ahh, the venerable "skin in the game" argument. Because everyone should be a specialist in health care billing. You should compare the bill of someone who pays cash to someone who has insurance and someone on medicaid. We all know who is getting ripped off less.

      Call your nearest hospital and ask them how much it costs to deliver a baby, tell them you are budgeting. You'll never get a clear number out of them, you might get a ballpark estimate. I'll bet you can't even get a number for a specific procedure.

      Now user your compassion, we'll wait while it spins up, to imagine doing this while your child is bleeding, or you are riding in an ambulance.

    84. Re:nonsense by budgenator · · Score: 1

      That is not how socialized medicine works. You can't just go to the doctor whenever you feel like it. Single payer healthcare reduces costs, and people with SPH are generally happier with their care, but there are tradeoffs. Long waiting lists for many ailments, and reduced patient choice, are among those tradeoffs.

      So they're like the VA where you might get seen before you die or you might not.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    85. Re:nonsense by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      People that are genuinely poor have a public option to fall back on.

      People that are not genuinely poor are merely confronted with services that are as expensive as the consumer products they willingly indulge in without ever considering the implications.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    86. Re:nonsense by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Well since they're corporations all the way up and down, that means fines, per occurrence.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    87. Re: nonsense by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      It's not just this single issue. It's any number of things. The media latches onto a headlline of it's choosing and wont let go of it. Anything that contradicts the "narrative" is suppressed. The entire news media is a farce (and not just game journalism).

      I've seen state ratings that have flatly contradicted my own personal first hand experience.

      Plus the "price" of American healthcare is potentially a very misleading thing as others (and myself) have already indicated.

      The OP was about lack of transparency in billing and quickly got hijacked by eurotrash trying to repeat the same tired media narrative about socialized medicine and American healthcare. This kind of stupidity is how we end up with "reform" legislation that doesn't address the relevant crap.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    88. Re:nonsense by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      What if they give you a single thing, but that thing is actually better than all the options that you have today that you can realistically afford (now and for the foreseeable future)?

    89. Re:nonsense by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Maybe that's an indication that the reimbursement rates for your insurance are so poor that nobody is willing to work for them. If the insurance company is able to provide the Dr. with patients that pay their portion, actually show up for their appointments and on time, follow orders and don't make a hobby out of being an asshole; the Dr. might accept a lower reimbursement..

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    90. Re:nonsense by TWX · · Score: 2

      I suspect that if the facility handled ALL billing (ie, no separate bills from doctors or nurse practitioners or others) that it would help a lot. It would make it a lot harder to be double-billed, and it would probably help prevent every resident looking to make extra dough from popping in to say hello so that they could bill for the time.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    91. Re:nonsense by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess it is preferable that in third world countries they will go ahead and admit you without insurance, but not know how to do anything about it. This is assuming you live in a large city that has a hospital, as most of the rural areas have nothing, or might have a nurse or a midwife, but no medicine or tools.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    92. Re:nonsense by mbone · · Score: 1

      Having used both systems, I would rate the French system as far superior to the American one. I don't regard that as political point, just a statement of fact.

    93. Re:nonsense by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Single payer doesn't necessarily imply single ~provider~ (though, in some countries, it does). I live in Australia, which has a single-payer universal system. But I can choose to go to any doctor I want. Those doctors' clinics are still private practices and the doctors are not government employees or members of any wider 'system'. It's just that when I go to the front counter to pay the bill at the end, the government foots some or all of the bill (depending on what was actually done during the consultation).

      We have private hospitals in addition to the public ones, and you can still choose to get private health insurance if you want it (indeed, the government gives you a tax incentive to do so, since you are less of a burden on the public system if you also have private insurance). But it's not required. The point is though that 'single payer' does not mean "no options". You have just as many options as you did before in terms of ~treatment~ providers ... but you now no longer have to worry about choosing ~insurance~ as well (though, you still can if you really want).

    94. Re: nonsense by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Darn. I didn't factor for race.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    95. Re:nonsense by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Uh, living in a country with single payer universal healthcare Australia ... that's exactly how it works. If I want to go to the doctor right now, I can pick any doctor whatsoever and just ... go there. (Obviously in reality I'd call and make an appointment first to make sure they have time to fit me in, but then, you do that in America too).

      What ever gave you the idea that you can't go to the doctor whenever you feel like it? That'd be a pretty awful system - indeed part of the reason why universal health care has better health outcomes in the first place is BECAUSE there's no cost barriers to going to the doctor. You can go when you feel you need it and not put something off because of cost. Prevention/early detection is better than cure after all.

      Now if you're talking about hospital treatment, then yes, on occasion you may need to wait. Same as if you showed up at emergency ... you get triaged. Waiting a month or two to get treated for something that isn't urgent and won't affect the final outcome is fine. But if you need treatment or surgery ASAP for something serious - you'll get it.

    96. Re:nonsense by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      How can a single payer (the government) 'screw up' that badly though? All they are is the PAYER, not the entity providing medical treatment. All they do is pay the bill. The worst screw up they could manage is ... not paying. In which case it's their problem, not yours.

      Writing from the perspective of someone living in a single payer healthcare country here (Australia), where the government pays the bill (or most of it at least). Doctors clinics themselves are still private businesses - I can pick any doctor I want and switch at will. "Single payer" means precisely that: single ~payer~ (i.e. the government pays the doctor, or reimburses me for what I've already paid to them). The Canadian system is different. It is indeed single payer but the problems your extended family are describing aren't related to that aspect of the system.

      PS. I've lived in Canada, the UK, Australia and the US. The former three are all 'single payer universal' systems but all are different in terms of the actual provision of treatment side of things.

    97. Re: nonsense by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I'm fully aware that medical services sometimes cannot be known in advance, especially in emergencies. However, the BULK of medical costs ARE foreseeable and you CAN control the point of service based on cost as an individual. I can choose to hit up the Emergency room Sunday afternoon for my runny nose and headache and they WILL treat me, but I can also wait for Monday, call my primary care physician and go see him for a LOT less. If it's not an emergency, there needs to be an incentive to not head to the ER and cost is a great incentive.

      What I'm suggesting is that we simply publish costs in advance for the various services and provide "good faith" estimates for things like delivering a baby or that diagnostic outpatient test your doctor wants you to have. We require auto mechanics and contractors to provide estimates then barring any unusual unforeseen circumstances we hold them to that. This is no different. Something unforeseen pops up? Costs can change, estimates can be wrong. But that MRI of you knee should cost what they tell you.

      Because what we have NOW, where as a consumer I don't have any incentive to curb my consumption because I don't directly pay the provider in the first place, isn't working. We need to return to the time where I PAY for the services I USE. I may have an insurance carrier that pays part of my costs, but they should pay ME and then I should pay the provider. The insurance carrier should act as my advocate with the provider like they do now, but I should be the one actually cutting the checks for the services I use.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    98. Re:nonsense by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Not all universal healthcare systems are equal. Something like Germany or Australia's (which still optionally has private insurers and private medical providers) would probably work better in the US than the Canadian system or UK NHS-style systems.

    99. Re: nonsense by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Darn. I didn't factor for race.

      And economic status. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB...

      I admit it, America is a great place if you have a family income of at least $100,000 a year (and don't care about the people who are worse off).

    100. Re:nonsense by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess it is preferable that in third world countries they will go ahead and admit you without insurance, but not know how to do anything about it. This is assuming you live in a large city that has a hospital, as most of the rural areas have nothing, or might have a nurse or a midwife, but no medicine or tools.

      You might be worse off in parts of Africa, but a typical resident of the South Bronx could get better health care in Cuba.

    101. Re:nonsense by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      Then that would be interesting, IF they could guarantee that it wouldn't ever be worse. If you've ever paid attention to my (US) government, you'd know that's not the case. Case in point, I think the ACA is, on balance, a good thing, but there's a very vocal minority who would repeal it in a heartbeat if they could.

      It's the IF that's the problem, though. I don't live with a government that has a track record of doing things well all the time. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.

    102. Re:nonsense by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      Of course you have people who are not happy with their healthcare... They actually used it.
      I can promise that any problems they have are NOTHING compared to the USA.

      No, you can't, actually. The US is where they went when they weren't satisfied with Canadian care.

      I'm really sorry for what you experienced. That must have been a nightmare. It sounds like outright fraud...but that's not a systemic problem with US healthcare. One of mine spent a month and a half in the hospital, a reasonable portion of that in the NICU. Aside from one medical record error which was the fault of a transcriptionist, the care and payment was flawless. To this day I don't know what all that cost, but I wasn't making much at the time, and whatever it cost me wasn't enough to remember.

    103. Re:nonsense by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      Oh, easily. People who don't get paid tend not to provide service. If you think you're going to go to the hospital and get whatever is medically necessary and now and again the hospital gets stiffed, I think you're wrong. There will be some sort of coordination where the hospital will find out or know in advance what they'll get paid for, so that single payer becomes the de facto controller of your care.

      It's not much different than insurance now. The typical policy has things it just won't pay for, limits on some things, things which require preapproval (and sometimes they say no). You can switch doctors all day long and that won't change what your insurance policy pays for. If you want that, you need to switch insurance policies or companies...unless you can't, because there is only one.

    104. Re: nonsense by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      And those with a family income of at least $100,000 a year and do care about those worse off?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    105. Re: nonsense by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      I have Medicaid in Indiana and it's not that bad. I had a $3 co-pay per medicine and now they are telling me they are doing away with it. At one point they paid for eye exams every two years and glasses every two years then they changed the glasses to every five years, but they may change it again. They don't pay for regular teeth cleaning, but they pay for other dental work. I don't know the full scope of the changes.

    106. Re:nonsense by fatwilbur · · Score: 1

      Another Canadian here. Both of my parents were diagnosed with different forms of cancer in the last decade. Both received state of the art care, and the timeframe is what I would describe as "immediate". One had two separate stem cell transplants and lengthy hospital stays.

      I dunno, from what I've seen here - you get sick, go to a doctor and everyone involved just focuses on your health and making you better. Hospitals and health care people simply tend to try and efficiently help people when you take money out of the conversation. Anyone who thinks both doctor and patient should be concerned about paying bills at that point is ludicrous, and frankly to me, simply a sign of someone who's never personally witnessed it done the better way.

    107. Re: nonsense by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Single payer would bring this under taxpayer control.

      The hell it would. Single payer would put it under the control of a HUGE bureaucracy. Bureaucracies, as they get bigger, NEVER lead to more transparency or control by taxpayers. In fact, they lead to exactly the opposite, less visibility into what's actually going on, less control because they are hard to change.

      Reality disagrees with your assertion.

      Just about every country that has a public health system run by the government spends less on health care than the United States does. Hell, we spend less on health care than the United States Government alone spends on health care per person, not even thinking about counting the amount of private monies spent.

      If you don't think an American can handle it, just outsource it to Australia, Canada, the UK or anywhere else that spends less on health care than you do. We've literally got decades of experience with reasonable cost health care provision.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    108. Re:nonsense by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Single Payer doesn't solve the problem.

      You want to fix the problem, make it "single price", where insurance pays what cash pays. Right now, "negotiated pricing" is fraudulent pricing.

      Actually, single payer fixes that as well because it essentially means you have one customer. Ergo, the customer has a lot of power to set terms. Even in countries with both public and private health care systems, the public system sets the ceiling for prices and a minimum floor for service, so if a private institution wants to charge more, they need to provide greater service and service that is worth the price being asked of it. Basically it eliminates the "you pay what we say because you're too sick or powerless to negotiate" that causes that kind of fraudulent pricing.

      So every patient receives the buying power of an entire country. Any funny business and it will be investigated.

      Single payer also cuts down on hospital administration and allows health care workers to get on with their job of caring for patients.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    109. Re:nonsense by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I wholeheartedly agree that US government is very inefficient. I'm an immigrant in US, and before that I was one in Canada, and dealing with government services in two countries is night and day. Just to give a simple example: in Canada, I was issued a SIN (the local equivalent of SSN) on my second day of arriving to the country, and it was all done in about 2 hours in the local government office. In US, it took almost a month from request to issue, and two trips to the local SSA. And when I asked why, they told me that they needed to send a request to USCIS to confirm my visa validity etc, and that takes over a week - seriously? They actually push papers around, instead of having automated query handling directly against the database? This is a recurring theme, by the way... US seems to have a lot of government organizations, which are very much disjoint in how they operate, and whenever anything needs to cross the boundary between the two, there are copious amounts of red tape (and, I would imagine, the associated expenses).

      But I think a big problem with the government in US is that people are kinda expecting it to fail to begin with, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Even worse is the "starve the beast" crowd who are basically saying that because it is likely to fail, not only we should let it, but we should actively encourage that.

      I think it would be more productive to operate from the assumption that government should be doing certain things, and that it should be doing them well (seeing how other governments are perfectly capable of doing so) - and if it doesn't, then it's the problem with this particular government rather than the general idea of having it do those things, and the fix should therefore be on the government side.

    110. Re: nonsense by nbauman · · Score: 1

      And those with a family income of at least $100,000 a year and do care about those worse off?

      For anyone who cares about the worse off, America is not a comfortable place.

    111. Re:nonsense by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      It would work in many places, but not in the US. The attitude of the people there which is something like "Why should I pay for others?" would make them question people who have no hospital membership for years, so they get zero preventative care. Or make unhealthy life choices, so get serious diseases.

      Once disease acquired, these people take up hospital membership consuming a huge amount of hospital resources while paying very little. People in the US are extremely intolerant of this.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    112. Re: nonsense by kenh · · Score: 1

      There is a thriving market for private care in England, despite the unquestioned joy that is the NHS - I wonder why that is? Why would someone in a country with one of the best, most-effective, and cheapest (it's FREE!) healthcare in the world still have a thriving private healthcare coverage market? Perhaps the NHS isn't 'all that', perhaps there are some gaps in the service?

      --
      Ken
    113. Re: nonsense by kenh · · Score: 1

      "And wait patients must. A hospital survey of five countries (United States, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom and Australia), conducted by Robert Blendon and colleagues in Health Affairs found that âoewaits of six months or more for elective surgeries were reported to occur âvery oftenâ(TM) or âoftenâ(TM) by 26â"57 percent of executives in the four non-U.S. countries; only 1 percent of U.S. hospitals reported this. Half of all Canadian hospitals reported an average waiting time of over six months for a 65-year-old male requiring a routine hip replacement; no American hospital administrators reported waits this long."

      You're right, no one in Canada has any reason to ever seek treatment any faster than it can be provided by their Canadian healthcare system. /sarcasm

      --
      Ken
    114. Re: nonsense by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Why didn't you give us a link to that quote? Just curious.

      And maybe the waiting periods for those hip replacements in Canada (for some reason, these articles always cite hip replacements) should be weighed against the people in the US who are simply denied hip replacement surgery by their insurance companies or cannot afford the out-of-pocket.

