Connect with us

Retirement Planning

COVID Catch-22: They Got A Big ER Bill Because Hospitals Couldn’t Test For Virus

Published

3 years ago

on

Fresh off a Caribbean cruise in early March, John Campbell developed a cough and fever of 104 degrees. He went to his primary care physician and got a flu test, which came up negative.

Then things got strange. Campbell said the doctor then turned to him and said, “I’ve called the ER next door, and you need to go there. This is a matter of public health. They’re expecting you.”

It was March 3, and no one had an inkling yet of just how bad the COVID-19 pandemic would become in the U.S.

At the JFK Medical Center near his home in Boynton Beach, Florida, staffers met him in protective gear, then ran a battery of tests — including bloodwork, a chest X-ray and an electrocardiogram — before sending him home. But because he had not traveled to China — a leading criterion at the time for coronavirus testing — Campbell was not swabbed for the virus.

A $2,777 bill for the emergency room visit came the next month.

Now Campbell, 52, is among those who say they were wrongly billed for the costs associated with seeking a COVID-19 diagnosis.

While most insurers have promised to cover the costs of testing and related services — and Congress passed legislation in mid-March enshrining that requirement — there’s a catch: The law requires the waiver of patient cost sharing only when a test is ordered or administered.

And therein lies the problem. In the early weeks of the pandemic and through mid-April in many places, testing was often limited to those with specific symptoms or situations, likely excluding thousands of people who had milder cases of the virus or had not traveled overseas.

“They do pay for the test, but I didn’t have the test,” said Campbell, who appealed the bill to his insurer, Florida Blue. More on how that turned out later.

“These loopholes exist,” said Wendell Potter, a former insurance industry executive who is now an industry critic. “We’re just relying on these companies to act in good faith.”

Exacerbating the problem: Many of these patients were directed to go to hospital emergency departments — the most expensive place to get care — which can result in huge bills for patients-deductible insurance.

Insurers say they fully cover costs when patients are tested for the coronavirus, but what happens with enrollees who sought a test — but were not given one — is less clear.

KHN asked nine national and regional insurers for specifics about how they are handling these situations.

Results were mixed. Three — UnitedHealthcare, Kaiser Permanente and Anthem — said they do some level of automatic review of potential COVID-related claims from earlier in the pandemic, while a fourth, Quartz, said it would investigate and waive cost sharing for suspected COVID patients if the member asks for a review. Humana said it is reviewing claims made in early March, but only those showing confirmed or suspected COVID. Florida Blue, similarly, said it is manually reviewing claims, but only those involving COVID tests or diagnoses. The remaining insurers pointed to other efforts, such as routine audits that look for all sorts of errors, along with efforts to train hospitals and doctors in the proper COVID billing codes to use to ensure patients aren’t incorrectly hit with cost sharing. Those were Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, CIGNA and the Health Care Services Corp., which operates Blues plans in Illinois, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas.

All nine said patients should reach out to them or appeal a claim if they suspect an error.

To be sure, it would be a complex effort for insurers to go back over claims from March and April, looking for patients that might qualify for a more generous interpretation of the cost waiver because they were unable to get a coronavirus test. And there’s nothing in the CARES Act passed by Congress — or subsequent guidance from regulatory agencies — about what to do in such situations.

Still, insurers could review claims, for example, by looking for patients who received chest X-rays, and diagnoses of pneumonia or high fever and cough, checking to see if any might qualify as suspected COVID cases, even if they were not given a diagnostic test, said Potter.

One thing was clear from the responses: Much of the burden falls on patients who think they’ve been wrongly billed to call that to the attention of the insurer and the hospital, urgent care center or doctor’s office where they were treated.

John Campbell developed a cough and fever of 104 degrees in early March, was directed to an ER and ultimately received a $2,777 bill for the visit. He is among those who say they were wrongly billed for the costs associated with seeking a COVID-19 diagnosis.(Courtesy of John Campbell)

Some states have broader mandates that could be read to require the waiver of cost sharing even if a COVID test was not ordered or administered, said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor and co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University.

But no matter where you live, she said, patients who get bills they think are incorrect should contest them. “I’ve heard a lot of comments that claims are not coded properly,” said Corlette. “Insurers and providers are on a learning curve. If you get a bill, ask for a review.”

Scarce Tests, Rampant Virus

In some places, including the state of Indiana, the city of Los Angeles and St. Louis County, Missouri, a test is now offered to anyone who seeks one. Until recently, tests were scarce and essentially rationed, even though more comprehensive testing could have helped health officials battle the epidemic.

