27 ms·
There's still annual maximums, in-network coverage, PMO, HMO, etc. The minimums can be pretty basic. It looks like the ACA doesn't really do anything to change
by ssmoot 10y ago
There's still annual maximums, in-network coverage, PMO, HMO, etc. The minimums can be pretty basic.
It looks like the ACA doesn't really do anything to change the picture for a $474,000 medical bill. The guy got charged $39 each for over 200 glucose checks. That's the price of a new meter for every check.
- rincebrain 10y agoActually, annual maximums on ("essential") benefits are illegal under the ACA[1] - the only "annual maximums" allowed are for {deductible, out of pocket}, at which point they are supposed to cover 100% of covered claims. I don't obviously see the specific anecdote you're discussing in the thread, so I can't tell if what transpired is because it (somehow) didn't blow either of those thresholds, or because it wasn't an "essential" benefit, or simply pre-dated those terms of the ACA becoming effective. [1] - http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-the-law/benefit-limits/index.html http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-the-law/benefit-limits/i...
- ssmoot 10y agoThanks for correcting me. I could've sworn I saw annual maximums when I looked on healthcare.gov but maybe I mistook the max out of pocket for a max annual. The example I used is the case presented in the video. I just googled for Bob Weinkauf. http://writingshares.com/cnn-anderson-cooper-medical-news-video-bob-weinkauf-gets-474000-hospital-bill/ http://writingshares.com/cnn-anderson-cooper-medical-news-vi... I was also curious when this happened. Looks likely to be under the ACA unless it took years to hit the news though. So I don't know. Maybe he went to the emergency room and it was out of network under his plan, leaving him to shoulder the costs. I didn't dig much after skimming for an approximate date.