      You see, waiting periods can be very misleading. You have to compare outcomes.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    115. Re: nonsense by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Your stats are pretty much junk. OF COURSE we spend more, we have more people than any other country in the modern world, including Australia, Canada and the UK and our health care system is among the best (if not the best) in the world.

      Personally, I don't see what all the hubbub was about with healthcare in the first place. Did we have uninsured? Yes. Where they getting necessary treatment? Yes. They just waked into the emergency room and got treatment, regardless of their ability to pay or who they where...

      Where there *some* issues? Yes, but no system is perfect, including the UK, Australia's and Canada's systems where cost controls necessitate limits on what medical care can be given on the public dime, or bankruptcy comes quickly.

      But we digress... Until you put people back in charge of paying their medical bills, the only thing you can do to control cost is to put price controls in place and ration services though some kind of rules. That's all you got, and that just means that doctors get less, pharmaceutical companies get less and the person receiving the care gets less.

      I say that we let the free market fix this by putting people back into a position of responsibility for the costs of their healthcare. There are many ways to do this, but it starts with consumers having to pay their own bills directly (Not that insurance doesn't reimburse but that YOU write the check to the provider) and if you incur less cost for your care, it benefits you.

      IF you do the above, I can guarantee that medical bills will quickly become understandable by the average consumer because the person who's cutting the checks for the bills will demand it.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    116. Re: nonsense by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You do realize that no single payer system has medical costs per capita anywhere near what the US has, don't you? The US pays an incredible amount of money for medical care, and has mediocre public health stats for a first world country.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    117. Re: nonsense by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Your first statement is true, we do spend more per person. Your second statement is false, unless you are cherry picking what you mean by "public health".

      Also, I'd like to point out that the rest of the world benefits from the US spending on healthcare. Want a new drug for x or y, you can bet it was funded by US consumers, so why those outside this country like to draw comparisons here is beyond me. You want to go back to the speed of medical advancement we saw in the dark ages? No thanks..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    118. Re: nonsense by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

      My ex was from Canada, the waits are not a myth. It took 10 months to get an appointment for an gastroscopy and 8 months after that to have surgery on her esophagus. It took 3 different doctors and several months just to get the referral required for a gastroscopy because the doctors didn't give a damn and told her to 'deal with it.' She told me she had a far better experience here even paying full price at minute clinics, and that a lot of Canadians flock to US border states to get care because of the insane wait times

    119. Re: nonsense by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      For anyone who cares about those less well off, the World is not a comfortable place. America is a good place to be poor, compared to most of the world.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    120. Re: nonsense by nbauman · · Score: 1

      For anyone who cares about those less well off, the World is not a comfortable place. America is a good place to be poor, compared to most of the world.

      Compared to Africa, America is a good place to be poor.

      Compared to the rest of the developed world, like Germany, France, and certainly Scandinavia, America is not a good place to be poor.

      In America, people with cancer can be kicked out of a hospital and left to die because they can't pay the bill. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB... That doesn't happen in France or other developed countries.

    121. Re:nonsense by Copid · · Score: 1

      But wait! People with lots of money getting non-critical surgery have to wait a long time for it! Intolerable!

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    122. Re: nonsense by Copid · · Score: 1

      Your stats are pretty much junk. OF COURSE we spend more, we have more people than any other country in the modern world, including Australia, Canada and the UK and our health care system is among the best (if not the best) in the world.

      You do realize that as a percentage of GDP, we still spend massively more than any of those other countries, right? It has nothing to do with population.

      Personally, I don't see what all the hubbub was about with healthcare in the first place. Did we have uninsured? Yes. Where they getting necessary treatment? Yes. They just waked into the emergency room and got treatment, regardless of their ability to pay or who they where...

      Emergency rooms are awesome for broken limbs and gunshot wounds, but they're not that great for treating chronic illness. They're there to stabilize you when a crisis hits, not do all of the other stuff a real health care system does. And of course there's the other issue: Those emergency room visits aren't free. Somebody pays for them. So where does that money come from?

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    123. Re:nonsense by Copid · · Score: 1

      The other possibility is that if they stay in network they only get paid the negotiated rate, but if they do a little out of network freelancing, they can bill massive amounts and often end up wtih more cash in the pockets, especially when the out-of-network insurer just ponies up the cash. The term is drive-by doctoring.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    124. Re: nonsense by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      And the world is, outside of Africa, developed?

      It's a big world. Lots of people. If you have any money in your possession, you're rich compared to the rest of the world. If you will sleep indoors tonight, you are very well off indeed. If you already have food for your first meal tomorrow, you are even better off.

      And remember, lots of those miserable have-nots think they are ok.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    125. Re:nonsense by strikethree · · Score: 1

      As of 2009 or so, medical bills are not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

      On a sidenote, why is there word such as dischargeable or sidenote? Spellcheck is odd.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    126. Re: nonsense by nbauman · · Score: 1

      The issue is whether the American health care system is second to none, as you said.

      You're wrong. In other systems, the quality of care is as good (or better), and access is better. A system that only treats people who can afford to pay is second to a system that treats all people.

      The medical journals regularly compare different systems. I've read them, and talked to experts on international comparisons. There are many systems that are better than the American health care system, even in quality.

      The outcomes in an academic hospital in Sweden or Canada is as good as (or better than) the outcomes in any similar American hospital (and far better than a typical American community hospital). Patients with cancer survive just as well at the University of Gottingen hospital as they do at Memorial Sloan-Kettering. In some ways, the care at Gottingen is better, because the Swedes have medical databases for their entire population to monitor how effective different treatments are, so they can stop using ineffective or dangerous drugs. We don't have information like that. We're second to Scandinavia in managing patient information.

      The access in every other country at our income level is better than ours. Since low-income Americans can't even get essential health care that would save their lives, our system is second to those systems where everyone can get essential care.

      You can find health care systems that are worse than ours in Russia, China, India, Greece, or third-world countries. But if you include access and population-level criteria like infant mortality, the US is second to most (or all) industrial countries with similar income.

    127. Re:nonsense by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      being mostly spared from WW1 and WW2.

      This is the big thing that a lot of people don't understand. Not only did we "win" WW2, ours was the only country involved that didn't suffer huge infrastructure or human losses and already had a large manufacturing industry. Once WW2 was over, most of the "first world" at the time needed to rebuild and America was able and ready to provide tools, materials, engineers, etc. We also lent a lot of money and supplied to our allies that had to be paid back over time, as well as reparations from the losing countries.

      If other countries didn't have the crap bombed out of them, but everything else came out the same, we likely would have had a small boon but nothing like the surge in quality of life we did see.

    128. Re: nonsense by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      Insurance companies are not huge bureaucracies? Color me surprised.

  3. Doesn't seem lawful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Surely billing someone without making it clear what the charges are for can't be legal. I wonder what would happen if it went to court, would they not have to explain the charges to th judge?

    1. Re: Doesn't seem lawful by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not collections.

      Challenge it. I MAKE THEM explain every line item, especially if I think it's bullshit.

      I've made them write off bills because they refused to explain charges.

    2. Re: Doesn't seem lawful by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      I second this, and add - demand a fully itemized bill before you pay a dime. That's how I found out the bastards were trying to charge me full retail price for every implement present in the OR during my operation.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  4. "the software industry" lol wut by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >> "The software industry has pretty much decided what information patients should receive, and to my knowledge, they have not had any stakeholder input..."

    Um...yeah. I'm sure it was a bunch of developers who decided one night to pound a bunch of Mountain Dew and then set up a billing system for a bunch of multi-billion dollar hospital groups that contained hundreds of thousands of items that magically skirt around insurance limits and pre-negotiated fees, then tack on expensive and low-value items, and follow it all up by adding on mysterious charges from other providers months after the original procedures happened.

    1. Re:"the software industry" lol wut by UdoKeir · · Score: 1

      "to my knowledge", i.e., "I'm making this up".

    2. Re:"the software industry" lol wut by havana9 · · Score: 1

      And anyway, if were the programmet to tecide the data to be shown, I expected a bunch of hex number, or some XML, if the programmers were agile hipsters, some JSON.

    3. Re:"the software industry" lol wut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Um no... The stakeholders are the managers for the healthcare providers who determined what the programmers put on the reports.

      And an easy tip for figuring out health care costs in the U.S. - take you bill and divide by at least 2 to get the actual amount. Medicare won't pay more than 50% of a bill, and private insurance have set payments to in-network providers. You doctor's office bills $120 for a visit knowing they'll only get paid $20, so it's up to the patient to make up so of the difference.

    4. Re:"the software industry" lol wut by DrHyde · · Score: 1

      "The software industry" != "developers".

    5. Re:"the software industry" lol wut by nbauman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      >> "The software industry has pretty much decided what information patients should receive, and to my knowledge, they have not had any stakeholder input..."

      Um...yeah. I'm sure it was a bunch of developers who decided one night to pound a bunch of Mountain Dew and then set up a billing system for a bunch of multi-billion dollar hospital groups that contained hundreds of thousands of items that magically skirt around insurance limits and pre-negotiated fees, then tack on expensive and low-value items, and follow it all up by adding on mysterious charges from other providers months after the original procedures happened.

      Actually I used to write about medical software for the medical magazines, when they were first installing it. It was indeed pretty haphazard. They started out as billing systems, for which it worked pretty well, and tacked on other modules, like prescription drug ordering, for which it was not all that successful.

      One of the major medical office systems was written by a chiropractor, who designed it after a general accounting program that was used for hardware stores or restaurants and modified for each customer. It worked great for everything that a medical office had in common with hardware stores, but not for the unique stuff that doctors had to do, like saving medical records and reminding patients to come in for followups.

      The main thing that medical software did well was meet the billing needs of the insurance companies. They didn't meet the needs of doctors too well. If the doctor didn't repeat every fucking thing he did into a record field, the insurance company wouldn't pay for it. They wound up with enormous billing records, with field after field of data that the insurance companies decided it would be "nice to have," but were useless for doctors (is this prescription a pill or a capsule?). Even today, doctors complain that they have to spend an additional hour a day filling in EMR forms.

      What they don't have, and still don't have, is a short narrative that would take 4 handwritten lines in an old medical record, explaining concisely what the fucking problem is with this patient and what the doctor thinks is the best way to manage it. Instead they wind up with a 100-page record that literally no one ever reads, most of which is for the irrational requirements of the insurance company, most of which is transmitted unread to the insurance company's computer.

      So the insurance companies are basically spamming the doctor's medical records with billing trivia.

      I saw a good book on this recently called the Digital Doctor by Robert Wachter http://www.amazon.com/The-Digi... although if you don't want to buy it you can just read his New York Times op-ed http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03...

      The great thing Wachter did was go to Boeing and talk to the engineers who designed jet cockpits about human factors design. The EMRs, which peoples' lives depend on, were designed and pushed on doctors without the basic usability testing that an auto company would use for a cup holder.

    6. Re: "the software industry" lol wut by budgenator · · Score: 1

      If you have ever seen any medical billing software you know that the people "writing the software" are basically just using FileMaker or MS access and slapping something together as quickly as possible.

      It is a specialized type of application and they pay the least possible for it. The software I have seen is always at least 10 years out of date (even the "new" versions) and extremely buggy.

      I'm quite sure that FileMaker and MS access does the maths much better than our dental practice management software, different reports give different sums for the same data, you would think that total production grouped by insurance plan (and yes cash patients are handled as an insurance plan) would be the same as total production grouped by service class as total production grouped by CDT code, but they are all different.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  5. Money quote by halivar · · Score: 1

    "The software industry has pretty much decided what information patients should receive, and to my knowledge, they have not had any stakeholder input."

    Maybe fix this part first.

  6. Available information limmited by law by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 2

    Since you can't legally share a lot of patient information with "unknown third parties", a consequence is that bills are going to be decidedly lacking in specific information. Even if you want to ascribe that to malice, it isn't necessarily the hospital that you should point the finger at first.

    1. Re:Available information limmited by law by thaylin · · Score: 1

      By placing details information on a bill you are not sharing it with unknown third parties, atleast not any that are law abiding, and you cannot prevent all lawbreakers from getting that information.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    2. Re:Available information limmited by law by thaylin · · Score: 1

      Not sure what this has to do with this at all, the wife would not be legally allowed to open the husband's mail, nor would the parents of the teenager.

      None of this has anything to do with putting proper codes on bills that allow the individual to know what the test is for.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    3. Re:Available information limmited by law by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      In this case the patient themselves were denied access to their own info.

      It's not malice, it's greed built into the medical billing system. Same reason hospitals don't publish their fee rates.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:Available information limmited by law by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Not sure what this has to do with this at all, the wife would not be legally allowed to open the husband's mail, nor would the parents of the teenager.

      None of this has anything to do with putting proper codes on bills that allow the individual to know what the test is for.

      The bill is addressed to the person paying the bills. Parents get the bill for their daughters abortion, and it is trivial to look up the icd9 codes and figure out that she got an abortion.
      FWIW, I disagree with the law that says a teenage girl does not have to disclose to her parents that she got an abortion and that they still have to pay for it. That is just so stupid that it is amazing that anyone could have suggested it, let alone gone along with it. If they are all grown up and don't need to share information with their parents, they can go do that in their own house at their own expense.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    5. Re:Available information limmited by law by thaylin · · Score: 1

      If the parent paid for the abortion then they know about the abortion, unless the daughter stole the card, which is a crime.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    6. Re:Available information limmited by law by xanthines-R-yummy · · Score: 1

      Breaking one law doesn't mean you can break another.

    7. Re:Available information limmited by law by thaylin · · Score: 1

      I dont believe that sending an itemized bill to the payee for a medical procedure is breaking the law.

      If I steal your CC and use it for medical procedures should you not get an itemized bill for those procedures, but still have to pay it, just because it was medical?

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    8. Re:Available information limmited by law by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      You shouldn't have to pay it, because the stolen card was used fraudulently.

      If you give me blanket permission to use your card, and I use it for medical expenses, you may not (under HIPAA) have the legal right to ask what those charges are, but you still authorized use of your credit, so you are required to pay.

      In a case like this, an itemized bill is a bit of a muddy subject. A clear bill should be itemized, but the risk of information leaks is pretty high, so using codes is considered a reasonable attempt to stop casual observers from knowing anything about the patient's treatment.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    9. Re:Available information limmited by law by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Since you can't legally share a lot of patient information with "unknown third parties", a consequence is that bills are going to be decidedly lacking in specific information. Even if you want to ascribe that to malice, it isn't necessarily the hospital that you should point the finger at first.

      Under HIPAA, doctors and hospitals can share patient information for operational purposes, which is pretty broadly defined to include certainly the insurance companies, any doctor who's treating the patient, the pharmacy, and a poorly-defined group of hospital personnel and hangers-on.

      But in Elisabeth Rosenthal's example, they claimed that for privacy reasons they couldn't share billing information with the patient herself. In the course of a day's work, a big part of a clerk's work is to just make up bullshit to get rid of people.