But even in the early weeks, when Campbell and many others sought a diagnosis, insurers nationwide were promising to cover the cost of testing and related services. That was good PR and good public health: Removing cost barriers to testing means more people will seek care and thus could prevent others from being infected. Currently, the majority of insurers offering job-based or Affordable Care Act insurance say they are fully waiving copays, deductibles and other fees for testing, as long as the claims are coded correctly. (The law does not require short-term plans to waive cost sharing.) Some insurers have even promised to fully cover the cost of treatment for COVID, including hospital care.

But getting stuck with a sizable bill has become commonplace. “I only went in because I was really sick and I thought I had it,” said Rayone Moyer, 63, of La Crosse, Wisconsin, who was extra concerned because she has diabetes. “I had a hard time breathing when I was doing stuff.”

On March 27, she went to Gundersen Lutheran Medical Center, which is in her Quartz insurance network, complaining of body aches and shortness of breath. Those symptoms could be COVID-related, but could also signal other conditions. While there, she was given an array of tests, including bloodwork, a chest X-ray and a CT scan.

She was billed in May: $2,421 by the hospital and more than $350 in doctor bills.

“My insurance applied the whole thing to my deductible,” she said. “Because they refused to test me, I’ve got to pay the bill. No one said, ‘Hey, we’ll give you $3,000 worth of tests instead of the $100 COVID test,’” she said.

Quartz spokesperson Christina Ott said patients with concerns like Moyer’s should call the insurance company’s customer service number and ask for an appeals specialist. The insurer, she wrote in response to KHN’s survey of insurers, will waive cost sharing for some members who sought a diagnosis.

“During the public health emergency, if the member presented with similar symptoms as COVID, but didn’t receive a COVID-19 test and received testing for other illnesses on an outpatient basis, then cost sharing would be waived,” she wrote.

Moyer said she has filed an appeal and was notified by the insurer of a review expected in mid-July. Back in Florida, Campbell filed an appeal of his bill with Florida Blue on April 22, but didn’t hear anything until the day after a KHN reporter called the insurer about his case in June.

Then, Campbell received phone calls from Florida Blue representatives. A supervisor apologized, saying the insurer should not have billed him and that 100% of his costs would be covered.

“Basically they said, ‘We’ve changed our minds,’” said Campbell. “Because I was there so early on, and the bill was coded incorrectly.”

—————–

By: Julie Appleby, Kaiser Health News
Title: COVID Catch-22: They Got A Big ER Bill Because Hospitals Couldn’t Test For Virus
Sourced From: khn.org/news/covid-catch-22-they-got-a-big-er-bill-because-hospitals-couldnt-test-for-virus/
Published Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2020 09:00:27 +0000

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Advertisement Attention Stock Investors

Retirement Planning

At Least 1.7M Americans Use Health Sharing Arrangements, Despite Lack of Protections

Published

3 months ago

on

July 6, 2023

By

 

A new report has provided the first national count of Americans who rely on health care sharing plans — arrangements through which people agree to pay one another’s medical bills — and the number is higher than previously realized.

The report from the Colorado Division of Insurance found that more than 1.7 million Americans rely on sharing plans and that many of the plans require members to ask for charity care before submitting their bills.

The total membership numbers are likely even higher. The state agency collected data from 16 sharing plans across the U.S. but identified five other plans that did not report their data.

“These plans cover more people than we had previously known,” said JoAnn Volk, co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University.

Under the arrangements, members, who usually share some religious beliefs, agree to send money each month to cover other members’ health care bills. At least 11 of the sharing plans that reported data operated in or advertised plans in all 50 states in 2021.

Sharing plans do not guarantee payment for health services and are not held to the same standards and consumer protections as health insurance plans. Sharing plans are not required to cover preexisting conditions or provide the minimum health benefits mandated by the Affordable Care Act. And unlike health insurance, sharing plans can place annual or lifetime caps on payments. A single catastrophic health event can easily exceed a sharing plan’s limits.

In Colorado, at least 67,000 people were members of sharing plans in 2021, representing about 1 in 4 Coloradans purchasing health care coverage on their own. That rate concerns Kate Harris, a chief deputy commissioner of the Colorado Division of Insurance, which she said regularly receives complaints from sharing plan enrollees.

“What we hear from consumers is that when they purchase one of these, they do think there is some guarantee of coverage, for the most part, despite the disclaimers on many of the organizations’ websites,” Harris said.

The Colorado report found that health sharing arrangements often require their members to seek charity care or assistance from providers, governments, or consumer support organizations before submitting sharing requests. Those costs are then shifted to other public or private health plans.

