Tag Archives: Balance Billing

OIG Opines that Charities Allowed to Help with Patients’ Insurance Obligations

Posted on by

financial hardshipBy: Jacqueline Bain

In the healthcare business, giving a patient a break on a health insurance copay is often viewed as suspicious. The reasoning for the suspicion is that the financial incentive may give one provider a competitive advantage over another, or persuade a patient to seek services that might not be medically necessary.  Moreover, any person who interferes with a patient’s obligations under his/her health insurance contract may be viewed as tortuously interfering with that contract. However, in an advisory opinion issued on December 28, 2016, the OIG opined that, in certain instances, a non-profit, tax-exempt, charitable organization could provide financial assistance with an individual’s co-payment, health insurance premiums and insurance deductibles when a patient exhibits a financial need.

The party requesting the advisory opinion was a non-profit, tax-exempt, charitable organization that did not provide any healthcare services and served one specified disease. The non-profit, tax-exempt, charitable organization is governed by an independent board of directors with no direct or indirect link to any donor. Donors to the non-profit, tax-exempt, charitable organization may be referral sources or persons in a position to financially gain from increased usage of their services, but may not earmark funds and or have any control over where their donation is directed. Continue reading →

Big Reimbursement & Balance Billing Changes in Florida Law

Posted on by

VOBBy: Karina Gonzalez

Earlier this year, the Florida legislature passed prohibitions against balance billing by out-of-network providers for emergency services and where the patient goes to a contracted facility but does not have an opportunity to choose a provider such as emergency room physicians, pathologists, anesthesiologists and radiologists.

Specific reimbursement requirements went into effect on October 1, 2016 for certain out-of-network providers of emergency and non-emergency services, where a patient has no opportunity to choose the provider.

Under these circumstances, an Insurer must pay the greater amount of either:

(a)         The amount negotiated   with an in-network provider   in the same community where services were performed;

(b)        The usual and customary rate received by a provider for the same service in the community where service was provided; or

(c)         The Medicare rate for the service. Continue reading →

Compounding Pharmacy Shells Out $3.775 Mil to Settle False Claims Suit

Posted on by

bonus calculationA Jacksonville compounding pharmacy has agreed to pay $3.775 million to settle false claims allegations that it defrauded TRICARE. MediMix Specialty Pharmacy billed TRICARE for compounding pain prescriptions that came from an improper referral source. MediMix’s top-prescriber over a period of five years was also married to one of MediMix’s senior vice presidents. MediMix itself was one of TRICARE’s top billers for compounded pain medications.

Since the federal law limiting physician self-referrals, 42 U.S.C. 1395nn (more commonly called the “Stark law”) does not apply to TRICARE, the government proceeded under a law entitled Administrative Remedies for Fraud, Abuse, and Conflict of Interest, 32 C.F.R. 199.9, which is applicable for claims submitted to CHAMPUS and TRICARE. This law is much more broad than the Stark law. While the Stark law contains specific exceptions, this law does not. Continue reading →

Tough Trend for Payers = Fairness for Providers

Posted on by

payer fairness for providersBy: Jeff Cohen

The past year has shown a trend towards empowering providers (and even patients) in their claims against payers.  And these developments should serve to bolster the position of many patients and providers, especially behavioral health providers as they raise claims against payers.

Spinedex Case

This 2014 Arizona case addressed the issue of whether a provider had the legal ability (“standing”) to sue United to receive payment for services provided to insureds.  United’s role was to process claims for certain plans.  Spinedex was a physical therapy provider whose patients signed a patient responsibility form and also assigned to Spindex the right to receive payment.  There were different levels of benefits based on whether the patient was insured by United.  Spinedex treated patients, then submitted claims to United.  When claims for payment were denied, Spindex sued.

At the heart of the case was the long-standing issue of whether a provider has standing to sue for services provided to insureds of so called ERISA plans.  “We are aware,” the court wrote, “of no circuit court that has accepted defendant’s argument” [that because Spinedex didn’t seek payment from a patient, the patients don’t have an “injury,” which is required for the providers to sue the payer].    Nevertheless, the court said “yes,” which opened the door to potentially a slew of such lawsuits.

Continue reading →

What Providers Need to Know Before They Balance Bill

Posted on by

ACO-Payment-300x225

By: Karina Gonzalez

Balance billing occurs when a provider collects from a patient the difference between the amount billed for a covered service and the amount  paid for that service.  Balance billing does not apply when collecting deductibles, copayments or coinsurance.

Under Florida law, a provider may not balance bill a patient for any service, if an HMO is liable and responsible for payment.  Contrary to what many people believe, this is true whether you are in-network or out-of-network.  Even hospital based out-of-network physicians, such as anesthesiologists, pathologists, radiologists or emergency room physicians cannot balance bill HMO members where the hospital has a contract with the HMO or there was authorization given for an episode of care. Continue reading →