  7. Vaginosis/Vaginitis Plus by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I sense this is a hoax, or at least contrived example to raise awareness. It is trivial to look up CPT codes online. The first code listed is for a SureSwab Vaginosis/Vaginitis Plus test (87481).

    It isn't exactly "fun", but it is straightforward to request your actual test results from the facility, and then correlate the results to your bill. You should have results and documentation in your medical record for ancillary department services you were charged for. That is, if you want to audit everything like that to keep healthcare facilities honest. If you have insurance (either government provided, or private), then you can always have them investigate anything you see that is awry. Insurers are always more than happy to find someone to sick their attorneys on.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Vaginosis/Vaginitis Plus by thaylin · · Score: 1

      what are Test codes: 105, 127, 164

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    2. Re:Vaginosis/Vaginitis Plus by msauve · · Score: 4, Funny

      105: Is the patient alive?
      127: Does the patient have insurance?
      164: Do we accept their insurance?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    3. Re:Vaginosis/Vaginitis Plus by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Funny
      No. The codes are:

      105: Destination charge

      127: Additional dealer mark up

      164: Dealer regional promotional advertisement fee

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    4. Re:Vaginosis/Vaginitis Plus by thaylin · · Score: 1

      If the lab put it on their website, I doubt many do.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    5. Re:Vaginosis/Vaginitis Plus by srmalloy · · Score: 2

      The first code listed is for a SureSwab Vaginosis/Vaginitis Plus test (87481).

      More generically, 87484 is a DNA/RNA amplification test for candida, 87491 is a DNA/RNA amplification test for chlamydia, and 87798 is a procedural indicator for doing a DNA/RNA amplification test where they are testing for more than one organism. That SureSwab test may be billed as CPT 87481, but it's not the only test that can be billed under that code.

      Test codes are likely to be specific to the company operating the lab, so unless the lab publishes what their test codes map to, that's going to stay opaque.

    6. Re:Vaginosis/Vaginitis Plus by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 2

      Nearly all labs have an online LTD (Laboratory Test Directory), so it should be trivial to look it up, however without knowing which facility the testing was done at (often not the same as the facility where the samples were taken) it's impossible to say exactly what those test codes are.

      The CPT codes are much more revealing, but it should be noted that many different tests could fall under the same CPT billing code, and it is also possible to bill multiple CPTs for a single test (depending on the utility of that test). It appears as if that's the case because looking those CPT codes up in the 2015 list yields: 87481 = CANDIDA DNA AMP PROBE, 87491 = CHYLMD TRACH DNA AMP PROBE, 87798 = DETECT AGENT NOS DNA AMP. All three of those tests could be performed from a single swab. To me it sounds like the NY Times writer is just being lazy and not doing any research... it also sounds like she likes to party.

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    7. Re:Vaginosis/Vaginitis Plus by xanthines-R-yummy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      IAAP (I am a physician, and a pathologist at that!). In TFA, she notes that the pathology was only marginally more informative by including electron microscopy and immunofluorescent study. I'm not sure what more she's expecting. There's a reason why medical school is 4 years, residency is 3-4 years, and fellowship is another 1-2 years (after 4 years of college for most US citizens). This stuff IS hard, and yes it actually does require a graduate degree. In this specific instance, should the bill explain that it's the standard of care to get EM and IF tests on medical kidney biopsies? Should the bill explain what those tests are? Maybe, but I've never seen a mechanic's bill that explained why part A was used and what that part is normally used for, or how often it's used/replaced. I've never seen any bill that really explained what stuff was for. It's going to be hard for most people to fully understand a medical bill, no matter how clear and un-obfuscated it is.

      For medical billing, people are obviously more interested and vested in what's happening, but a lot of the times, the situation is going to be complicated. I don't know what the solution to that is, other than paying physicians for their time (instead of unnecessary procedures and tests) to explain things more clearly.

    8. Re:Vaginosis/Vaginitis Plus by tlambert · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is trivial, given that there are only a couple of federated diagnostic testing services in her area.

      Looks like a bacterial infection of some kind, although they also checked for Pappilomavirus, two other STDs, and a fungal yeast infection, BVAB2, and strep.

      87481 SureSwab ®, Vaginosis/Vaginitis Plus
      87481 SureSwab ®, Bacterial Vaginosis/Vaginitis

      87491 SureSwab ®, Vaginosis/Vaginitis Plus
      87491 SureSwab ®, CT/NG, T. vaginalis
      87491 Chlamydia/Neisseria gonorrhoeae, T. vaginalis, Qualitative, TMA and HSV 1/2 DNA, Real-Time PCR, Pap Vial
      87491 Chlamydia/N. gonorrhoeae and T. vaginalis RNA, Qualitative, TMA, Pap Vial

      87798 SureSwab ®, Trichomonas vaginalis RNA, Qualitative, TMA
      87798 SureSwab ®, Vaginosis/Vaginitis Plus
      87798 SureSwab ®, CT/NG, T. vaginalis
      87798 Trichomonas vaginalis RNA, Qualitative, TMA, PAP Vial
      87798 Chlamydia/N. gonorrhoeae and T. vaginalis RNA, Qualitative, TMA, Pap Vial
      87798 Chlamydia/Neisseria gonorrhoeae, T. vaginalis, Qualitative, TMA and HSV 1/2 DNA, Real-Time PCR, Pap Vial

      MEDICAL DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORIES, L.L.C.
      105 Chlamydia trachomatis
      127 Group B Streptococcus (GBS)
      164 Bacterial Vaginosis Associated Bacteria 2 (BVAB2)

      These are probably not test codes that she should have published, given their sensitive nature.

      I do agree with her assertion that medical billing is kind of terrible.

      On the other hand, they intentionally make billing and coding as difficult as possible so that the doctors office has to correctly code it to the insurance companies liking before they are obligated to pay. Usually a medical office will try a couple of times, and then give up if they don't hit pay dirt, and just send the bill to the patient, and let them argue with the insurance company long enough to damage their credit for non-payment, or pay it out of pocket to save their credit.

      HMOs are absolutely the worst for this, followed by PPOs.

      I would have much preferred a single payer system, like Richard Nixon wanted (he was the first president to propose a national health care system), rather than the TARP III bailout for the insurance companies which we ended up getting with the ACA.

    9. Re:Vaginosis/Vaginitis Plus by schlachter · · Score: 1

      It's hard to match up billing codes with actual work because the billing code generator occasionally uses a different random seed.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    10. Re:Vaginosis/Vaginitis Plus by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Like a lot of New York Times reporters, Elisabeth Rosenthal is an MD (Harvard '86).

      Of course for each (expensive) new test there's a big debate about whether it contributes anything to a better outcome.

      I think the broader point is that there are people like Steve Brill who say that we can significantly reduce health care costs if everybody knew the benefits of each treatment, and could shop around for the best price, the way we buy a refrigerator. Rosenthal seems to be tempted by that philosophy.

      I don't think it's going to work. Kenneth Arrow, the Nobel laureate in economics, write an article years ago about why health care isn't a free market like other markets. The consumer doesn't have enough information to make an informed decision.

      Even doctors can't make informed decisions about their own treatment. Eugene Braunwald, the cardiologist, said that when he needs a doctor, he doesn't want to be a medical consumer. He wants to go to a doctor he trusts, and let his doctor make the decisions. I don't think you can improve on that. If you don't have a doctor you can trust, you're doomed.

      If you're a patient, I think NICE does a pretty good job of making your decisions for you. If NICE thinks I need an EM and IF, I'll get it.

    11. Re:Vaginosis/Vaginitis Plus by sfcat · · Score: 2

      IAAP (I am a physician, and a pathologist at that!). In TFA, she notes that the pathology was only marginally more informative by including electron microscopy and immunofluorescent study. I'm not sure what more she's expecting. There's a reason why medical school is 4 years, residency is 3-4 years, and fellowship is another 1-2 years (after 4 years of college for most US citizens). This stuff IS hard, and yes it actually does require a graduate degree. In this specific instance, should the bill explain that it's the standard of care to get EM and IF tests on medical kidney biopsies? Should the bill explain what those tests are? Maybe, but I've never seen a mechanic's bill that explained why part A was used and what that part is normally used for, or how often it's used/replaced. I've never seen any bill that really explained what stuff was for. It's going to be hard for most people to fully understand a medical bill, no matter how clear and un-obfuscated it is.

      For medical billing, people are obviously more interested and vested in what's happening, but a lot of the times, the situation is going to be complicated. I don't know what the solution to that is, other than paying physicians for their time (instead of unnecessary procedures and tests) to explain things more clearly.

      That's nice and all, but what does that have to do with anything any poster has complained about in this forum. There's a difference between not giving the care correctly and giving the care correctly and then over charging by 5-10x.

      BTW, you do realize that when you put one of your medical bills (assuming it has confusing codes and huge amounts of over-billing) in the mail, and that letter goes across state lines, under some interpretations of the law (decided case law, not someone's idea of what a statue means) then you are committing mail fraud with a RICO kicker. That means the law treats your organization like the mafia. Now, several things have to be true for this to kick in, but I've seen examples of all of those elements in most medical bills. So as soon as some lawyer gets wise, you guys are in for the mother of all class action lawsuits. Nobody will win except the lawyers and this is the only remedy we have currently under the law. That's pretty depressing.

      --
      "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
    12. Re:Vaginosis/Vaginitis Plus by budgenator · · Score: 1

      See, the greedy lab should have thrown in HIV and HepC on the house.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  8. Better Call Saul! by Hussman32 · · Score: 2

    The plot line of Better Call Saul is that Jimmy found out a nursing home was overcharging senior citizens and he built a fraud case. They planned a 20 million dollar lawsuit because of fraud.

    Funny in medicine, it's standard operating procedure.

    I want my doctors well compensated, and I don't even mind seeing dozens of new hospitals being erected throughout California with the latest in technology. But the graft needs to stop.

    --
    "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
  9. Take 'Human Resources' out of the loop. by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Part of the problem is caused by the disconnect that is a result of how Insurance companies are selected by individuals. I don't have a very free opportunity to choose who my healthcare insurer is, so it becomes a 'it doesn't matter' issue- I can't chose a more frugual insurer with a lower rate, so since I can't choose one that will bird-dog the itemized charges by a hospital., may as well just go along with it.

    Our Health Insurance should not be selected for us by the Human Resources department where we work. The way to do away with this 'interesting' phenomena is to eliminate any tax benefits for a company providing healthcare for their employees. Take away that 'perk' to the companies and more companies would choose to either offer a direct payment 'perk' to employees to choose their own health insurace, or raise pay overall because they would no longer be dumping money into a 'health plan.' Just get rid of the tax incentive that pressures companies into 'offering health benefits' and allow people to spend their health care dollars the way they choose.

    1. Re:Take 'Human Resources' out of the loop. by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      This is the number one issue with healthcare. The health insurance company doesn't give two shits about you. You are not their customer. If you are lucky they comply with the law. If you are not, they skirt the law and hope you'll give up after 3 or 4 rounds of appeals. Complaining to HR about insurance is a nice way to get your name on a list. Companies provide the shittiest health insurance they can still hire employees with. I had to drop my wife from my company health insurance plan and pay extra for private insurance because the company insurance covered NOTHING. And I mean nothing to the point where every time I go to the pharmacy they question it because NO ONE pays full retail price for this shit.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
  10. Welcome to Private US Healthcare by segedunum · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That is all.

  11. standardisation? by louic · · Score: 1

    No, there is no need for standardisation. There is simply a need to write clearly on the bill what it is for, or at least to be able to answer questions about it when asked.

  12. Single Payer by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 2

    Indeed

    Sod Single Payer, if they have to pay fraudulent bills like this.

    The cost (and confusion) of all this admin is one of the reasons the USA has the most expensive healthcare on earth.

    Code sets like the International Classification of Diseases have been *enormously* bloated over the years. You might think this has less to do with collating accurate statistics, and more to do with providing a means for insurance providers to claim that the "wrong code was used" and deny claims. I couldn't possibly comment.

    1. Re:Single Payer by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that the drug that I am on currently isn't allowed by the NHS because it's too expensive. Although it's not just the UK. Our own "public options" have similar problems where expensive treatments aren't covered either.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  13. Take the responsibility onto yourself by FictionPimp · · Score: 4, Informative

    Now that we live in a world where healthcare is primarily self pay for the first few thousand, we need to take this into our own hands. Ask what a procedure costs before it's done and what other options are there.

    Recently I had a bad sore throat (for like 2 weeks and it was getting worse). I go to the doctor and he wants to run a strep test. I ask him what we will do if it says I have strep. He replies that I would get antibiotics. I ask him what he will do if says I do not have strep. He says it's most likely still bacterial and he would give me antibiotics.

    So I ask him why he wants to waste my money. After a talk about how my new improved insurance works we now talk about the cost vs results of my medical care.

    I then shopped around for the prescription. I found that by calling places and telling them I did not have insurance I found a cheaper rate than buying it with my insurance! Medical care has now turned into a system similar to buying a car.

    1. Re:Take the responsibility onto yourself by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      And if he was to prescribe a standard antibiotic, you can buy them yourself at a pet supply.
      The same antibiotics used for fish are the same that you are given. Exactly the same, just different labels and no prescription required.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Take the responsibility onto yourself by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      You are lucky he would even tell you. Most places won't give you an answer on how much treatment will cost. You're lucky if you can force out of them some sort of paper before you leave that describes what treatment was given on what date. They don't want you to have any information because that will bite them a month later when they send you a bill for Sasquatch infection testing and you contest it. I hate going to the doctor's office because I rarely get diagnosis that I couldn't come up with myself, it's usually to get a prescription. Oh you're vomitting? Hmm, let me poke you in the stomach a few times... Yeah, not sure why, take some of these pills to make you stop vomiting. Have a nice day! Nothing to pay today, we'll send you a bill.

      Next day, go to the pharmacy to pick up prescription for $70 pills to make you stop vomiting even though you feel better today. Might as well save them for later.

      Next month, receive bill for $297.35 with a single line item that says "Doctor services"

      No thanks, for $370 bucks, I'll keep vomiting until I get better or die thank you.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    3. Re:Take the responsibility onto yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You need a better doctor. If strep comes back neg it's very unlikely to be a bacterial infection for which first line antibiotics are going to do anything. Any doc following best practices with regard to managing antibiotic resistance is going to send you away w/o any antibiotics. The only doc's who give antibiotics for neg strep tests are just there to "make the patient happy" and are not driven by medical reality.

    4. Re:Take the responsibility onto yourself by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      And if he was to prescribe a standard antibiotic, you can buy them yourself at a pet supply. The same antibiotics used for fish are the same that you are given. Exactly the same, just different labels and no prescription required.

      I used my dead dog's prescription for a sciatic disk in my back when my prescription ran out and I had a flare-up. She was prescribed the exact same medicine and dose as I was (hers was for torn ligaments in her legs I believe), and we just never threw out the medication after she died.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    5. Re:Take the responsibility onto yourself by jittles · · Score: 1

      And if he was to prescribe a standard antibiotic, you can buy them yourself at a pet supply. The same antibiotics used for fish are the same that you are given. Exactly the same, just different labels and no prescription required.