Katy Talento, executive director of the Alliance of Health Care Sharing Ministries, which represents five of the largest and longest-operating sharing plans in the country, said sharing ministries encourage members to act like the uninsured people they are. Such requirements to seek charity care reflect a desire to be good stewards of their members’ money, Talento said.

“Think about it like a soup kitchen,” she said.

Fourteen sharing plans reported that Colorado members submitted a cumulative $362 million in health bills in 2021, and nearly $132 million of those requests were approved. The remainder, sharing plan executives told the division, reflected duplicative bills, ineligible charges, negotiated discounts, and the members’ agreed-upon portion of medical bills.

“It’s not like every claim line on a health care sharing request is going to be eligible for sharing,” Talento said. “They have to submit the whole bill. They can’t just pull out a piece of it.”

But consumer complaints to the Division of Insurance and to consumer assistance programs, such as the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative, show that members do not always realize what sharing plans will cover.

“We have seen firsthand the risks that people face when they sign up for these arrangements without recognizing the magnitude of the risk that they’re assuming for their health care costs,” said Isabel Cruz, the initiative’s policy director.

Talento disputed the notion that members don’t know the parameters of their sharing plans.

“That’s just suggesting that our members are dumb,” she said. “Is it likely that somehow our people are going to be willy-nilly jumping blindly into something?”

Theresa Brilli, a small-business owner in Longmont, Colorado, said she and her partner signed up for a direct primary care plan in 2017 that covered primary care visits for $179 a month. Direct primary care plans are payment arrangements between patients and providers for receiving health services without billing insurance. The plan had an arrangement with Liberty HealthShare, a Canton, Ohio-based sharing plan with more than 131,000 members nationwide, to cover additional services like preventive screenings, emergency room care, and hospitalizations for $349 a month with a $1,000 deductible. The rates increased to $499 a month, with a $1,750 deductible, in 2020, Brilli said.

But Brilli said getting payments was a major hassle.

“It took about four to eight months to get reimbursed,” she said. “It was a fight, every bill.”

When she heard about enhanced subsidies for ACA marketplace plans in 2022, she decided the hassle was no longer worth it and switched to a Kaiser Permanente plan for $397 a month.

“I will never go back to Liberty Health or a health care sharing plan,” she said. “I didn’t agree with the whole ministry thing. They made you sign off saying you believed in God, which was like, ‘Whoa, I guess that’s what I have to do to get my health insurance.’”

Laura Murray, 49, of Aurora, Colorado, said she signed up for a Liberty HealthShare plan in 2017 as a more affordable alternative to her husband’s employer-based plan.

“We kind of felt we were cutting out the middleman in a way, and it was a helping-out-your-neighbor sort of deal,” she said.

But when she became pregnant unexpectedly, she had trouble getting her health bills paid. Initially, Liberty paid only a portion of the tab, and her bills got sent to a collection agency. It was only through multiple calls that she learned she needed to send the bills to a third party that would negotiate with the providers.

“It took years to get it cleared up,” she said.

Timothy Bryan, Liberty’s vice president of marketing and communication, disputed many of the details of Brilli’s account and attributed some of the delay in payment to her “failure to submit the required supporting documentation.” Murray’s payments, he said, were delayed more than 10 months because she had failed to provide the required pre-notification.

Mike Quinlan, 42, of Denver, turned to a health sharing ministry in 2014 after the birth of his first child cost him more than $17,000 out-of-pocket, on top of nearly $24,000 in premiums that year, under an employer-sponsored health plan. He said the births of his three youngest children were covered in full by Samaritan Ministries International, a Peoria, Illinois-based sharing plan with 359,000 members, to which he contributes $600 a month. When he incurs large health expenses, he receives a slew of $600 checks from other members, he said.

Every year, Quinlan attests that he is a Christian and identifies the church he attends.

“This is a group of like-minded people who have said voluntarily we’re going to trust each other to cover each other’s health costs,” he said.

The rules differ from plan to plan. Some sharing plans require members to pledge to abide by Christian principles, and some exclude payment for out-of-wedlock births or health issues that arise from drug use. Many sharing plans exclude coverage of contraception, mental health services, and abortion, often with no exceptions for rape or safety of the mother.

Regulators in Colorado and other states have also expressed concerns that health sharing arrangements are paying brokers much higher commissions for signing up members than health plans do. That could create financial incentives to push sharing plans over health insurance without adequately educating consumers about the differences.

In 2019, Covered California, the Golden State’s ACA marketplace, instituted a requirement that its certified agents who sell both sharing plans and health insurance provide consumers with a list of disclosures about sharing plans and show them the subsidies they could receive for buying traditional health insurance coverage.

“It’s really important that consumers understand what these arrangements are, and what they are not,” said Jessica Altman, executive director of Covered California.

