4 ms·

Pretty sure if you go through the effort to challenge such charges you can get them changed. https://www.vox.com/2019/3/22/18261698/how-to-fight-expensive-medic

Pretty sure if you go through the effort to challenge such charges you can get them changed. https://www.vox.com/2019/3/22/18261698/how-to-fight-expensive-medical-bill https://www.vox.com/2019/3/22/18261698/how-to-fight-expensiv...

widowlark 7y ago
You would need to do this for every change, every time. Hardly a good solution.
hayksaakian 7y ago
Opt-out vs Opt-in
Ididntdothis 7y ago
You need very strong nerves. Their collectors can be very aggressive.
- chachachoney 7y ago
  Incredibly useful phrase: "I'd love to get this in front of a judge."
mehrdadn 7y ago
The thing I don't understand about tips like these is, what obligation does the other party have to cooperate at all? Like you "ask for a supervisor" (and then a director!) what incentive do they have to not just say no? Or if you ask for an itemized bill, what if they just refuse? How are you supposed to get past a blunt refusal, which to me seems like the easiest response for them?
- cbanek 7y ago
  Once upon a time, I had a surprise bill for about $4,000 that health insurance decided should have been $700 for that procedure. I fought it and won. But it took forever, almost a year of calling them and going back and forth - and this was actually decent corporate health insurance. It took a lot of reading through the 600+ page plan document and finding loopholes. For example, I asked them that if they thought it should be done for $700, who would actually do it for $700? They couldn't list one provider that would accept the payment rate they thought they should pay. And since this was a reimbursement, and they had already pre-approved the procedure (knowing the price), I think I caught them already saying they would do it, but them not following through. There was a lot of going back and forth about in-network vs out of network, but again, no one in-network would perform the procedure. In the fine print of the plan document, it said if there are no in-network providers, the plan must provide you were in-network rates and deductibles for using an out-of-network provider. So I told them if they can't find anyone who will accept what they are willing to pay, their figure is obviously wrong. It helped that with my health insurance, everything was supposed to be covered, 100% with no copay. So the fact that they tried to charge me for the $3300 overage was very out of line for them. They never just said "no, we're not going to cooperate" it was more just endless stalling on their part. It was never really a blunt refusal, or if they tried that, I just proved how ridiculous their arguments were. I kept a lot of documentation. I think in the end, they just relented because they were spending more dealing with me than actually just paying me my money. But it was certainly an uphill battle the whole way, and not one I would recommend to someone who isn't well versed in legalese.
  - rntksi 7y ago
    These stories are horrifying to me. I live in a less developed country than the US, other businesses may be crooked and all but at least the medical field is manageable.
- partialrecall 7y ago
  If they give in to the few people who have the initiative to complain, they likely placate the few people who'd have the initiative to demand change. See also, the TSA precheck systems. By allowing people like frequent flying businessmen and politicians to avoid the standard TSA experience, they reduce the likelihood that such people might use their influence to advocate against the TSA, for the betterment of all passengers.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ploxiln 7y ago
  Sometimes the first price quoted is just a formality. One time my significant other went to an optometrist for a contacts prescription, without optical insurance (long story), and the bill was for $1000. She emailed asking why, and they just replied "here's your updated bill: $250" I was reminded of this just yesterday by a similarly simple story: https://twitter.com/chrisalbon/status/1172161958759395333 https://twitter.com/chrisalbon/status/1172161958759395333 It's sort of like "add to cart to see the real price" but they can't say that. And sometimes hospitals are in a different mode where they fight for it. It's not logical, it's screwed up, but anyway the first bill is usually just fake.
- azernik 7y ago
  Generally, these excessive bills are, to put it mildly, of questionable legality. If you complain, they assume you're the type with enough savvy to maybe sue them, so they'll give in to placate you. And yet they do this anyway, knowing that some people will not properly contest the bill. See also the US unemployment benefits situation, where many employers will contest an unemployment insurance claim by default even when the worker is actually eligible, in the hopes that some workers will not navigate the bureaucracy well enough to fight back. Because of the weakness of their case, however, they will then back down as soon as their denial is challenged.
- tomjakubowski 7y ago
  It might be that a blunt refusal would look bad in court if the billed party took them there.
  - mehrdadn 7y ago
    I've thought about this aspect, but the thing is, how would you ever even show you were refused without a recording? (Say if you're in a 2-party-consent state? Which they would obviously not consent to?)
    - dannypgh 7y ago
      Civil cases are based on preponderance of evidence, and your testimony is evidence. If they refute it and they're lying, that's a felony, and I don't think these professionals are being paid enough to commit felonies for their employer.
      - mehrdadn 7y ago
        This reminds me of another question I've had -- does anyone ever get prosecuted for false testimony? I feel like I don't really hear of this happening, which has always baffled me.
- robocat 7y ago
  Even worse, the people that would fight are often: dead, incapacitated, have age related mental issues, or old enough to not care to fight...
foobarbecue 7y ago
That lawyer's name is Sue Null!?!?