      My grocery store, Walmart, and many other places will fill those same standard antibiotics for free. What's the point of buying it at a pet supply store if you can get it for free, anyway?

    6. Re:Take the responsibility onto yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I work in health care, and have been dealing with this sort of thing lately in spades. It's not costing me so much money so far, but the complexity of how the charges are arrived at are completely irrational.

      What's infuriating to me is that the health care debate so far has been framed entirely in terms of who pays for things, and how they're paid for. Although that's important, there's an equally critical, if not more critical problem of how the costs are incurred in the first place. In particular, there's two problems that get almost zero attention that anyone with any basic grasp of economics can understand:

      1. For all intents and purposes, in health care you receive a good or service and then negotiate the price afterwards. This makes no sense, and is completely the opposite of what you would ever do in almost any other area. For example, if someone was installing something in your home, you would receive an estimate, probably multiple estimates, and then decide whether or not you want that service from that person. That's not always possible in healthcare, but it is lots of times, and some version of it could be instituted in other emergency cases. Why the hell is it surprising that billing is so ridiculous? If flooring were installed with pricing determined after the receipt of services were agreed upon, you'd see the same thing: the tiler would be raising prices through the roof, because the alternative for you is failure to pay, they'd get their buddies involved, saying that they have to subcontract to do the mixing of the mortar, etc. Prices need to be negotiated beforehand. This just doesn't happen in general in healthcare.

      2. There is no competition in healthcare because of the implicit assumption that MDs know everything and are in charge, and everyone else is providing support or adjunct services. Therefore, there's essentially a government-sanctioned monopoly on who can provide services, reducing choice. Service provision needs to be skill-based, not degree based. There are many professionals who are equally or more competent than MDs in a given area, and they should be able to provide services as well. I'm not just talking about PAs or NPs, I'm talking about RNs, ANs, psychologists, genetic counselors, nurse anesthetists, pharmacists, etc. In your case, why the hell do you need an MD, PA, or NP to prescribe your antibiotic anyway? Why not just have it available over the counter or under the regulation of a pharmacy? The MDs, PAs, and NPs certainly aren't regulating themselves. To go back to the flooring example: imagine that your flooring can only be legally installed by someone with a master's degree in architecture, and an accredited architectural internship, and that degree is heavily limited in terms of the number of programs and graduates.

      Why are we surprised that if you artificially eliminate competition through unnecessary legal restrictions (in the form of overly broad licensing laws), and then have prices negotiated after a service is delivered, that costs will increase?

      This would typically be the role of the GOP--I'd expect them to take up the banner of health care reform in the form of medical licensing deregulation, for example--but they've completely dropped the ball. They've fallen into the trap of letting the other party frame the terms of the debate, without looking for other solutions. So now we're paying more without asking why those prices are as high as they are. Things like this NY Times article are helping, but it's just the tip of the iceberg.

    7. Re:Take the responsibility onto yourself by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      And if he was to prescribe a standard antibiotic, you can buy them yourself at a pet supply.
      The same antibiotics used for fish are the same that you are given. Exactly the same, just different labels and no prescription required.

      True, but it's usually the other way around - filling out the pet's prescription at the pharmacist is usually CHEAPER than getting the vet's office to fill it out. It's a huge scam really - and many vets will actively refuse to give you a scrip for the medicine - they'll simply package it up at the counter and ask you to pay an inflated rate for it.

      Yes, it's a business model. The reason human medicines are cheaper is greater volume - there are just simply more humans who need a particular antibiotic than dogs or cats who are prescribed same.

    8. Re:Take the responsibility onto yourself by Spazztastic · · Score: 1

      Just be careful with that stuff. The difference between the antibiotics given to your fish and the ones that come from the pharmacy is the FDA regulations around manufacturing. There's no Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) required for the antibiotics provided for fish because they are not for human consumption. Sure, it may be the exact same pill manufactured in the exact same building, but the humans get pile A because that went through extensive QC and has passed, and the fish get pile B with rejects.

      Obviously this isn't a truly factual scenario, but I would just be cautious consuming that unless you have no other option.

      --
      Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
    9. Re:Take the responsibility onto yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and this is why we are fucked with antibiotic resistant bacteria strains getting stronger.

      They should not be available like fucking M'nM's...

    10. Re:Take the responsibility onto yourself by sribe · · Score: 1

      Now that we live in a world where healthcare is primarily self pay for the first few thousand, we need to take this into our own hands. Ask what a procedure costs before it's done...

      Yeah, good luck with that--for anything other than the most trivial example :-(

    11. Re:Take the responsibility onto yourself by Prune · · Score: 1

      I don't know about the US, but the tendency here in Canada (at least with younger doctors who didn't get used to prescribe antibiotics like candy pills the way old ones do before resistance became a big deal) is to not rush to antibiotics before the throat swab comes back, not just because it may not be bacterial, but because different bacteria are best targeted by different antibiotics. Using the wrong or just any generic wide-spectrum antibiotic still contributes to the resistance problem. In the past, these tests were mostly done only after a first-line antibiotic treatment failed, but that's changing.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    12. Re:Take the responsibility onto yourself by Prune · · Score: 1

      Unless its 's too urgent and you can't wait for a throat swab result to come back identifying the strain (and thus most appropriate antibiotic -- or even if it's bacterial in the first place), you shouldn't be popping just any random antibiotics, and neither should your doctor be prescribing them. People with attitude like yours are contributing to the ever more serious global antibiotic resistance threat. Doctors here now generally exercise this patient restraint, with the exception of the old dogs that can't learn new tricks.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    13. Re:Take the responsibility onto yourself by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Nope not even close; an Amazon tribe deep in the jungle had been discovered and the first outside contact brought back stool samples for research which contained antibiotic resistant bacteria.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    14. Re:Take the responsibility onto yourself by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Check multiple doses too, Celexa 10mg, cost $90.00/30, Celexa 20 mg cost $4.00/30, Celexa 10mg is used more often for premature ejaculation, Celexa 20mg is used more often for depresion, I cut the 20s in half.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    15. Re:Take the responsibility onto yourself by rfengr · · Score: 1

      Check multiple doses too, Celexa 10mg, cost $90.00/30, Celexa 20 mg cost $4.00/30, Celexa 10mg is used more often for premature ejaculation, Celexa 20mg is used more often for depresion, I cut the 20s in half.

      I'm depressed about my premature ejaculation; 30 mg.

    16. Re:Take the responsibility onto yourself by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Uneducated people like you are what cause others to not learn.

      I really suggest you buy books and learn, you would be very surprised at how simple modern medicine really is.

      I am betting you cant even sew your own stitches.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    17. Re:Take the responsibility onto yourself by Spazztastic · · Score: 1

      I might very well be wrong then -- do you have anything to back this up? I'm genuinely curious.

      --
      Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
  14. the codes are pretty simple really... by nimbius · · Score: 5, Funny

    as a senior administrative manager for a large health insurance company I see no reason why customers are boggled over these codes. Any schoolboy (provided your school wasn't free) could decypher this kind of billing. Anyhow, to clarify:
    Code 105: we've run out of those little salmon things on the yacht in the hamptons. naturally we would call upon customers for this expense.
    Code 127: truffle spread in the lounging room of the manor has expired. normally we do not assess this fee, however since we've gone to the trouble to obviously dispatch a manservant for fresh baguettes, this must be accounted for.
    Code 164: The good luck brandy in the maybach has been found to clash with the petit fours and as such we will need to purchase a reisling instead. Part of this fee goes to jet fuel for the arduous trip to germany.
    CPT codes: 87481, 87491, 87798: These are the inventory numbers for the delightful new mercedes we intend to purchase after returning from germany. The autobahn really is delightful you know.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  15. Never happen by p51d007 · · Score: 2

    Why? Because if you have tax free medical savings accounts, couple things would happen. As with the so called social security trust fund, congress would raid it, and would have NO money in it. Giving POWER to the citizens, goes totally against congress, the senate & the white house. We can't have the people having any power...it would make the government not needed, and would take away OUR power. Sad, but true.

    1. Re:Never happen by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      MSAs (medical savings accounts) already exist, but are limited to people who choose HDHPs (high deductable health plans, with special limits) and to about $3k/yr for singles and $6k/yr for families. It's your money, going pre-tax into your savings/investment account and able to be withdrawn for medical uses tax free. It's not federal government.

      What we need is a way to ensure that services are not billed to private clients (individuals) for more than large corporate clients (insurers). If I pay cash for a procedure, I shouldn't be charged 5-10X what I would be charged if I were insured.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:Never happen by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The term is "negotiated prices" by insurance, and it is nothing more than a racket. One of the fixes I propose is Single Price healthcare, where prices are the same no matter who, or how it is paid.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    3. Re:Never happen by IgnitusBoyone · · Score: 1

      Collective bargaining should be illegal in health care. Insurance companies will not allow the prices to go above the "negotiated prices" so once you take collective bargaining off the table the prices will stabilize. I guess in an ideal world the Madicade price list would just be applied to all procedures for all patients and actually include realistic prices. All hospitals would be required to submit the average cost of the top 100-1000 procedures for there service domain and then an aggregated price would be published publicly each year.

      Medical Care is a utility it should be regulated like one. Billing should be standardized like the article and prices should be reasonable.

      --
      Momento Mori
    4. Re:Never happen by bobbied · · Score: 2

      The term is "negotiated prices" by insurance, and it is nothing more than a racket. One of the fixes I propose is Single Price healthcare, where prices are the same no matter who, or how it is paid.

      Where I don't disagree in principle, I think that any such law should allow for discounts for pay upon receipt of service. If you pay the provider at the time the service is provided and don't force them to file your insurance, wait for the payment and incur all the costs for staff, billing, postage (etc) and they want to offer you a discount, they should be allowed to do that. However, outside of that, everybody pays the same price for the specified service and these prices MUST be disclosed IN ADVANCE of service... I'm with you.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    5. Re:Never happen by rfengr · · Score: 1

      I had a real insurance plan. Now I have a HSA with a high deductible plan, and I'm paying several $k more per year, at the same employer for 18 years Thank you Obamacare,

    6. Re:Never happen by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      That is not "price controls".

      That's disallowing hospitals to gouge customers that aren't some large corporation.

      Beyond your apparent allergy to individuals being protected under the law, there's the problem of transparency and accuracy that's destroyed by the current hospital billing system. The "rack rate" is a fiction that needs to just disappear.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    7. Re:Never happen by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      It's not the government that would raid them, private companies would fee them to death and find all sorts of ways for them to distort the market.
      Large pools of money are detrimental to everyone.

    8. Re:Never happen by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Wait, that doesn't sound like a free market solution?!

      Why is this preferable to single payer?

    9. Re:Never happen by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      HSA's came to my employer well before Obama.

    10. Re:Never happen by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      If they do (and it's unlikely as there's a *lot* of legacy that stays in the tax code regardless of changes for future options), having a Roth is no worse than having a regular savings account. Actually, its better because all of the gains and dividends are tax free while they're in the account. Worst case is you roll it into a non-retirement account and pay taxes on the gains, probably on an extended time frame for capture.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    11. Re:Never happen by rfengr · · Score: 1

      HSA's came to my employer well before Obama.

      Yes I know, but now I have shitty insurance that costs much more.

    12. Re:Never happen by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      Free Market is realistic pricing. Single Payer has no such function. The assumption is that single payer is better that free market, isn't supported by anything. You take the US investment into health care, which the rest of the world enjoys, and you have crappy healthcare for everyone (like in France).

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    13. Re: Never happen by Copid · · Score: 1

      Weirdly, I'd be shocked if your Ohio provider didn't charge you a higher rate because you live in Silicon Valley for exactly that reason.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    14. Re:Never happen by Copid · · Score: 1

      Right. Declines in quality and increases in prices for insurnance were totally unheard of until that socialist messed everything up.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
  16. On a similiar note... by LVSlushdat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I blew out the tendons in both of my legs in July 2013 in a weird trip/fall, and went to the hospital for surgery to repair the tendons. I recieved a bill in February 2015 from the anesthesioligist for $1400, which is like 22 months AFTER the fact.. The billing was from one of those third-party physician billing companies, and their excuse for WHY it took close to 2 FUCKING years to bill me for that service??? I quote "The doctor only sent us the info in January 2015"... There should be some kind of statute of limitations on this shit, but I'm not holding my breath...

    --
    THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    1. Re:On a similiar note... by operagost · · Score: 1

      There should be. How do you know you didn't already pay for the anesthesiologist, unless you could pull out that old bill?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:On a similiar note... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Having gone through the same sort of thing for my cancer, the real reason it took so long is that the Doctor and Insurance Company went round and round trying to sort out who was stuck with paying for things.

      Eventually, the doctor will give up and bill the patient....

      At which point, you challenge the bill, ask both doctor and insurance company to prove that the bill isn't covered by insurance, and argue about it for a couple more years....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:On a similiar note... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      There actually is a one-year cutoff. Call your insurance company and verify. Insurance companies require claims to be made within a year of the date of service. Some are willing to make exceptions on a case-by-case basis if you specifically call them and ask. Usually, when a medical biller makes a mistake, they just send the full incorrect balance to the patient. I know this because I used to write medical billing software at a small company and provided tier-2 support to the billers.

      If you can confirm with your insurance company that these folks made a claim too late and that it was denied for being late, then you have grounds to complain to your state Attorney General and/or Department of Insurance. If you haven't paid that bill yet, don't. Call that billing office and complain. Ask your insurance company to do the same (they usually will.) Ask for a copy of the denied claim with the little codes on it. It will say that the claim was denied because it was late.

        If you have paid that bill, then you might want to consider a lawyer because that doctor isn't going to send you a refund without a fight.

  17. I guess being a type A I see this differently by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Test codes: 105, 127, 164, to name a few. CPT codes: 87481, 87491, 87798 and others" and she really doesn't want to pay it until she understands what it's for.

    1. It's trivial to look up those codes online, right? Putting "cpt code 87491" into Google shows that's a STD test.

    2. I wouldn't pay it if the lab didn't explain it. Period. "She really doesn't want to pay it..." then don't. Call them up and tell them that they either explain it or you're not paying. Make them take it to court. That shit wouldn't last 5 seconds in front of a judge. Note that it wouldn't get that far - their attorney wouldn't let it.

    People just need to learn how to play hardball.

    1. Re:I guess being a type A I see this differently by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Informative

      Mod parent up, except for the bit about "call them up."

      After my (largely broke) father passed away in California I had about twelve health care providers after me (as power of attorney then as estate administrator) for about $300K of my father's medical bills. Instead, I spent about $2K (of his remaining "small estate" - look it up) on a good attorney and walked away paying NOTHING.

      If you need to fight back, my advice is to never do anything over the phone, or in email. Always communicate by paper letter, certified if necessary, with signatures and official letterhead.

