Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sometimes I forget why I am blocking a forum member. And then it comes back when there is an interesting thread like this one, and it is easy to see how uninformed some agents are when it comes to claims.
So now it is a GOOD thing when a carrier says "No, you may not have that test or procedure. It's not good for you. Now run along."
I have worked in this industry for a long time, and I will say that much of the time the carrier (or MCO) makes a good decision.
But they also get a fair amount wrong, in that, it is wrong to deny the patient access to care because saying "no" saves the carrier money.
If you feel the carrier is being benevolent, you would be mistaken. It's all about the Benjamin's. Theirs, not yours.
What person would seriously believe an insurance carrier is in a better position to manage your care than your doctor?
And for the fool that believes providers can order whatever test or procedure they want and it will be paid by Medicare, perhaps they are not familiar with the term medical necessity.
If the item is not medically necessary the claim is not paid. Not only is the claim denied, but absent an ABN form, the provider won't be paid and the patient does not owe the bill.
Original Medicare is not Carte Blanche but is a ticket to high quality care as determined by the patient and doctor.
It’s blatantly naive, or maybe negligent, however to believe that medical providers and not the insurance companies are the problem.
If you read my post to assess blame only on the carrier, then perhaps I should add some clarity.
Padded claims, unfair denials of service, over-charging, etc are just a few of the ways the patient can be short-changed.
Many of the times when the patient is squeezed it is because they are at the mercy of the "system" because they don't know how the game is played.
The pain point, in my eyes, is that patients are shortchanged, doctors are handcuffed in many cases, and the insurance companies are seemingly doing just fine.
I will agree with 2 of 3 . . . I don't know the docs are doing "just fine" but most are doing OK.
When I look at my MSN and EOB I shake my head and ask "How do they make money on this?".
My wife had a hip FX last year requiring emergency surgery with screws. Surgeon billed $5600, assistant surgeon billed $6300. Say what??????
Surgeon ended up with $2200, assistant with $200.
Same incident, hospital billed $52,000 allowed amount $22,000, carrier paid $19.000 and we paid $3,000.
Hefty discounts off "retail"
PS
The Assistant was non-par but accepted a pittance none-the-less
The billed amounts are really just determined by some dude behind an emerald curtain
I agree with leaving T4L and Original Medicare alone.
I also second VA for treatment and MA as a great solution as well.
MA is MA. We can debate if it's good for the client or not all day long, but I tell people my job isn't to tell them what to do. My job is to inform them and offer a suggestion.
As long as they understand the risks, the networks, the step treatment, prior authorizations, and MooP they're adults and can do what's right for them. I'll tell them I think they need HI/Cancer for $40 a month.
Truthfully, for me at least, the commission evens out for the first three years. Most MS plans pay me 360 a year and then drop off in year 4 to 4-5%.
That being said, if they're really worried about reducing costs and are willing to take on some risk, HDG is a great solution as well.
You don't get paid nearly as well.. but it's definitely a better overall plan for catastrophic coverage. Which is how I think of MA.