Surprise Out-of-Network Charges Cost Us All

Guest blog by 

Joseph P. McDonagh, CLU, Independent Insurance Broker

5322424442_b7cf3df2cc_z

I see many types of bills as a health insurance agent, but I received one from a client last week that highlights a disturbing trend.

 

Unfortunately, it was the third bill of its type that I’ve seen in 2015.

 

The bill was from a physician assistant for $6,200.  The physician assistant didn’t perform the surgery – obviously, a surgeon did that.  The physician assistant wasn’t known to my client; he had no idea who this person was until the bill arrived.  To top it off, the $6,200 bill was more than what the surgeon was paid.

 

The bill was so high because the physician assistant was billing separate from the facility, the surgeon, and the anesthesiologist. This is because the physician assistant was “out of network,” meaning they are not a participating provider with my client’s insurance company. This entitled them to bill my client for the full amount.

 

I am a veteran in the health insurance field. I work mainly with small employers with fewer than 50 employees. And especially for them, part of what I do includes helping to explain why they’re being billed for something. A major part of my job is calling the insurance company when a claim is denied and negotiating my client’s way through the confusion of 21st century health insurance.

 

This task keeps getting tougher.

 

A month ago, another client sent me an “explanation of benefits” (EOB) – the notoriously obtuse and unintelligible statement that an insurance company sends when a claim has been processed by an insurance company.  He, too, had been in the hospital for surgery.

 

The EOB showed a $2,400 bill for the anesthesiologist, of which the insurance company paid nothing because the anesthesiologist, a person my client hadn’t chosen and only met for the first time on the morning of the surgery, was also out of network.

 

A third client contacted me in January.  She had been to see her regular doctor for a routine annual exam, including blood tests.  She received a bill from the laboratory that performed the blood tests for over $2,800.

 

That lab, like the physician assistant, like the anesthesiologist, is out of network. Do you see a trend?

 

When a bill is presented for out of network services to an insurance company, it is either denied outright if the insurance plan doesn’t cover out of network services, or it is paid at a significant discount.  However, unlike an in-network provider, the out of network provider can send a bill to the patient for the part of the bill that the insurance company won’t pay and demand full payment.

 

If you deliberately chose that out of network provider – maybe it was a highly recommended orthopedic surgeon, a chiropractor who was known to work magic, or a psychiatrist who doesn’t accept insurance – the full cost is rightfully on your shoulders.

 

But when the facility, the doctor, or the physician assistant wasn’t selected by you and is out of your control, why should you be held responsible for that cost?

 

You shouldn’t. And if you aren’t, it is a long and arduous process to get the bill settled.

 

Your insurance company’s denial must be appealed, a process that will typically take about a month.  It is your responsibility to file the appeal, not the out of network provider’s (who might, in the meantime, be sending your bill to a collection agency).  And when the bill is finally settled, the end result often is that the provider is reimbursed by your insurance company for the full amount billed.

 

Why?  Why should a physician assistant receive more in payment than the surgeon?  Why should an anesthesiologist receive four times what would have been paid if he was in network?  Why should an out of network laboratory receive ten times what would have been paid to an in-network lab?

 

They shouldn’t, but they often are.  And ultimately, although you won’t be paying that provider directly, we are all paying the costs for these unwarranted out of network expenses in higher premiums.

 

These three cases aren’t unusual.  What is unusual is that I am confronted with these sorts of problems more frequently these days.  Just as we are trying to gain control over health care costs with viable new ideas – patient-centered care, capitation payments replacing fee-for-service, etc. – these out of network provider costs threaten to undermine our efforts.

 

When an insured patient enters the hospital for an emergency, no one is required to ask if the physicians attending are in network.  Emergency services are rightly covered as though in-network, even if the providers are not.

 

But in the case of scheduled surgery, unless the patient has specifically requested the services of an out of network provider, no one in the operating room should be outside the network and certainly no one should be paid other than what is appropriate for the in-network care.

 

It’s not enough that my clients won’t have to pay these outrageous bills; their insurance company shouldn’t be paying them either.

 

The state legislature is partially addressing this issue via S.B. 808.

This entry was posted in Guest Blog and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Surprise Out-of-Network Charges Cost Us All

  1. Pingback: Oh Brother! Those Awful Out-of-Network Charges! | Health Stew

  2. Pingback: Consumer health care cost protections fall short  | Universal Health Care Foundation of Connecticut

  3. Jennifer says:

    Thanks for this story, so we know we’re not the only one. I was seen in the emergency room who decided I needed an emergency surgery at Memorial Hospital in Miramar, FL. Lots and lots of doctors billed the insurance, all of which were paid as in-network. One was not approved, that of a physician assistant, because he didn’t bill correctly. After months, it was finally approved, at 3 times the rate of the surgeon, and out-of-network! I don’t understand. It was an emergency, the hospital and primary surgeon were in-network, and the billing person is only a physician assistant. We’re going to call the insurer on Monday and then per your column, will file an appeal.

  4. There ‘s a flip side to this story. I can’t speak for hospital-based providers of medical services, but as a licensed psychotherapist in private practice I can tell you (1) that many insurance companies make it difficult to impossible to join their network and (2) that at least for psychologists, social workers, LMFTs, and LPCs (psychotherapists with different credentials) the reimbursement rates are too low to permit us to operate our businesses (turn on the lights, pay taxes, and spend unreimbursed hours on billing and reporting requirements). In the fifteen years I have been in private practice, there has been no increase in reimbursement rates–and we are not reimbursed for late cancellations or no-shows. The insurers impose other burdensome requirements as well that imperil services to consumers. I agree that consumers should know what the charges they are incurring for services and should have the opportunity to stay in network, but the insurers for their part should adopt an “any willing provider” policy about inclusion in their networks. The reimbursement rates for private practitioners should be equitable, should compensate veteran practitioners over novices, and should increase over time to take into account inflation in other areas.

  5. Claire says:

    I am one of those who has been “slammed” by a surprise bill from Quest. I use in network providers. My providers use a “middleman” processing lab who sent my bloodwork to the wrong lab, despite correct insurance info. I had no knowledge of this group. It is impossible to get a response from them. My physician’s office is working on it but it appears futile. I have to pay to maintain excellent credit rating. I have done all the paperwork, including BBB and Consumer Affairs. I also feel this is a HIPPA violation as I only released info to in network providers. We are talking over $600 and my insurance has paid half, I think. Florida does not have a Surprise Bill Law and it should considering how difficult this could be for seniors.

  6. New treatment selections and technologies are at the forefront of adjustments in the way nurses interact with individuals
    and with their medical peers.

  7. Pingback: Top Universal Health Care Foundation Blogs of 2015 | Universal Health Care Foundation of Connecticut

  8. EERNST says:

    What happens if you see an out of network specialist and they request blood work to be done, however the subscriber elected the lab work to be done at an in-network lab. However, the subscriber was charged the entire lab work because the specialist was out of network. Does that fall solely on the subscribers shoulders?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s