    2. Re:I guess being a type A I see this differently by Senior+Frac · · Score: 1

      Naive.

      They don't have to take it to court. They'll just ruin your credit score by reporting it and sell the debt to a collector who will hound you day and night. If you want a judge to ever see it you're the one ponying up the cash to take it there.

    3. Re:I guess being a type A I see this differently by cahuenga · · Score: 1

      And if you are under anesthesia how do you prove what was or wasn't done?

    4. Re:I guess being a type A I see this differently by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      Naive.

      They don't have to take it to court. They'll just ruin your credit score by reporting it and sell the debt to a collector who will hound you day and night.
      If you want a judge to ever see it you're the one ponying up the cash to take it there.

      They're required by law to show you what the bill is for or quit calling you. You actually can shut them down, but get a lawyer in that case.

    5. Re:I guess being a type A I see this differently by chihowa · · Score: 2

      Stuff like that will never get to court unless you're contesting something huge, like a $50000 bill. In my experience, just calling and contesting the bill is enough to get them to start significantly cutting down the balance. There's no use fighting individual patients over a couple thousand dollars when >90% of the patients (or their insurance) will pay without complaint.

      Also, so much of the various provider bills are double charged and flat-out manufactured that it's simpler to just drop charges than have to concoct a plausible explanation for them.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  18. I have a solution. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    Hospital bills are null and void if they are not easily read and understood by someone with a 10th grade education. If they are unable or unwilling to do a full explanation then the bill is invalid and does not have to be paid and can not be reported to credit reporting or sold to collections.

    Maybe that will get the morons running hospitals off their asses.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:I have a solution. by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      Damn good idea if only some medical conditions didn't take more than a 10th grade education to understand.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    2. Re:I have a solution. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Since most 10th graders know how to use Google, I don't see that being an issue. You realize that the point you're basically arguing here is, "the only people who should be able to understand a doctor's bill are doctors," right?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:I have a solution. by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      10th graders are taught not to use Google because Google spies on them.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  19. Too Many Insurance Companies by Kagato · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The issue is there are too many insurance companies. The core is the same, as in there's a claim and there's standardized billing codes for procedures. However, each insurance company has a different set of policies on how visits should be coded.

    This has lead to health care providers hiring claims optimizers that help them code the visit to extract the most money from the insurance company. Which leads to insurance companies hiring claims optimizers to shape policy to reduce the amount they pay. Then times that by the number of insurance companies they might deal with. Add a little more complication if you're insurance is out of state and they use another companies network and policies. It's a giant clusterfuck.

    This is also one of the major drivers of health care cost. There are plenty of other countries that have private health insurance. The difference is the gov't sets a common claims format and policy. They typically also set the base cost of each service (adjusted for cost of living for the area). That means the insurance companies compete on having lower administration costs and programs to make the members healthier.

  20. Coding by cirby · · Score: 1

    As other people are noting, medical codes are not mysterious and secret things. They're very specific numbers that stand for treatments, and if the coding is done wrong, Medicaid and insurance companies won't pay.

    It's complicated, but a large part of that is - once again - brought on by the mandated transition from ICD-9 (about 13,600 different codes with three or four digits) to ICD-10 CM (about 144,000 different codes with five digits).

    1. Re:Coding by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      Codes are not as simple as they may seem. The issue is complexity. Both insurance and medical use and abuse complexity to confuse people and hide the real costs. It may seem that doctors are as much victims as patients, both struggling with byzantine insurance rules, but actually doctors are to blame for much of it by charging outrageous fantasy prices. Time Magazine's "Bitter Pill" story fingered the "chargemaster" as the main culprit behind the crazy pricing.

      For example, last year, I had a kidney stone, and went to emergency 3 times. The first visit, I was given a CT scan. The hospital would not trouble me with any confusing and boring details until I demanded that they send me a bill that included all the items, with codes. Instead, they at first presented me with an enormous bill with no details, and when I didn't pay up immediately, started getting nasty, threatening to turn me over to debt collectors, ruin my credit, etc. They were testing me, seeing if I'd let them walk all over me. They and the insurance (Blue Cross Blue Shield in this case) could have done their jobs, but they find it easier to bully patients. I should sign a blank check? I think not!

      With a more detailed bill in hand, I learned that the "CT scan - body" was code 74176, and the hospital charges $9107.20 for it. That's an absolutely ridiculous price of course. Insurance cut them down to $193.85. But that's not the whole story. I also got a bill from a lab on that same code 74176, for $660, reduced by insurance to $56.15. What's the deal? Was I being double billed? The explanation I was given, and which I don't know whether to believe, is that it was legit, and that labs which analyze CT scans use the same code as facilities which actually operate the CT machinery. If true, this practice of doubling up codes like that can only lead to confusion. To further confuse matters, the hospital has their own internal code for the CT scan: 162889. When I check the Medicare price for a particular code, how am I to know which of several possible items or procedures they're talking about? They should have different codes, maybe 74176a and 74176b.

      I spotted a lot of discrepancies in the bill. Yeah, I can believe 90% of medical bills contain errors. The example that sticks out the most for my own case is the 1 liter of saline solution, code J7030. A bag of salt water, which ought to cost about the same as a 2 liter bottle of a soft drink. I received 3 of these, and the hospital charged $306.78 for each one. Why? Then, the real puzzler: insurance reduced these 3 identical items to 3 different prices, $151.74, $63.62, and $26.84 respectively. Why? I was given several excuses, like that these are sterile solutions, and that's costly. No, it's not. Boil it, and done. Or, irradiate it. Another excuse was that it wasn't a simple bag of salt water, it contained drugs. Well, no, that, if you'll pardon the pun, doesn't hold water, and the insurance company support person backtracked pretty quickly on that idea. There were no drugs added to the saline solutions Yet another excuse is that the price is not for the item alone, it includes having a medical tech jab the needle into my arm and hitting a vein, which requires some skill. Finally, they admitted I had a point and started investigating. They reduced my cost to the lowest of the 3 for all 3 saline solutions. $26.84 is still outrageous for an item that ought to cost $2, but it's a lot better than $306.

      At this point the hospital tried to cut a deal. If I paid right away, they'd generously knock 20% off my original bill. I told them to hold that thought. Looked like I could do better by continuing to question the details of my bill. And yes, I could. The insurance has adjusted a lot of costs downward, more than the 20% I would have saved by agreeing to the hospital's deal.

      But, I think insurance still doesn't have it correct. The cost to me for that CT scan was changed from $193.85 plus $56.15 to $56.15 x 2. They had 2 entries for

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
  21. It's not that complicated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    First and foremost, medical billing is a nightmare.

    Second, it's actually pretty well standardized. There can still be some ambiguities, but it's not as obtuse as it sounds.

    Any test, procedure or office visit is considered a "procedure" under the billing rules and has a CPT procedure code. These are easy to look up on the web. I had no trouble finding the three mentioned in the post doing a simple Google search. Every "procedure" must have an associated diagnosis code to justify the use of that procedure. Again, this is set up to allow insurance companies to deny care based on arbitrary minutia. On rare occasion, more than one lab or procedure can have the same CPT code. In those cases, you have to look a little more closely at the description.

    Let's look at the example give.

    CPT 87481 Bacterial vaginosis swap
    CPT 87491 Gonorrhea/chlamydia test
    CPT 87791 infectious agent by DNA amplification

    A reasonable guess here is that these are lab tests from a trip to the gynecologist's office. The CPT 87791 is a little vague, and represents any test performed with DNA amplification technology. Looking at the Quest website, this could range from a particular type of influenza swap to genital herpes to human papilloma virus.

    The point about needing a graduate degree to understand this is well taken. The above labs could fairly easily be described as screening for infections of the female reproductive tract. However, asking a physician which specific procedures he or she performed that day is akin to asking a programmer which procedures he or she used that day. Either way, understanding the answer is going to require some technical knowledge.

    1. Re:It's not that complicated by chooks · · Score: 1

      CPT 87481 Bacterial vaginosis swap
      CPT 87491 Gonorrhea/chlamydia test
      CPT 87791 infectious agent by DNA amplification

      That's a little strange because the G/C test (87491) generally is performed using DNA amplification (87791). (You could do antigen detection, but I don't think that is really done as standard practice anymore). So it looks like the same thing is billed twice.

      Like you say, medical billing is a nightmare though.

      --
      -- The Genesis project? What's that?
  22. Billing Is For The Test Codes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    WTF?

    ICD9 codes are diagnosis codes. They are the condition the patient has and the reason the tests are being ordered. They are not the tests you are being billed for.

    The test codes will indicate the specific assays that have been performed and what the patient is being billed for. Many labs have test code lookup online.

    Yeah, you may have to get ahold of the right person to get correct information.

    1. Re:Billing Is For The Test Codes by number6x · · Score: 1

      WTF?

      ICD9 codes are diagnosis codes.

      There are ICD9 diagnosis codes, there are also ICD9 Procedure codes. The procedure codes mentioned in the story are ICD9 procedure codes. You can download all of them from the Centers for Medicaid/Medicare services here.

      There are also CPT, HCPCS BETOS codes that could describe procedures. Procedures are a little harder because there are multiple classification standards. In the medical system data warehouse I work on we check procedure codes in claims against the multiple reference lists and reject the claims if the codes are not found in any of the lists. The tools health care providers use to create claims should only allow the entry of a standard set of choices. I don't usually see much rejection, unless something has gone terribly wrong with the data, for example character set encoding problems. However, when something that bad happens, all of the fields get messed up.

      It was very different back in the day, when claims were actual paper forms!

  23. It's called 'Upcoding' by cahuenga · · Score: 5, Informative

    A couple years ago i had a 'scope ACL reconstruction from a volleyball injury. The MRI showed a clean break and undamaged meniscus, and after surgery the doc said the meniscus was clean, so great..... Then the bill. Right at the top there was a $5000+ charge for a meniscectomy. When I inquired about the charge the doc said he saw a 'frayed edge" while he was in there and trimmed it off. Insurance codes make no distinction between a quick trim and a complete radical reconstruction. So, no doubt he trims every patient. So to speak.

  24. Never Pay Chargemaster Prices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The medical bill presented to you by the hospital is full of their "chargemaster" (secret menu of prices kept by the hospital) rates. It's like the sticker price for a new car, nobody pays that amount (or shouldn't), not even the insurance company. The hospital will probably be willing to settle for between 30-50% of that amount. This is what medical bill advocates do, they haggle with the hospital billing department. You can do that yourself or hire somebody else, the aforementioned bill advocate, to do it for you but the bottom line is haggling. Here in the United States not haggling your hospital bills and just paying the chargemaster prices is crazy. You should also take advantage of any payment plan they're willing to offer, usually 6 months of payments at zero percent interest, on top of that. The hospital doesn't want to send the bill to collection if you're willing to pay part of it and they know that their own chargemaster prices are for suckers, so they'll settle. Try negotiating next time, the worst that can happen is they say no and you've lost nothing given that the bill is already a sunk cost.

  25. Re:No single payer by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The rich always have the means to seek what they think is the best when it costs more, in any category that they choose to. That's what being rich does for you.

    What I want is a medical system where if I get a bill for services, I get one bill , not a bill from the hospital, a bill from the nurse practicioner, and a separate bill from the doctor that's "responsible" whom I never even saw but because the nurse practicioner asked them a question they get in on the action.

    One of the real problems that the presence of medical insurance not paid for directly by the patient has created is that the patient is disconnected from the methods of payment, but not disconnected from the ultimate costs. The patient has no idea what a simple hospital visit for a minor at-night injury will cost when he's only there for a few hours, and since there is this disconnect, all of the professionals have figured out how to exploit this to bill, bill, bill!

    The clinic should be the only entity to send the bill. The staff working at the clinic should be paid by the clinic. I don't care if it's a walk-in clinic for boo-boos and scrapes or if it's the Mayo Clinic handling open heart surgery, the clinic should figure out the damn bill and send one bill.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  26. Software industry to blame? by DougPaulson · · Score: 1

    With the US having the most expensive 'health care' on the planet, I do find it particularly specious that they find only the programmers to blame. Besides it isn't 'health care' that's to blame but the health insurance' industry. Besides it's in their interest to obfuscate your medical bills. Notice I said expensive, not better ref.

  27. Not that hard to deal with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    (I write medical software for a living)

    How to deal with problem.

    1. Keep notes
    2. Google all the codes, its all there.
    3. Call office and ask what it is. Tell them you are not paying it untill you know what it is for. Note their reply.
    4. Send registered letter to them stating you contest the bill because they will not tell you what it is.
    5. They should contact you, if not watch your credit reports. Contesting the bill in step 4 makes it harder (but not impossible) for them to get a bill collector to take it.
    6. If it shows up on your credit report first contest the bill with debt collector, registered mail, then contest it with the Credit reporting agency's (CRA) once you have the green card back from your registered mail. If you contest it at the Credit Reporting Agency (CRA ) first the debt collector will just confirm the debt. If they confirm the debt after you can prove you contested it (why you do registered mail) and they have not validated it they may owe you $1000. (look up FDCPA)
    7. The debt collector may just validate by sending you a copy of the bill. They are suppose to have the doctor/hospital send you a bill and they are not suppose to see your PHI ( Personal Health information) as this is a HIPAA violation. If they were stupid enough to do this they may owe you even more money.
    8. If the debt collector properly validates it (has doctor/hospital resend bill) but still does not define what the debt it you will need to do an intent to sue for not properly validating debt.

    This is a pain to deal with the first time but once you learn it its pretty easy and you will find your doctors/hospitals billing staff will become much more cooperative.

    http://www.debtorboards.com/ is a great resource for dealing with this stuff.

    1. Re:Not that hard to deal with by number6x · · Score: 1

      ... 7. The debt collector... are not suppose to see your PHI ( Personal Health information) as this is a HIPAA violation. If they were stupid enough to do this they may owe you even more money. ...

      HIPAA covered entities can share your PHI and PII (Personally Identifiable Information) with third parties if they have a legal agreement with those entities to do so, and those third parties agree to follow HIPAA rules. The third party cannot continue the chain to a fourth party, they would have to go back to the 2nd party (the health care provider) to get another agreement for any further dissemination of information.

      These are called Business Associates under HIPAA rules. The third parties do not become covered entities.

    2. Re:Not that hard to deal with by Cederic · · Score: 1

      This is why the moment HIPAA gets involved I immediately refer to my compliance team. They know this shit, I just need to know they need to be involved.

  28. All medical bills are mysterious. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It is just not these indecipherable codes on the bills. I typically get explanation-of-benefits that runs like, "X-Ray radiology 800$, Paid by insurance company 100$, discount to insurance 685$, you owe them 15$". Any one without an insurance will be billed 800$. No body would pay such an insane bill. They will sell it to some debt collector at some 20 cents a dollar. The bill collector would hound the patient, add all sorts of fees and penalties and dun payments. About two thirds of the bankruptcies in USA are due to medical costs. If the lab billed honestly and charged 150$ for uninsured, 100$+15$ copay for insured, things will not spin out of control this badly.