widowlark 7y ago

You would need to do this for every change, every time. Hardly a good solution.

hayksaakian 7y ago

Opt-out vs Opt-in

Ididntdothis 7y ago

You need very strong nerves. Their collectors can be very aggressive.

chachachoney 7y ago
Incredibly useful phrase: "I'd love to get this in front of a judge."

mehrdadn 7y ago

The thing I don't understand about tips like these is, what obligation does the other party have to cooperate at all? Like you "ask for a supervisor" (and then a director!) what incentive do they have to not just say no? Or if you ask for an itemized bill, what if they just refuse? How are you supposed to get past a blunt refusal, which to me seems like the easiest response for them?

cbanek 7y ago
Once upon a time, I had a surprise bill for about $4,000 that health insurance decided should have been $700 for that procedure. I fought it and won. But it took forever, almost a year of calling them and going back and forth - and this was actually decent corporate health insurance. It took a lot of reading through the 600+ page plan document and finding loopholes. For example, I asked them that if they thought it should be done for $700, who would actually do it for $700? They couldn't list one provider that would accept the payment rate they thought they should pay. And since this was a reimbursement, and they had already pre-approved the procedure (knowing the price), I think I caught them already saying they would do it, but them not following through. There was a lot of going back and forth about in-network vs out of network, but again, no one in-network would perform the procedure. In the fine print of the plan document, it said if there are no in-network providers, the plan must provide you were in-network rates and deductibles for using an out-of-network provider. So I told them if they can't find anyone who will accept what they are willing to pay, their figure is obviously wrong. It helped that with my health insurance, everything was supposed to be covered, 100% with no copay. So the fact that they tried to charge me for the $3300 overage was very out of line for them. They never just said "no, we're not going to cooperate" it was more just endless stalling on their part. It was never really a blunt refusal, or if they tried that, I just proved how ridiculous their arguments were. I kept a lot of documentation. I think in the end, they just relented because they were spending more dealing with me than actually just paying me my money. But it was certainly an uphill battle the whole way, and not one I would recommend to someone who isn't well versed in legalese.
- rntksi 7y ago
  These stories are horrifying to me. I live in a less developed country than the US, other businesses may be crooked and all but at least the medical field is manageable.
partialrecall 7y ago
If they give in to the few people who have the initiative to complain, they likely placate the few people who'd have the initiative to demand change. See also, the TSA precheck systems. By allowing people like frequent flying businessmen and politicians to avoid the standard TSA experience, they reduce the likelihood that such people might use their influence to advocate against the TSA, for the betterment of all passengers.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ploxiln 7y ago
Sometimes the first price quoted is just a formality. One time my significant other went to an optometrist for a contacts prescription, without optical insurance (long story), and the bill was for $1000. She emailed asking why, and they just replied "here's your updated bill: $250" I was reminded of this just yesterday by a similarly simple story: https://twitter.com/chrisalbon/status/1172161958759395333 https://twitter.com/chrisalbon/status/1172161958759395333 It's sort of like "add to cart to see the real price" but they can't say that. And sometimes hospitals are in a different mode where they fight for it. It's not logical, it's screwed up, but anyway the first bill is usually just fake.
azernik 7y ago
Generally, these excessive bills are, to put it mildly, of questionable legality. If you complain, they assume you're the type with enough savvy to maybe sue them, so they'll give in to placate you. And yet they do this anyway, knowing that some people will not properly contest the bill. See also the US unemployment benefits situation, where many employers will contest an unemployment insurance claim by default even when the worker is actually eligible, in the hopes that some workers will not navigate the bureaucracy well enough to fight back. Because of the weakness of their case, however, they will then back down as soon as their denial is challenged.
tomjakubowski 7y ago
It might be that a blunt refusal would look bad in court if the billed party took them there.
- mehrdadn 7y ago
  I've thought about this aspect, but the thing is, how would you ever even show you were refused without a recording? (Say if you're in a 2-party-consent state? Which they would obviously not consent to?)
  - dannypgh 7y ago
    Civil cases are based on preponderance of evidence, and your testimony is evidence. If they refute it and they're lying, that's a felony, and I don't think these professionals are being paid enough to commit felonies for their employer.
    - mehrdadn 7y ago
      This reminds me of another question I've had -- does anyone ever get prosecuted for false testimony? I feel like I don't really hear of this happening, which has always baffled me.
robocat 7y ago
Even worse, the people that would fight are often: dead, incapacitated, have age related mental issues, or old enough to not care to fight...

foobarbecue 7y ago

That lawyer's name is Sue Null!?!?