Must vary state by state. In IL before a new law was enacted this year hospitals were charging on average 200% more for uninsured patients than those that had insurance.
Must vary state by state. In IL before a new law was enacted this year hospitals were charging on average 200% more for uninsured patients than those that had insurance.
Just curious, were hospitals billing 200% more for uninsured or was the 200% figure arrived at by comparing a "retail" bill to what was actually paid by insured patients?
Hospitals don't have different rates for uninsured vs. insured, male patients vs female patients, whites vs. blacks. The rate is the rate is the rate.
If you look at an EOB, the amount paid and accepted as "paid in full" is often half the gross billed rate.
The lamestream media and bleeding hearts point out this is unfair since the uninsured have to pay full price. BS! Truth is the uninsured typically pay about 10% of the billed amount or about 20% of what insured patients pay.
What is billed is immaterial. The only figure that matter is what is actually paid for services rendered.
Hospitals don't have different rates for uninsured vs. insured, male patients vs female patients, whites vs. blacks. The rate is the rate is the rate.
If you look at an EOB, the amount paid and accepted as "paid in full" is often half the gross billed rate.
The lamestream media and bleeding hearts point out this is unfair since the uninsured have to pay full price. BS! Truth is the uninsured typically pay about 10% of the billed amount or about 20% of what insured patients pay.
What is billed is immaterial. The only figure that matter is what is actually paid for services rendered.
Using the example from stats in IL then if an uninsured patient has a procedure and is billed 30k and an insurance company pays 10k for the same procedure and their bill is paid in full you see that as ok?
How can you say what's billed is immaterial? For the uninsured it surely isn't. My guess is that it has more to do with writing off unpaid procedures than sticking it to the uninsured but again the person with the bill gets collected on until they pay or go BK. Makes way more sense to me to bill both parties the same amount.
How can you say what's billed is immaterial? For the uninsured it surely isn't. My guess is that it has more to do with writing off unpaid procedures than sticking it to the uninsured but again the person with the bill gets collected on until they pay or go BK. Makes way more sense to me to bill both parties the same amount.
- 244
maybe "jackup" isnt the right choice of words. Lets just say there is the retail rate and the network rate and we all know who's left with the retail rate.
Yes, I do.
Because it is.
Hospitals can't spend what they don't collect.
Saying that does not make it so.
Discounting of medical bills has existed for years. It is a negotiation process, except in the case of Medicare & Medicaid where the gov't says this is what we will pay, take it or leave it.
FWIW, Medicare reimburses around 80% of what insurance carriers pay under their negotiated contracts and Medicaid about 10% less than Medicare.
The uninsured pay less than 15% of the billed rate.
Not for profit hospitals are required to provide uncompensated care in exchange for tax favored status. If they fail to meet the guidelines they can lose their NFP status.
Hospitals are required by federal laws (including EMTALA) to provide care without regard for ability to pay. This, coupled with the number of deadbeats (including those with insurance who elect not to pay their balance due) is creating a crisis.
Usually the first to go is maternity followed by ER. Both of those departments are money losers.
Similar threads