Harris said the Colorado Division of Insurance is investigating multiple health sharing arrangements based on consumer complaints but declined to name them.

Colorado officials are also concerned that health sharing arrangements might appeal primarily to people who don’t expect to use many health services. That could increase the proportion of sicker and more expensive patients among enrollees in traditional health insurance plans, driving up premiums.

Harris said many consumers can get a health plan for less than the cost of a sharing plan, particularly with increased federal and state subsidies put in place in recent years. State officials are also working to inform consumers of the financial risks associated with health sharing arrangements, some of which have gone bankrupt in recent years.

“It might look cheaper on its face, month to month,” Harris said. “But if they do really actually need their costs covered, there’s a real risk that they may not be.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

—————–

By: Markian Hawryluk
Title: At Least 1.7M Americans Use Health Sharing Arrangements, Despite Lack of Protections
Sourced From: kffhealthnews.org/news/article/health-sharing-arrangements-ministries-protections-risks/
Published Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 09:00:00 +0000

 

 

 

Always check our latest articles at…
https://getinvestmentadvise.com/category/retirement-planning

Continue Reading

Retirement Planning

Give Yourself the Perfect Retirement Gift

Published

3 months ago

on

July 5, 2023

By

Give Yourself the Perfect Retirement Gift

From day one, everyone looks forward to retirement, that day where they can finally let go of the stresses of the daily grind and spend their leisurely days traveling, reading and basically having fun. As compared to previous generations, we have longer life spans so we all expect our golden years to be fulfilling and rewarding.

Instead of waiting for people to help you plan your retirement, you should do it yourself. Although retirement planning is probably one of the most draining activities where one spends loads of time perusing over financial and brokerage statements, benefits brochures and insurance policies. One does this in terms of the benefits of long term planning: if one retires earlier, he/she will think and anticipate less on government-funded plans which only gives a pittance of a pension and focus more on the beauty of life.

Why Retirement Planning is Necessary

Obviously, retirement planning isn’t all about numerous hours of stress by chugging down numbers and analyzing mutual funds: it’s about fixing and deciding how you will live the final years of your life. If one can balance financially and plan fully on a retirement plan, rest assured that your future is secure.

But remember that retirement planning isn’t a singular activity. It is something that stretches forth to decades, spanning your 30s, 40s and 50s. In every decade, one must rethink their strategies since you are inching closer and closer to retirement, thus one must forgo risky investments and go to bonds and reliable mutual funds as the years pass by.

Build the Right Retirement Plan

A retirement plan must be suited to your risk tolerance and apparent need for cash when retirement comes. If you prefer a general 401(k) that has a good balance of everything, you may go for equal amounts of low-risk bonds and riskier stocks or you may also opt for an assortment of mutual funds that both have high-risk and low-risk funds.

Generally, risk tolerance is congruent to one’s age. If you are on your 20s or early 30s, you may opt for a more stock-saturated mutual fund in the hope of getting a good return because of the added risk stocks give. If ever the worst comes and you face some declines in the stock market, you still have a good 20 to 30 years to compensate for the losses.

On the other hand, if one is teetering on the 40s or 50s, it is necessary that one must go low-risk in his/her investments. One’s mutual funds must now be concentrated more on low-risk government bonds, which virtually assure no losses and minimum gain, if there will be no huge political crisis, of course.

If one follows this general age/risk rule, then one has better chance that one has an ample amount of cash to spend on the pleasures of life when retirement age finally comes.

Conclusion

One has always dreamt of traveling the world, playing golf all day and enjoying the best life can give. But one cannot do all that while working away in the office. Therefore one must give importance to the rising necessity of building a retirement plan.

It is probably as stressful as work itself, but if you can carry all that heap of information and mix it into the delicacy that is a finely tailored retirement plan, then rest assured that your dream of tasting and relishing the best of life is definitely reachable by 65.

Continue Reading

Retirement Planning

Ends-of-the-World Every Year Since 1970

Published

3 years ago

on

August 14, 2020

By

There always has been and always will be a reason not to invest or not to stay invested. This is all the mainstream media reports to us. Below you will find a list of some of the worst global events each year since 1970. I have some commentary to follow.

