Home › Lifestyle › Health
State, insurers, doctors in battle over billing
"Balance billing" often from emergencies
A person injured in a car crash is treated in the emergency room. The insurance company pays the out-of-network doctors involved in the care less than they think they're owed.
So a doctor or the hospital sends a bill for the remainder directly to the patient.
It's called "balance billing" and has spawned a turf battle among state officials who are trying to outlaw the practice, insurers who support the ban and doctors who fight it and see themselves as victims.
"Legislate, regulate and litigate. We'll do whatever it takes," said California Medical Association President Richard Frankenstein, before a meeting with Ventura County doctors this week. He laid responsibility for balance billing on insurers trying to protect their profits by underpaying doctors.
"It's a very clever ploy of multimillion-dollar companies to avoid their responsibilities," he said.
But some patient advocates say there's enough blame to share. They say the fight over compensation for emergency care ends up wounding patients who worry that if they don't pay the doctor's bill, their account will end up with a collection agency.
"We're caught between these two institutional providers," said Beth Capell, an advocate with Health Access California. "It's a temptation to say a plague on both your houses."
Many of the problems occur in emergency rooms where neither patients nor doctors control who they see. People may be treated by providers who don't contract with their insurance company. The doctors are paid a lesser, out-of-network rate.
According to the California Association of Health Plans, 1.76 million Californians who went to emergency rooms over a two-year period were billed by doctors or hospitals for money not paid by insurers.
The total bill was about $528 million.
The California Department of Managed Health Care plans to roll out a regulation next month that labels balance billing for emergency care as an unfair practice, opening the door to enforcement action against doctors or hospitals.
A bill by Sen. Don Perata, D-Oakland, would ban ER doctors from balance billing and would set up a process to mediate insurance disputes as well as an interim rate of payment. The bill was approved by the Legislature two weeks ago and awaits Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's signature. It would supersede the managed care regulation.
The doctors' association will sue the day after the state implements its new rules, said Frankenstein, in Camarillo for a meeting of the Ventura County Medical Association. The state group also opposes Perata's bill, though a group of emergency physicians supports the measure.
Frankenstein said insurance companies need to expand their networks to include more emergency room and on-call doctors. They also need to pay more, he said.
"It's up to the health plan to either serve up the doctor or pay the bill," Frankenstein said, suggesting insurers maximize profit by saying, "This is what we feel like paying today."
Nicole Kasabian Evans of the California Association of Health Plans fired back.
"Health plans are not the ones that are sending the bill to the consumer," she said. "We don't think it's appropriate strategy to hold patients hostage."
Evans said the insurance group supports a ban on balance billing and an independent process to deal with disputes with doctors. But the group opposes Perata's bill because the rate of payment may be too high. Doctors who currently contract with insurance companies might drop out to get the out-of-network rate, she said.
Eliminating balance billing is great if it comes with reform that transforms the healthcare system and provides insurance coverage to everyone, said Jim Lott, executive vice president of the Hospital Association of Southern California. But hospitals aren't happy about measures that eliminate the bills but not the underlying causes, he said.
"Balance billing is a tool hospitals use to force health plans into negotiating fair rates," he said. "Consumers need to know. If their health plan is screwing up, they need to know that."
Patients shouldn't be seen as a tool, said Cindy Ehnes, director of the state Department of Managed Health Care.
"It's inappropriate to put a vulnerable, potential sick patient in the middle of a billing dispute just to provide leverage," said Ehnes, calling on doctors to take their disputes to her department.
Local doctors say balance billing isn't about getting rich but about staying in business. Some predict that eliminating the mechanism will amplify other healthcare problems such as getting doctors to serve on call.
"I think that will be the death knell to taking call in the emergency room," said Dr. Mark Ghilarducci of Oxnard.
Jerry Flanagan of the Consumer Watchdog group in Santa Monica feels sympathy for doctors who can't break what he called the stranglehold of insurance. But he also blames the medical association for holding up years of efforts to end balance billing.
"As sympathetic as we are for the physician, we think there is no excuse for billing the patient because of disputes between the doctor and the insurance company," he said. Referring to strategies that would solve the problem, he said: "That's what we've been waiting five years for."
Posted by cslaurie on September 12, 2008 at 8:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So the doctor gets paid and then decides to charge the patient whatever he wants. BS. I would like to run my business like that.
Posted by ConTemplate on September 12, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The craziness of this system can only result in government regulation of health care - which in reality boils down to simple price fixing.
No sympathy for the medical world since their outrageous cost increases way over the inflation rate brought on the repressive actions of the health insurance companies and their low contracted reimbursement rates.
No sympathy for the health insurer bean counters who bully the doctors and hospitals and ignore the needs of the sick.
Because these two groups cannot work out a reasonable solution to this stalemate, the government will implement regulations that nobody will be happy with.
Posted by fungus on September 12, 2008 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is the exact reason we have the "OFFICIAL MEDICAL FEE SCHEDULE" !!!!!
Posted by Tom_Johnston on September 12, 2008 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
People tend to think the health care system is broken. It isn't really but this article is another illustration of what is broken, which is how health care gets paid for. The lunacy of the system is that so much of your health care dollar is spent on needless administrative details, not actual medical care.
I think some version of single payer system is a clear answer to the problems at least for essential emergency care.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on September 12, 2008 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think the key is that the patient does not influence who he/she is seen by in the ER. Those Dr.s that are in your network, you don't have a problem, those that are not...you're stuck with a bill for the difference. CSLAURIE...the costs are not being created to charge you more...it's standard rates that being out of network, your insurance will not pay more than a pre-determined amount. It's the chance you take when you have insurance. You're told in the paperwork that you have in-network and out-of-network...there are no surprises here.
The trick is going to be figuring out how to ensure more patients are lined up in the ER according to in-network/out-of-network ER doctors. I don't see this getting resolved unless an ER services exception is made to the in-network/out-of-network problem.
Posted by dc_n_vta on September 12, 2008 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This happened to me recently and what can you do? you need the ER care. But it would be nice if all ER docs were contracted with the same insurance companies that the hospitals are. then you wouldnt' get that surprise bill in the mail.
Posted by coastalslinger on September 12, 2008 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's not just the ER doctors. It's also the Radiologist, the doctor doing some specific lab work, and anyone else behind the scenes when going to the ER.
Somewhere there has to be an answer.
Posted by lockardm on September 12, 2008 at 6:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
When I see an idiot say this:
"Frankenstein said insurance companies need to expand their networks to include more emergency room and on-call doctors. They also need to pay more, he said."
"It's up to the health plan to either serve up the doctor or pay the bill," Frankenstein said, suggesting insurers maximize profit by saying, "This is what we feel like paying today."
That's just giving doctors the right to charge whatever they want. And make the insurance business pay whatever the doctors charge.
Now if Frankenstein gets his or her way first the insurance companies will go broke the so will you. Because if the doctors have the right to charge whatever they want, not even the goverment will be able to keep up with their price gouging ways.
Posted by THX1138 on September 12, 2008 at 7:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If emergency treatment was provided, the insurance company should cover the bill, period - that's what insurance is for.
Sadly the focus is on profit - the well-being of the patient is obviously secondary!
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
- Posts that degrade others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability.
- Disparaging remarks, abusive language or obscene comments.
- Threats, whether obvious or veiled.
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.










There are 9 comments to this article.
Comments are found beneath the Yahoo! ad below.