    Another thing is so many different people bill you and you have no idea. My wife had a surgery and we have bills rolling in for some four months after the procedure. Random doctors, labs, hospital departments, practices are billing us. For things that you don't understand at all. For things like rent for corridor space the gurney was parked on before entering the Operating room. They would glorify the corridor space as pre-op waiting area or some such jazzed up name. This on top of a per day rent for being inside the hospital.

    The next step is going to be every doctor carrying an RFID detector and every patient tagged with an RFID tag. The machine will record all the patients the doctor passed by in the corridor and he/she can bill them all for looking at them.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:All medical bills are mysterious. by mbone · · Score: 1

      My wife was in the hospital once and a secondary Doctor in her team would come by every morning, say "Hi, you are you today?," shake my hand, chat a minute, and leave. I thought he was just being sociable, until I saw that each visit was a $300 consultation (which, BTW, insurance paid in full).

    2. Re:All medical bills are mysterious. by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      "The next step is going to be every doctor carrying an RFID detector and every patient tagged with an RFID tag."

      You mean something like this?

      http://www.centrak.com/clinica...

    3. Re:All medical bills are mysterious. by chihowa · · Score: 1

      I typically get explanation-of-benefits that runs like, "X-Ray radiology 800$, Paid by insurance company 100$, discount to insurance 685$, you owe them 15$". Any one without an insurance will be billed 800$. No body would pay such an insane bill.

      I think most places will give a discount if you're uninsured, too.

      I wonder if this "discount" issue isn't really about tax breaks. In Hollywood accounting style, the hospital can claim that they are taking a loss on every procedure. The discounts could be written off as charity or losses of some kind.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    4. Re:All medical bills are mysterious. by Kjella · · Score: 1

      It is just not these indecipherable codes on the bills. I typically get explanation-of-benefits that runs like, "X-Ray radiology 800$, Paid by insurance company 100$, discount to insurance 685$, you owe them 15$". Any one without an insurance will be billed 800$. No body would pay such an insane bill. They will sell it to some debt collector at some 20 cents a dollar. The bill collector would hound the patient, add all sorts of fees and penalties and dun payments. About two thirds of the bankruptcies in USA are due to medical costs. If the lab billed honestly and charged 150$ for uninsured, 100$+15$ copay for insured, things will not spin out of control this badly.

      The price out to the collection agency reflects the likelihood that an uninsured person - a pretty good indicator that he can't pay - will pay a huge bill, not what the costs are. Now the US system is fucked but proper medical care is expensive, here in Norway we have universal healthcare and it's 11% of the national budget. It is three times the size of our defense budget, for example.

      In large parts of your life, particularly until you finish college or you plan to take the money to your grave you don't have a chance at footing the bill for a major medical emergency. And if your parents don't have the money the first part is easily 25 years of your life. Particularly the final years are nothing but rolling the dice, some people drop dead with hardly any cost to the healthcare system while others have long-winded slides into terminal care.

      Only 50 years ago you'd need a small army of people to do my job, simply because we have computers to do 99% of the legwork. One doctor is still treating one patient and the standard of adequate care has actually gone significantly up as we gain more knowledge, tests and treatments. And the narrower the scope, usually the more expensive the care.

      In my country it's been hotly debated whether we should spend $100.000+ per patient per year to prolong the life of certain very rare diseases with extraordinarily expensive medication. I know we've sent children with brain tumors to the US for proton therapy many hundred thousands of dollars per patient, because the estimated cost of establishing our own is 200 million dollars to treat 200 patients/year.

      And we want the best care, it's real hard to hear there's treatment that can help but we're not going to that because it's too expensive. Yet that is increasingly the case, it's not that the treatment doesn't exist it's that if everyone gets everything the system chokes. P.S. A modern medical X-ray machine is not cheap at all.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:All medical bills are mysterious. by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      typically get explanation-of-benefits that runs like, "X-Ray radiology 800$, Paid by insurance company 100$, discount to insurance 685$, you owe them 15$

      I used to get that. But as of a few years ago, every line item on the EOB says "Medical Procedure $800, Paid by insurance company $100, ..."

  29. Re:Software Industry Decides? by RKThoadan · · Score: 1

    In most cases the billing receipts will be just one small piece of a VERY large system. I suspect that specifying more readable bills isn't exactly a high priority during negotiations. There is definitely pressure in this area, but it's a slow moving industry.

  30. The Business Model is a Big Problem by Carcass666 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The complexity of medical bills is only part of the story. Hospitals and surgical centers pretty much have to do this based upon the way insurance companies and Medicare allow or disallow coverage in a very granular manner. Just as big of a problem, at least from my experience over the last few months of having to get my wife through three surgeries, is that what you see on your initial bill you get can be very different than you actually owe, especially from surgery centers. And everybody bills separately -- the facility, the doctors and anesthesiologists, radiologists, pathology labs, etc. all send separate bills at different times.

    Calls about details often went to outsourced billing providers, who immediately send you an invoice so they can begin collections. Numerous times this happened before the insurance company fully reviewed and paid on the bill. And even afterward, there were a few instances where the bill I received was hundreds of dollars more than what was submitted to the insurance company. Most of these billing providers have websites that you can use to pay a bill, but they are little more than credit merchant portals, they are not a view for billing details or any submitted payment. Any communication of documents with these billing providers often times had to happen via FAX because they did not have a secure mechanism to send information back and forth. It's like being trapped in the '80's.

    This could all be much simpler.

    • For a surgery, everybody involved should bill the hospital or surgical center, and then the hospital should send me a single bill. When I get a car serviced, I don't get a bill from the car shop, the parts manufacturer and any mechanic that touched my car.
    • Any bill should not be sent to me until fully reviewed from the insurance company
    • When getting ten+ unreviewed bills for a single surgery, all of which demand payment pretty much immediately, I am not going rush to run up my credit cards. I am pretty sure hospitals do not pay their suppliers on a COD or Net 14 basis, I can't either. Give me at least thirty days to set up financing, extract retirement money, sell a kidney, whatever, to pay for $50 ibuprofen.

    None of these changes involve socialism, single-payer, etc. However, the complexity of our billing, and the administrative costs associated with it, compared to other industrial countries, leads ammo to those that want to get rid of the kludge that is "Obamacare" (which really was "Baucascare") and just go to single-payer.

    1. Re:The Business Model is a Big Problem by mbone · · Score: 1

      The complexity of the billing can indeed be insane.

      I have literally gotten a check (for overpayment) and a threat to send the bill to collection (for non-payment) from the same Doctor's office on the same day.

  31. HIPPA is healthcare's "classified" by sirwired · · Score: 2, Informative

    While HIPPA has good parts and bad parts, one of the things it is routinely used for is to provide "privacy" as an excuse for anything a healthcare organization doesn't feel like talking about, in the same way that "privileged" or "classified" is used by governments.

    But this article could have done a LITTLE research. ICD codes are for diagnoses, CPT are codes for treatment. CPT is a subset of the HPCPS codes; colloquially, "CPT" is used to refer to all HPCPS codes, even if technically Level II and III HPCPS codes are not CPT codes.

    So, a lab would bill for CPT codes, and a physician will record an ICD code in the patient's chart.

    I don't necessarily think it's unreasonable that it's going to be hard to find plain-english explanations of the codes... there is inevitably going to be a lot of specialized jargon for such a complex field. But certainly the error rate is shameful. And all patients should receive an itemized bill, or have it easily available (like on the hospital's billing website.)

    1. Re:HIPPA is healthcare's "classified" by itzly · · Score: 2

      How do they know who's calling them over the phone? Anyone can say "I'm the patient, tell me".

      If the caller explains there's a "Test code 105" on the bill, they can explain what that number means without going into patient details.

    2. Re:HIPPA is healthcare's "classified" by mbone · · Score: 2

      She called them up on the phone to ask what the codes mean.

      Not telling this to someone over the phone really is a measure to take to protect privacy. How do they know who's calling them over the phone? Anyone can say "I'm the patient, tell me".

      I am going to guess that you don't have much experience dealing with either hospitals or medical insurance. All sorts of things (including "mission critical" ones like prescriptions, tests and even surgery schedules) are arranged, discussed and argued about over the phone. Yes, you have to answer a set of challenge questions (i.e., social security number, policy number, etc.) to show that you are indeed the person in question, but pretty much all of the organizational business of patient care is done over the phone.

    3. Re:HIPPA is healthcare's "classified" by The+Fifth+Man · · Score: 1

      >While HIPPA has good parts and bad parts, one of the things it is routinely used for is to provide "privacy"
      >as an excuse for anything a healthcare organization doesn't feel like talking about, in the same way that
      >"privileged" or "classified" is used by governments.

      Nooooooo no no no no no no no.

      You can complain to HHS if a covered entity denies you information about your own records or billing.
      With literal million dollar fines being handed out for violations, this is no longer a "thing." It was in the year 2000 when a lot of uncertainty existed. The hospital where the woman worked would get their ass kicked over this, including fines for not having an adequate training program, fines for failing to provide information to the patient, fines for not having an adequate compliance program... HIPAA authorizes disclosures for Treatment, Payment, or health care Operations.

      http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy...

      Source: am a HIPAA auditor

    4. Re:HIPPA is healthcare's "classified" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      While HIPPA has good parts and bad parts, one of the things it is routinely used for is to provide "privacy" as an excuse for anything a healthcare organization doesn't feel like talking about, in the same way that "privileged" or "classified" is used by governments.

      She called them up on the phone to ask what the codes mean.

      Not telling this to someone over the phone really is a measure to take to protect privacy. How do they know who's calling them over the phone? Anyone can say "I'm the patient, tell me".

      I don't have to call Microsoft and convince them I'm me to get the meaning of an Error Code

    5. Re:HIPPA is healthcare's "classified" by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      Oh look SSN as ID again, what could possibly go wrong !

      --
      Nullius in verba
    6. Re:HIPPA is healthcare's "classified" by fnj · · Score: 1

      They could also read out the bill number and list all of the line items, and the callee will know that the caller has seen the bill. That's prima facie evidence that they either are the patient, or someone authorized to see the patient's bill.

    7. Re:HIPPA is healthcare's "classified" by Cederic · · Score: 1

      No, it's not. It could mean they've pulled the bill out of someone's bin.

      (erm. trash? whatever the fuck word you guys made up over there)

    8. Re:HIPPA is healthcare's "classified" by stdarg · · Score: 1

      You should contact Elisabeth Rosenthal, the author, and let her know about this. It would definitely make for an interesting followup article.

  32. Late stage capitalism by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    These hidden costs that cannot be challenged is the end result of a "free market" system. Sooner or later, when it's dog eat dog, you get a very big, very mean dog who just gives no fucks.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  33. NYT doesn't report news but does try to create by Crashmarik · · Score: 2

    "We've not seen a lot of pressure to standardize medical billing, but there's certainly a need."

    HIPPAA, the entire move from NSF billing format, ansi 837pro, switch from ICD9 codes to the completely batshit insane ICD10 coding which just invites fraud by overspecification. Really it takes a truly great news outlet to discard the past 20 years in the field.

    Every CPT code is specific you can google what any of them mean, example from the article

    https://www.google.com/search?...

    The rub is not only was the system easier for doctors offices before the changes, the standards had gone through many years of refinement through use. The effect of the move to the current standards was to force many small to medium medical software firms out of the business. Huzzah.

    A process started during the Clinton administration, followed through the Bush administration, and still going on during the Obama administration. If you think government is going to help you, solve your problems, and make life more fair, there's some mighty good evidence that the exact opposite is what happens.

    1. Re:NYT doesn't report news but does try to create by DamonHD · · Score: 1

      Except, over here in downtrodden communist UK (keep an eye on tomorrow's election for us to become ultra-communist under a Tory/SNP/DUP alliance (joke)) guess how much of this rubbish I have to deal with?

      1) An occasional fixed reasonable prescription charge, free for my kids.

      2) Dentist fees, typically about £20/$30 each six month check-up, for a "scale and polish". Again, free for my kids.

      Yeah, it's terrible over here.

      As I have often pointed out, I would not be on my 3rd significant start-up if I'd been tried to my first random employer because of a health plan, given one or two exciting health blips over time.

      Government is never ever good, ever. Unless it builds Interstates.

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    2. Re:NYT doesn't report news but does try to create by fnj · · Score: 1

      Just out of curiosity, what about dentist's fees for extraction of all teeth plus provision of full dentures? And what about a rigorous eye exam and provision of either gradient eyeglasses, or at the bare minimum a set of near and far glasses?

    3. Re:NYT doesn't report news but does try to create by DamonHD · · Score: 1

      There are various bands of dental treatment charges, but they are not uncapped so far as I know. Haven't needed that much fun.

      Glasses, varies. My last eye test was completely free as I was referred by a doctor. I do pay for classes, but if you want to go economy it's pretty cheap and you can probably have glasses prescribed. I'm pretty much in the budget category even variofocals.

      In neither case could I be bankrupted by unlimited uncontrolled charges.

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    4. Re:NYT doesn't report news but does try to create by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Two pairs of glasses, glass lenses, light reactive, UV protecting, anti-glare coating, including frames.. about £250. Maybe £350 if you want varifocals.

      You can get shit plastic lenses far far cheaper if you want to economise. Children go free.

      I don't know about removing all teeth, we seem to keep ours. Maybe it's because we don't keep bleaching them?

    5. Re:NYT doesn't report news but does try to create by PincushionMan · · Score: 1

      I don't think that code 9542XA is specific enough. Does it cover when you are in the spacecraft, or when the spacecraft falls on your house?

      What if it's an alien spacecraft? I bet insurance classifies that as an 'act of God' and won't cover it. Doesn't matter if you wander into a spacecraft piloted by Pee Wee Herman or the darn thing just falls on you for no reason at all .

      I wondering if there's a code for if a house falls on you. Oh, there is, but it's a bit generic.

    6. Re:NYT doesn't report news but does try to create by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Oh I just realized what set you off like a bomb. It's the pricing in this country.

      That really has nothing to do with anything on the billing. That's a problem created by the number of people allowed to practice medicine. The AMA maintains a lock on the number doctors, makes it almost impossible to bring the equivalent of H1-Bs. The government never moves to touch that. Just the way the FCC through administrations really hasn't done crap to unbundle the last mile.

    7. Re:NYT doesn't report news but does try to create by DamonHD · · Score: 1

      No, it's:

      1) The uncapped costs that might bankrupt me and of which I would have little visibility or control.

      2) The whole 'pre-existing condition' mess as I understand it that nukes mobility.

      Particularly the second would have been a problem for me whereas the NHS fixes me anyway.

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    8. Re:NYT doesn't report news but does try to create by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      You really need to compare Britains situation with other countries that have different parameters> Pointing at the NHS and going "SEE" doesn't make the argument. It would be like me pointing at Saudi Arabia and saying SEE islam produces cheap fuel costs.

