4 ms·

This is not really a thing.

by sjg007 8y ago

ceejayoz 8y ago
It definitely is. https://www.tdi.texas.gov/news/2018/tdi10082018.html https://www.tdi.texas.gov/news/2018/tdi10082018.html > The problem meant consumers couldn’t get in-network anesthesia services at more than 20 hospitals and surgical centers in three of the state’s largest metro areas. https://www.vox.com/2018/5/23/17353284/emergency-room-doctor-out-of-network https://www.vox.com/2018/5/23/17353284/emergency-room-doctor... > Except he wasn’t: While the emergency room where Kohan was seen was in his insurance network, the oral surgeon who worked in that ER was not. That’s how Kohan ended up with a $7,924 bill from the oral surgeon that his health plan declined. > Separate data from the Center for Public Policy Priorities, an Austin-based think tank, finds that a staggering number of Texas emergency rooms have zero in-network emergency physicians — meaning that patients are guaranteed to see a doctor who does not accept their health insurance.
- sjg007 8y ago
  And it is still not a thing because the State prohibited said action.
  - desdiv 8y ago
    Yes, just like how the federal government prohibited marijuana and therefore no one in the United States of America consumes marijuana. Someone up thread made a claim and the burden of proof was on them. Now multiple reliable sources have been provided to satisfy that proof. You claim an unspecified law prohibit this and that this prohibition actually works. So now the burden of proof falls on you to actually cite the law and provide reliable sources of this law actually working.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    By that logic, murder's not a thing. Texas got mad here because there were no in-network anesthesia services. Having some out-of-network providers is depressingly common, and hard to guard against: https://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20180917/NEWS/180919898 https://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20180917/NEWS/18091... > About 25% of patient visits to hospitals in their insurance network result in balance billing from care by out-of-network physicians. Also, from the Vox article: > The problem with that law, Pogue argues, is that it requires patients to contact the state — and patients often aren’t aware of the option. Kohan, for example, didn’t know he had these rights until I told him. Pogue’s research suggests this is really common: Only 3,824 Texas patients have used the law to resolve their surprise bills since 2009. CPPP estimates that this is a tiny fraction of the 250,000 surprise medical bills sent out in the same time frame. This is just Texas, too. Plenty of states don't have their 2009 state law to work with.
dboreham 8y ago
Au contraire. I've seen it first hand several times in my immediate family.
chrisbennet 8y ago
“A new study that looked at more than 2 million emergency department visits found that more than 1 in 5 patients who went to ERs within their health-insurance networks ended up being treated by an "out-of-network" doctor — and thus exposed to additional charges not covered by their insurance plan.” https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/16/many-get-hit-with-surprise-out-of-network-bill-after-emergency-rooms-study.html https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/16/many-get-hit-with-surprise-o...

This is not really a thing.

by sjg007 8y ago

This is not really a thing.

It definitely is. https://www.tdi.texas.gov/news/2018/tdi10082018.html https://www.tdi.texas.gov/news/2018/tdi10082018.html > The problem meant consumers couldn’t get in-network anesthesia services at more than 20 hospitals and surgical centers in three of the state’s largest metro areas. https://www.vox.com/2018/5/23/17353284/emergency-room-doctor-out-of-network https://www.vox.com/2018/5/23/17353284/emergency-room-doctor... > Except he wasn’t: While the emergency room where Kohan was seen was in his insurance network, the oral surgeon who worked in that ER was not. That’s how Kohan ended up with a $7,924 bill from the oral surgeon that his health plan declined. > Separate data from the Center for Public Policy Priorities, an Austin-based think tank, finds that a staggering number of Texas emergency rooms have zero in-network emergency physicians — meaning that patients are guaranteed to see a doctor who does not accept their health insurance.

sjg007 8y ago
And it is still not a thing because the State prohibited said action.
- desdiv 8y ago
  Yes, just like how the federal government prohibited marijuana and therefore no one in the United States of America consumes marijuana. Someone up thread made a claim and the burden of proof was on them. Now multiple reliable sources have been provided to satisfy that proof. You claim an unspecified law prohibit this and that this prohibition actually works. So now the burden of proof falls on you to actually cite the law and provide reliable sources of this law actually working.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  By that logic, murder's not a thing. Texas got mad here because there were no in-network anesthesia services. Having some out-of-network providers is depressingly common, and hard to guard against: https://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20180917/NEWS/180919898 https://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20180917/NEWS/18091... > About 25% of patient visits to hospitals in their insurance network result in balance billing from care by out-of-network physicians. Also, from the Vox article: > The problem with that law, Pogue argues, is that it requires patients to contact the state — and patients often aren’t aware of the option. Kohan, for example, didn’t know he had these rights until I told him. Pogue’s research suggests this is really common: Only 3,824 Texas patients have used the law to resolve their surprise bills since 2009. CPPP estimates that this is a tiny fraction of the 250,000 surprise medical bills sent out in the same time frame. This is just Texas, too. Plenty of states don't have their 2009 state law to work with.

dboreham 8y ago

Au contraire. I've seen it first hand several times in my immediate family.

chrisbennet 8y ago

“A new study that looked at more than 2 million emergency department visits found that more than 1 in 5 patients who went to ERs within their health-insurance networks ended up being treated by an "out-of-network" doctor — and thus exposed to additional charges not covered by their insurance plan.” https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/16/many-get-hit-with-surprise-out-of-network-bill-after-emergency-rooms-study.html https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/16/many-get-hit-with-surprise-o...