1970: War: US troops invade Cambodia.
1971: Civil Unrest: Anti-war militants march on Washington.
1972: Political: Start of Watergate Scandal.
1973: Economic: OPEC raises oil prices in response to US involvement abroad.
1974: Political: Nixon resigns as President of the United States.
1975: Political: Multiple assassination attempts on President Ford.
1976: World: Ebola virus.
1977: Political: Government shutdowns.
1978: Market: U.S. Dollar plunges to record low against many European currencies.
1979: World: Iranian militants seize the U.S. embassy in Teheran and hold hostages.
1980: Economic: Inflation spiked to a high of 14.76%.
1981: Political: President Reagan assassination attempt.
1982: Economic: Recession continues in the U.S. with nationwide unemployment of 10.8%.
1983: Economic: Unemployment in the U.S. reaches 12 million.
1984: Economic: 70 U.S. banks fail during the year.
1985: World: Multiple airplane hijackings around the world.
1986: World: Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station explodes.
1987: Market: DOW drops by 22.6% on October 22.
1988: Environment: Awareness of global warming and the greenhouse effect grows.
1989: Environment: Exxon Valdez dumps 11 million gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound.
1990: World: Persian Gulf War starts.
1991: World: Mass shooting in Killeen, TX.
1992: Human Rights: Los Angeles riots following the death of Rodney King.
1993: Terrorism: World Trade Center bombing.
1994: World: Mass genocide in Rwanda.
1995: Terrorism: Oklahoma City bombing.
1996: Terrorism: Olympic Park bombing.
1997: World: Bird flu.
1998: World: Multiple U.S. embassy bombings.
1999: World: Columbine shooting.
2000: Economic: Start of the Dotcom Market Crash.
2001: Terrorism: Terrorist Attacks in NYC, DC & PA.
2002: Economic: Nasdaq bottomed after a 76.81% drop.
2003: World: The U.S. invades Iraq.
2004: World: The U.S. launches an attack on Falluja.
2005: World: Hurricane Katrina
2006: World: Bird flu.
2007: Economic: Start of the Great Recession.
2008: Economic: Great Recession continues.
2009: Economic: S&P bottomed after a 56.8% drop.
2010: Market: Flash crash.
2011: Market: Occupy Wall Street and S&P downgrades U.S. Debt.
2012: Political: Fiscal cliff.
2013: Political: Taper tantrum.
2014: World: Ebola virus.
2015: World: Multiple mass shootings.
2016: Political: Divided U.S. Presidential election.
2017: World: North Korea testing nuclear weapons.
2018: Economic: U.S. & China trade war.
2019: Economic: Student loan debt reaches an all-time high of $1.4 trillion.
2020: World: COVID-19.

While many of these events were undoubtedly terrible (and there are certainly others not named here that were worse), most of these were broadcast as end-of-the-world events for the stock market. Despite that attention, it is worth noting that these were, for the most part, one-time events. In other words, most faded into the newspapers of history. We moved on.

Obviously, some caused monumental shifts in the way the world works. Just think about how much air travel continues to be impacted by the events of 9/11. But, outside of the resulting inconveniences (if we want to call safety protocols inconveniences) associated with air travel, flying is safer than ever before.

Take a look at just about any of the events and you will find there are many that people will hardly remember. My point here isn’t that these events are to be ignored or that they were easy to stomach at the time, but that they have become a distant memory.

I want to also make the point that we should expect these types of negative events. As investors, we know these types of crises, economic catastrophes, and global phenomena are going to happen.

But in almost all cases, here is what we can say in the next breath – this too shall pass.

Will there be legal, humanitarian, economic, or some other aid required as a result of these events? Almost certainly the answer is yes, but that doesn’t mean it they won’t eventually fade into history.

Lastly, what’s worth noting is how the market has performed over these last 50 years despite the continual advertisements of the world crashing down around us. On January 2, 1970, the Dow Jones stood at 809 and the S&P at 90 -> those are not typos. These same indexes have grown (not including dividends) to 26,387 and 3,232 respectively. Amazing, no?

Perhaps what gets overlooked more than anything else is what separates the above one-time negative events from the positive stories that go largely ignored over our lifetimes. And that is a story worth telling. See the companion post below:

Unheralded Positive Events Every Year Since 1970

Stay the Course,
Ashby

Retirement Field Guide Mission:

“To help 10 million people make better retirement decisions.”

If you would like to join us in achieving our mission, I hope you will consider sharing our site if you have found it helpful in your own retirement planning.

This post is not advice. Please see additional disclaimers.

The post Ends-of-the-World Every Year Since 1970 appeared first on Retirement Field Guide.

—————–

By: Ashby Daniels, CFP®
Title: Ends-of-the-World Every Year Since 1970
Sourced From: retirementfieldguide.com/ends-of-the-world-every-year-since-1970/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=ends-of-the-world-every-year-since-1970
Published Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2020 13:26:19 +0000

Did you miss our previous article…
https://getinvestmentadvise.com/retirement-planning/wildfire-prone-property-insurance-bill-in-california-due-for-hearing/

Continue Reading

Trending