    9. Re:NYT doesn't report news but does try to create by DamonHD · · Score: 1

      My point is only that I would not be 'free' to take sensible entrepreneurial risks in the "land of the free" whereas I am under the NHS which is frequently derided from that side of the pond as some sort of socialist (itself a swear word) nightmare.

      I'm railing against the "all government intervention" is bad school of thought/kneejerk. The NHS is not perfect by any means, but it happens to work much better and cheaper than the US model from where I'm standing.

      LIFE IS NOT BINARY! (Not so catchy to chant in marches though. B^>)

      Neither do I think that unending government intervention is a good thing. I am somewhat to the right of centre in UK politics (and just voted, tactically, an hour ago, in our general election).

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    10. Re:NYT doesn't report news but does try to create by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      I get what you're saying.

      My point is that while the UK has better government intervention than what we have here, better than bad is not necessarily good.

      In the U.S. case there's several layers of government intervention that created the original mess, and the latest patches aren't addressed at the root of the problem at all.

    11. Re:NYT doesn't report news but does try to create by DamonHD · · Score: 1

      And not to drag this out longer than necessary, the problem is not "government" itself, but the details of how it works in each place.

      Rgds

      Damon

      PS. In any case, thank you for the civil discussion!

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    12. Re:NYT doesn't report news but does try to create by Copid · · Score: 1

      Can you buy your glasses from somebody like Zenni Optical over there? My wife and I just changed over to them about a year ago and we're paying between $15 and $60 for glasses depending on the bells and whistles. The company I worked for made biometric imaging hardware and did a lot of custom lens designs and the engineers were noting that we could manufacture much more precise and complex lenses than you get in a typical pair of glasses for a tiny percentage of the normal price of prescription lenses, so I went hunting. Lo and behold, there are places that sell glasses at prices that reflect what they are: a very simple single lens of mediocre precision mounted in a cheap ass wire or plastic frame.

      It's not a fricking pacemaker or insulin pump. We've been making hardware like this for centuries. Schools should be *giving* simple prescription glasses away to kids with vision problems.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    13. Re:NYT doesn't report news but does try to create by Cederic · · Score: 1

      hmm, good question. I knew someone in Bristol that wanted to set something similar up, not heard whether he got it going or not.

      To be fair, the prices I quoted involve professionals doing the measurements for you and glass lenses with a number of coatings on them - that definitely adds to the price.

      Even so, not sure you can get prescription glasses for $15 here. Hell, even 25 years ago my first pair cost me £20, and that was a cheap pair.

    14. Re:NYT doesn't report news but does try to create by Copid · · Score: 1

      I'm onboard with paying a proper amount for the eye exam. My major problem is that a lot of providers roll their costs into ridiculously inflated glass and wire. Even that would be sort of OK assuming you never lost or broke your glasses or needed a second pair. As it is, if you do, you end up paying the hidden cost of an exam again rather than just paying for hardware. And all that is ignoring the monstrosity that is Luxottica.

      Transparency is good for all of us, so I'm done buying glasses from my optometrist. If they start losing money over it, they can change their model to price their time appropriately instead of hiding their charges somewhere else.

      It's tempting to bring my own aspirin and saline the next time I end up going to a hospital for something. At some point, we just need to say, "Enough is enough. Itemize my bill properly and let the world know what things really cost." As it is, everybody is running a scam if they can get away with it.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
  34. Re:Mystery? by nedlohs · · Score: 2

    Because your person from the bank says "Sorry you'll have to come into a branch with ID, I can't provide that information over the phone" or "Sure, I'll just need to know your social security number and the pass code on your account" rather than "no we can't tell you because privacy".

    A simple "We can mail that information to the address recorded on the account" would do. You know, tell the person how to request the information instead of just saying "no you can't have it".

  35. Re:UPC or Item/part number codes? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    would it be easier to treat medical treatment like any other industry? Everything has an upc or a item/part number and a description. Stick a barcode on everything then just scan it if the patient need the thing used on them. Stick bar codes on room doors, needles, pills. Dr/Nurse/staff badges. This way your interaction would be recorded and billed correctly.

    Oh this is exactly what happens. In fact, in medicine, we have gone farther than any other industry - we have lots of (different) barcodes and numbers for everything.

    And just to keep everyone on their toes, we change them at random intervals.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  36. Re: Fraud by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    Don't listen to this idiot. Collection companies have zero duty to assure the legitimacy of the debts they own.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  37. Re:No single payer by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

    The patient has no idea what a simple hospital visit for a minor at-night injury will cost when he's only there for a few hours

    About $15,000 from my bill. And that was what insurance paid. God forbid I didn't have any and had to pay cash. Yeah, four hours was the amount of time I spent in the hospital.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  38. Hospitals need to employ people by MorePower · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What bugs me about medical billing is apparently hospitals don't have any employees. Hospitals are apparently just flee-markets that provide space to hundreds of independent individuals and companies who all send separate bills for their services whenever they get around to it.

    The hospital sends their own bill. Then the doctor sends a separate bill (WTF? The doctor isn't even employed by the hospital?) The EKG tech, sonogram tech, x-ray tech, all send there own bills (often months later). Anesthesiologist, separate bill.

    What exactly is the hospital bill for? Apparently, the only employee the hospital has is the billing co-ordinator, who makes sure all these separate entities know who to bill.

  39. As a Canadian now living in the US by Shados · · Score: 1

    That has been my issue with the US health care system.

    Now, don't let anyone else fool you: the Canadian health care system sucks balls. And since not EVERYTHING is free, to get decent care (plus dentist!), you need private insurance. And on my pay checks, all that cost more out of my pocket than it does with half decent insurance in Boston. I'm fully aware its because my employer is paying more and shit, but that's a debate for another day.

    Anyway, because of some ongoing health problems, I've been to the ER way more often than I'd like, and am constantly going to the clinic. The copays aren't bad, wait times are nearly inexistant, all is good.

    The problem is, the paperwork. I get a stream of letters asking me to verify this or that, a single visit ends up in 8 distinct bills, all coming from different organizations and have to be paid separately. Half of them can't be paid online (even from hospitals like MGH. Wtf? _MGH_!!! Those that do end up needing to be paid on weird shady sites.

    And then I'll get 3 bills, all 3 of different amounts, to be paid to 3 different offices, and they all say "office visit".

    When I call, I'm told one is for the doctor, one is for the hospital facilities, and one is for the in-office labs (But I get ANOTHER bill for the labs).

    In the end its pretty obvious whats happening. They're milking my insurance. Bill from 3 different entities for the same thing, and the insurance will pay all 3 for the same service. During that time, I'm caught in the cross fire paying the co-pay 3 times, and the bill is far too vague for me to do anything about it.

    And what can I do? Refuse to pay it? They'll just send it to collection.

    And thats when they get it right. The secretaries in charge of the paperwork are usually not the brightest bulbs... I have an out of state PPO insurance, and they always forget to enter the prefix part of my insurance (because its not necessary unless its out of state). Then bill me for not having insurance instead of calling to work it out.

    Pain in the ass.

    I don't mind the cost. At all. The paperwork though can go to hell.

    1. Re:As a Canadian now living in the US by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      You could tell your insurance company you think they're committing insurance fraud. That'd probably sort them out in a hurry.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    2. Re:As a Canadian now living in the US by trazom28 · · Score: 2

      As a former employee of a large insurance carrier in the US, I can tell you that the insurance carriers would love it to be simpler as well. My daily job was to sort out insurance claims and billing issues for customers, contacting Dr offices and hospitals. Some were great to deal with, and happily corrected the occasional error. Some were a constant may-as-well-put-you-on-speed dial and they were never wrong, just ask them. So many hands in the mix, so many variations on training, and so often, easily corrected errors that should never have happened in the first place. And from the carrier side, you can't tell an office, "you billed this with the wrong code" - legally hands are tied. Have to guide them and hope the light goes on.

      And they'd never tell the patient that if you go in for a procedure, you'll be billed by the facility, the doctor, the anesthesiologist, the labs, and maybe assistant surgeon all separately.

      I left to get back into my original IT career, but I can tell you the people, at least where I worked, really did care about the customers/patients and were just as frustrated with the system. The executives constantly were both asking for and implementing ideas from the rank and file, and were very open to any suggestions. They all wanted a simpler system, and were doing what they could do to make it like that, while still following the plethora of laws that need to be followed.

      --
      {} ------ When I think of a good sig, I'll put it here
    3. Re:As a Canadian now living in the US by Shados · · Score: 1

      I read somewhere that in the US, administration accounted for something silly like 40% of the expenses (Im making the number up from memory).

      Mainly because its a constant fight between the hospitals and offices trying to milk the insurances for all they've got, and insurers trying to control costs without having to call bullshit on every single claim.

      In a way, it works like the IRS.

    4. Re:As a Canadian now living in the US by trazom28 · · Score: 1

      I don't know if the figure is accurate, but could be. I know it was a constant battle with physicians who always wanted more money, the carrier trying to both keep costs low *and* hold physicians accountable for patient care. For example, Patient sees Dr and Dr recommends an MRI. This can go one of two ways:

      1> Dr. "My patient needs an MRI"
                Carrier: "Ok, please provide the medical documentation to prove it's a necessary procedure"
                Dr. "Sure, here you go"
                Carrier: "Looks great - go for it"

      2> Dr. "My patient needs an MRI"
                Carrier: "Ok, please provide the medical documentation to prove it's a necessary procedure"
                Dr. "No.. they need it because I said so."
                Carrier: "Please provide the medical documentation to prove it's a necessary procedure"
                Dr. "Don't you know what I do for a living? (lengthy argument follows)"

      Frustrating because in the time it took 2 to have the argument and whine, they could have gotten the documentation in and had approval and had the procedure done and paid for. Unfortunately with 2, the patient is caught in the middle, and because the Dr. is someone they have known for some time, tends to be believed when they say "I just don't know why your insurance carrier won't approve this - I mean, I told them you need it!"

      Case in point.. Chiropractor in California. The member had coverage for Chiropractic care, and the plan, as determined by the employer, asked the Chiro to send in medical notes after 5 visits to prove that progress was being made to correct the injury. Most had 0 issue providing this. This one refused. Flat out refused. The notes (I read them) basically stated, 'patient came in for adjustment and 2 modalities" No documentation or measurement of progress at all. I call the Chiropractor. Either they wouldn't pick up the phone, or when they did, spoke perfect english until I identified myself as calling from the insurance carrier to discuss what we need to pay patient x's claim. Suddenly the call would mysteriously disconnect and on callbacks, if they did answer, english was no longer an option. (this isn't me with a dig on any non-english speaking persons.. this is purely their reaction to my call). Frustrating for me, frustrating for the patient who finally had to go confront her Chiro face to face and demand they provide medical documentation, after which the patient had the expense of time and money to fax in to me so I could get the claim paid.

      This is part of what is broken in the medical system. And yes, your insurance carrier isn't always part of the problem. Sometimes it is, but sometimes it's just as frustrated as you are.

      --
      {} ------ When I think of a good sig, I'll put it here
  40. Re:Mystery? by itzly · · Score: 1

    The least they could do is explain what the codes on the bill mean. I assume "test code 105" is a generic code, and not tied to a particular patient.

  41. They just make it up (sometimes) by mbone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anyone who has had an involved relationship with the US medical care system is likely to come to the conclusion that sometimes they just make their bills up, either to increase revenue or because their record-keeping is so chaotic.

    If you doubt this, consider an analogy. Suppose you took your car in for major engine repair, it was in the shop for a week, and you paid the hefty bill. Now, suppose 4 months later you got another bill from a "muffler specialist" or a "catalytic converter specialist" for $ 300, with a code saying that they worked on your car while it was in the shop, but no indication as to what they actually did (except, maybe, look at your muffler or catalytic converter). Would you consider it legit? Would you assume you are being gouged? Would you pay? (They'll take you to court if you don't.)

    In my experience, the medical version of this happens every time I have a family member in a US hospital. Not occasionally, not once in a blue moon, but every time. This is one reason why you never know how much a procedure is going to cost; you don't know what bills are going to show up months later.

  42. Re: Fraud by The+Fifth+Man · · Score: 1

    Your statement may be confusing to some people.

    http://collectionagencydebt.bl...

    The answer is most certainly not "zero."

  43. Re:No single payer by Greyfox · · Score: 5, Funny
    One bill, and that they be able to provide you with a reasonably accurate estimate of the costs when you go in. I had a moth fly into my ear, craziest thing, I'm just sitting there minding my own business and this moth just comes out of nowhere, hits the side of my face and disappears. And I freak the fuck out because a moth is now raping my goddamn ear. So I get my room mate to drive me to the emergency room to have the fucker removed. They don't believe me, have a look, and say "Yep, something's in there." And I'm like "Yes! It's a fucking moth!" So they make a couple of attempts and finally get the damn thing out, and it cost $1000 for that, in three separate bills. If they'd told me that in advance, I probably would have decided that I can put up with an awful lot of ear raping for $1000.

    Hell of it was I'd just switched jobs and didn't have a new insurance card yet, but was actually insured. Over the course of my career, I've probably paid $20,000 or so worth of medical insurance and I've had the insurance companies weasel out of paying anything every single time I've had to have a medical procedure. And the total cost of those procedures so far has been significantly less than $20,000. I've had three trips to the ER or urgent care over 25 years, totaling about $3000 worth of care. $1000 of which was for a moth raping my ear.

    So fuck the medical system and fuck the insurance providers. Over the past three decades, I'd have been better of with a jar of leeches. At least those are honest about sucking your blood.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  44. What are these?? by MedBob · · Score: 1

    87481 Is for an Amplified DNA Probe for Candida (Albicans). Whatever specimen was submitted (perhaps by swab) was tested using PCR (Polymer Chain Reaction) amplification of Microbe DNA with detection of that DNA.

    87491 Is for that same procedure as above, looking for Chlamydia.

    87798 Is for the same procedure as above, applied to looking for another organism that is not specified and coded.

    The upshot is that this appears to be a Direct Technique for detecting Vaginal Pathogens. I would suspect a Gyn visit on or near the quoted "Date Of Service". If you had a Gyn visit then, these are valid charges.

    1. Re:What are these?? by trazom28 · · Score: 1

      If I recall correctly also, the 3 digit codes are facility revenue codes. She probably could have searched online for the CPT and rev codes to determine what they are - there's a million resources and they're all standard.

      --
      {} ------ When I think of a good sig, I'll put it here
  45. True story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I once received a £2500 (~$4000) hospital bill for a...
    .
    .
    .
    .
    sandwich.

    They did at least write 'sandwich' and not some obscure code though.

  46. Re:They don't often don't even know by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    I asked about a procedure with my ENT a while back. He actually didn't know the total cost (though it was fairly common). He thought his fees would be in the 2k range, but he didn't know what the hospital would charge for a few hours of a room, operating theater, and support. So I called the hospital - and they didn't know either.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  47. Different Issue by sycodon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This issue is something not addressed by Obamacare and is actually completely different from the question of how people get insurance.

    One of the fundamental flaws in the old and current system is that it is completely opaque as far as costs go. People needing non-emergency care have no way to determine which provider has the best prices and what they will be charged for. It's like buying a car..you get one price from the Salesman but when you get back into the finance office, you have all this other crap added on that you aren't sure you need or even what it is.

    Until this crap is straightened out, consumers will never be able to make informed choices and the people paying the bills, insurance companies or government, will never really know what they are paying for.

    Fix this and you are a long way towards a better solution for all involved.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  48. Old oblig joke by codeButcher · · Score: 4, Funny

    A young doctor and an old doctor chat over the water cooler.

    Asks the old doctor: "So, what did you treat mrs. Smith for?"

    Young doctor: "$17 000."

    ODr: "No.... I mean: what did she have?"

    YDr: "$17 000!"

    --
    Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
  49. The most immediate symptom you can find by kuhnto · · Score: 1

    Open your filing cabinet...

    What is the biggest file you have in there?

    This is a clear signal that something systemically wrong with the system.

    --
    "A 'person' is smart. 'People' are dumb, panicky animals and you know that."
  50. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  51. More idiots... by bored · · Score: 1

    Its probably takes all of a couple fields scattered around the database or a code to human description table somewhere.

    Then when it comes to printing it, the result set gets joined to the human readable table and it gets printed as "code, human text".

    Heck its hard to imagine that the table doesn't exist, which leaves you with the feeling that only printing the "codes" is on purpose.

    Because, it keeps those pesky customers from asking why they paid $500 for something they can buy over the counter at walmart for $1, or why the chest xray cost $2000 when its the same as the one their doctor ordered which was only billed for $50.

  52. Re:No single payer by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    The staff working at the clinic should be paid by the clinic.

    Ya, but then the staff would be employees, not "independent contractors" and the clinic would have to treat them as employees and provide them with things like overtime (for part-time employees) and health insurance - oh wait...

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  53. Re:No single payer by TWX · · Score: 1

    Independent contractors can still be paid by the clinic.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  54. Re:No single payer by Qzukk · · Score: 1

    I know I do.

    Yeah, I can imagine you sitting there after a car wreck, horribly mangled, holding onto consciousness just so you can make sure that they take you to the best hospital. Wait! Is this ambulance fully accredited and received at least an A rating from Consumer Reports? No? Well, I'll just wait here for one that is.

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  55. another Canadian begs to differ by Chirs · · Score: 1

    Sure I can. I can call up my family doc and book an appointment (generally within 1 week), or if I don't want to wait that long I can go to the local clinic and wait for the on-call doc to see me, or if it's really serious I can go to Emergency at the hospital.

    Now if you want to see a specialist then you might be waiting a while. But if the GP thinks your case is serious then they'll bump you further up the queue, and if it's really serious they can generally get you in right away.

    The biggest failing is in highly specialized stuff like pediatric psychiatry, or health care for really remote areas, but I suspect that would be an issue under most forms of health care.

  56. restaurants can't bill like that but the medical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    restaurants can't bill like that but the medical can?

    Just think if a restaurant where the cook, busier, expeditor, waiter all sent you bills in the mail. and the menu price just cover the non labor costs and the labor costs are not listed in it.

  57. I usually wouldn't bother for a sore throat by Chirs · · Score: 1

    Most of the time a sore throat isn't something you need to see a doctor about:
    http://www.mayoclinic.org/dise...

    In Canada we have a free healthcare phone number that you can call and talk to a Registered Nurse. They'll ask questions and clarify whether or not you should even both going in to see a doctor.

  58. There is private health care in Canada too by Chirs · · Score: 2

    Not sure what you're smoking. Canada has quite a healthy private health care industry:
    http://www.cbc.ca/news2/backgr...

  59. Mis-coding being perpitrated by doctors! by gabrieltss · · Score: 4, Informative

    Back in the 90's I did some IT consulting work for a lady that had a consulting practice that their whole gig was they went into doctors offices and showed them how they could use different CPT codes for for various procedures and make more money from it. So instead of using a code for say "blood sugar blood test" then would show them to use the code for a generic procedure that had a higher cost. They would do a "free" analysis of the doctors current billing's then show where they could make the doctor more money by going bill by bill to show them where they could make more money by using different CPT codes. When the doctor would hire her company (pay them $$$) they would then show which specific CPT codes to change on each bill. She still has this business and is making good money as well she is also now a lobbyist for the medical industry....

    --
    The Truth is a Virus!!!
    1. Re:Mis-coding being perpitrated by doctors! by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      Back in the 90's I did some IT consulting work for a lady that had a consulting practice that their whole gig was they went into doctors offices and showed them how they could use different CPT codes for for various procedures and make more money from it. So instead of using a code for say "blood sugar blood test" then would show them to use the code for a generic procedure that had a higher cost. They would do a "free" analysis of the doctors current billing's then show where they could make the doctor more money by going bill by bill to show them where they could make more money by using different CPT codes. When the doctor would hire her company (pay them $$$) they would then show which specific CPT codes to change on each bill. She still has this business and is making good money as well she is also now a lobbyist for the medical industry....

      My best friend in college was the child of a physician who was convicted of fraud for doing this, and that was fifteen years ago. I'd be wanting to know about their long-term success rate before buying their services.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  60. I would qualify that... by Chirs · · Score: 1

    Our medical care is second to none in quality and capability.

    I'd be willing to posit that if you can afford to pay at the highest level then you can get the highest level of care. According to the New York Times though the USA doesn't provide the highest-qualtiy health care in all areas:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08...

  61. Excel spreadsheets of codes found... by FrozenFrog · · Score: 1

    You can download an excel spreadsheet with ALL codes and descriptions/explanations:

    http://www.cms.gov/medicare-co...

    Current LCDs
    and
    Current and retired LCDs (57.2MB zip file)

    By using the spreadsheet, the codes referenced in this story are:

    87481 - INFECTIOUS AGENT DETECT BY DNA/RNA; CANDIDA, AMP PROBE

    87491 - INFECTIOUS AGENT DETECT BY DNA/RNA; CHLAMYDIA T, AMP PROBE

    87798 - INFECTIOUS AGENT DETECTION BY NUCLEIC ACID (DNA OR RNA), NOT OTHERWISE SPECIFIED; AMPLIFIED PROBE TECHNIQUE, EACH ORGANISM

  62. Re:restaurants can't bill like that but the medica by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    It gets even better. The doctors that aren't really employees are liable for the actions of hospital employees that they have no control over. The mistakes of a nurse or an anesthesiologist are ultimately on the "outside contractor". He is stuck with the liability and he is stuck paying his own medmal premiums and they are by no means cheap.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  63. translation by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

    These test codes mean X people showed up at the emergency room.

    Since medical providers are required by law to treat anyone who shows up (and someone has to pay), the laws are forgiving about the labelling and YOU pay the cost.

    This is like a cell phone contract. You are paying for the phone ... just in a disguised way. And in this case the people who are milking the system are most likely not the ones contributing to it.

  64. Re:It gets better by trazom28 · · Score: 1

    I'm glad I got out of the field before ICD-10. ICD-9 seemed fine enough and covered all the bases. The only thing I didn't see in ICD-10 was "captured by aliens, probe rear entry, subsequent encounter" Sure has everything else though..

    --
    {} ------ When I think of a good sig, I'll put it here
  65. A lot more than one by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    Yet I bet nearly every one of us has dealt with at least one error or oversight that benefits the company

    I lived for several years in the US just over a decade ago when MCI was a long distance phone company. They made so many mistakes that it became a joke: there was at least one error every 3 months and it was always in their favour. Even the one time they accidentally credited my bill with someone else's far larger payment they tried to charge me a late payment fee when they corrected it several months later despite acknowledging that I had informed them of the mistake at the time it occurred!

    If you contrast this with Canada I don't think I have ever had an error on a bill since I moved here 12 years ago. Even in the UK, where I was moving around more frequently, the only time I had trouble was with either the setup or termination of services which was more understandable. As a result it is hard to believe that the massive rate of mistakes I observed in the US (and not just MCI, although they were by far the worst) is entirely due to incompetence and it seems far, far more likely that it is a deliberate policy of some companies to overcharge and then hope that you cannot be bothered to complain.

  66. Re:No single payer by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

    My rule of thumb is to NEVER go to the ER if the condition is not life-threatening. I can handle a doc-in-the-box removing a moth, and will pay a TON less.

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  67. Re:Non-profit or For-profit? by mroyerinde · · Score: 1

    Don't confuse non-profit hospitals with not taking a profit. The term "non-profit" is the biggest misnomer around. It is just a designation that there are no shareholders. They make some very good profits indeed. Those that don't have a lot of money have been priced out of the system. The model is completely unsustainable and they all know it. You can't have rising premiums and declining services and expect it to last. The system will implode because the insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, and now hospitals themselves, are doing quite well, at the expense of everyone else.

  68. Huh? by sirwired · · Score: 1

    Refusing to tell somebody what the codes on the bill mean as a "security" measure is silly... that's "security by obscurity" at it's best/worst. Nobody is going to rely on that as an actual security measure, but it IS a good way to get people off the phone when they want to question their bill.

    1. Re:Huh? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      You may have responded to the wrong comment. I was discussing possession of a bill as a means of validating identity.

  69. Good luck fixing errors by lamer01 · · Score: 1

    In my insurance company's web page where it shows my health history, it shows that I had heart issues a few years ago. ( I never did ). I called them and they said they couldn't tell me how that record got in there. They told me to call my doctor. I called my doctor, they said they had no idea how that got in there. NEITHER of them can change it. The insurance says the doctor must correct it, the doctor says they know nothing about it. I am stuck with an erroneous health record.

  70. Re:restaurants can't bill like that but the medica by pnutjam · · Score: 1

    And any waitress who stopped by to ask if you need drink refills, or are happy with your meal could submit a bill.

  71. You missed part of the bill by dcooper_db9 · · Score: 1

    You've got the $275 for the pill. Then there's the charge for the water cup. And the technician that brought you the pill. And the nurse that verified you took the pill. And the doctor approved the prescription. That's billed separately. They probably tack on a fee for the medication administration software too. I'm guessing that pill could run you an easy $600.

    You really should have packed your own Tylenol.

    --
    I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
  72. Re:No single payer by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    Yeah. Too be fair, it's a lot easier to plan ahead when a moth isn't raping your ear :-P

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  73. Re:restaurants can't bill like that but the medica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Actually..
    I hope John Oliver or someone does this at a big medical conference someplace.
    Rent out a big hall next door serving food and drinks and invite the people from the conference to go over there.. Act like it is free, or have $1 drinks and free food or something.

    Then as all the Dr.'s and prostitutes/drug reps, are leaving they get a bill from a big bouncer looking guy. They tell them they can't be 'discharged' until this bill is taken care of.. Then the waitress $100 plus $500 for extra napkin and, then the cook, then a dishwasher with $300 extra for 'glass spot removal procedure', then and 'assistant to the dishwasher' with an 'out of network' consulting bill for $3,000, etc..

    Get it all on candid camera and see if it gets the fucking point across to anyone.

  74. Re:Sign in sheet. by mbone · · Score: 1

    Kinda hard to do when the bill is from an assistant anesthesiologist for work performed during surgery. That is one of the most common bills to show up months later.

  75. Re:Non-profit or For-profit? by mbone · · Score: 1

    Where I find a big, big difference is the for profit facilities doing things like plastic surgery. They want to be paid up front, they will tell you what it will cost to the penny, and they never come up with bogus add-on charges.

  76. There is NO "mystery". by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    There is NO "mystery". Health care companies are stealing from customers. There is nothing that limits how much they charge, especially if a customer has no insurance.

    The new health care law in the U.S. forces healthy people to pay huge amounts for health care. Everyone must pay an extremely high yearly cost.

  77. Re:Software Industry Decides? by budgenator · · Score: 1

    She trying to say she doesn't understand that after the Lawyers have dictated what can be released under HIPPA, what she has to say means jack about what's on the bill.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  78. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  79. Re: No single payer by EdwardFurlong · · Score: 1

    Next time lean your head horizontal and pour water in your ear. Happened to me... this was pre Internet with home remedy books though.

  80. All Fake by speedlaw · · Score: 1

    I got a bill for an ER visit. Five stitches. $2500 Best was a $400 adjustment. It was the difference between one charge and another. They would not give me the "negotiated" rate as it was under deductible. Written requests to the insurer and hospital both refused citing confidentiality...to me, the patient. Bastards. Charged more because my insurer got out from under.

  81. Medical costs are hidden costs... by Methadras · · Score: 1

    The dirty secret in all medical billing, hospitals, doctors offices, whatnot, is that a patient usually does not know what the costs of their care is going to be upfront. It is one of the rare industries where costs to consumers is completely unknown. "We've not seen a lot of pressure to standardize medical billing, but there's certainly a need." Really? You think? How about actual advertisement of costs within a medical office before care. Is medical care in this country so blase that consumers do not wish to know or is the industry deliberately hiding actual costs as a cover for insurance downgrades of costs? Walk into any hospital and ask them how much an appendectomy costs? or an angioplasty? an amputation perhaps? You will get deer-eyed stares. No one knows except the billing coders and even then they don't because it automatically gets spit out of a formulaic and archaic billing system. It's a screw job all the way down.

  82. It pays to dispute the claim by PodcampWhit · · Score: 1

    My kid had back surgery last summer and the neuromonitoring folks didn't send a bill until December. They had not billed the insurance correctly, and their $7500+ bill was covered- once we straightened that out, there was still one remaining charge for about $38. I said I would be glad to pay if they could explain why this wasn;t covered under insurance or my deductible; it turns out it was denied as an overcharge by my insurance company, so no one had to pay it, and they fixed it- but it took several annoying phone calls and speaking with several folks to get it done. I figure every time someone is a pain in the arse to these folks, they will eventually fix the problem.

  83. Re:No, Forbes did not by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    There are some sub-populations in the U.S. that tend to live extremely unhealthy lifestyles; sub-populations that never enter into the national averages in the top-ranking countries. I predict that if those sub-populations were factored out, the U.S. would shoot to the top in a ranking of health outcomes.

    You've just made a very good case for comprehensive, universal, single-payer health care in the United States.

    Because health care isn't just about waiting until you're really sick. And other countries do a much better job educating their populations about health and making preventive medicine cheap or free.

    But here in the US, we leave it to the "Free Market" who doesn't really give a fuck if you die painfully of congestive heart failure, as long as you consumed as much as possible while you're alive.

    Those "sub-populations" you're talking about about? Those are called, "Americans".

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  84. What is this concept "medical bill" by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
    Do you not have a health care system?

    Who could be so crass as to attempt to profit from someone else's pain.

    Oh, of course - you use arms manufacturers for your medical care. That explains it. Bizarre, but it's your country. Just don't ask me to go there.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"