US For-Profit Health Care Industry is Always Innovating New Ways to Steal Your Money
The New York Times offers yet another example of the ongoing problem of consumer protection whac-a-mole. While the Affordable Care Act was meant to offer at least some limits on what people pay for preventive care and out-of-pocket spending, the health care industry is finding clever new fees that might not be cover. From the NYT:
The New York Times offers yet another example of the ongoing problem of consumer protection whac-a-mole. While the Affordable Care Act was meant to offer at least some limits on what people pay for preventive care and out-of-pocket spending, the health care industry is finding clever new fees that might not be cover. From the NYT:
As insurers ratchet down payments to physicians and hospitals, these providers are pushing back with a host of new charges: Ophthalmologists are increasingly levying separate "refraction fees" to assess vision acuity. Orthopedic clinics impose fees to put an arm in a cast or provide a splint, in addition to the usual bill for the office visit. On maternity wards, new mothers pay for a lactation consultant. An emergency room charges an "activation fee" in addition to its facility charges. Psychologists who have agreed to an insurer's negotiated rate for neuropsychological testing bill patients an additional $2,000 for an "administration charge."
Some of these fees may or may not end up being covered by your insurance, may or may not count as part of the in-network care, and may or may not apply to your out-of-pocket limit. This means individuals on the exchanges who often face huge deductibles can see their total spending on an unexpected illness exceed what they calculated even if they tried to be diligent health care consumers.
This is classic whac-a-mole. As soon as one specific problem is banned the industry quickly moves to find a slightly different new loophole to exploit. What is really needed is a broad solution, not a series of popular mallet whacks. There is no way our political system is set up to whack these problems as quickly as they are created.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just three days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The New York Times offers yet another example of the ongoing problem of consumer protection whac-a-mole. While the Affordable Care Act was meant to offer at least some limits on what people pay for preventive care and out-of-pocket spending, the health care industry is finding clever new fees that might not be cover. From the NYT:
As insurers ratchet down payments to physicians and hospitals, these providers are pushing back with a host of new charges: Ophthalmologists are increasingly levying separate "refraction fees" to assess vision acuity. Orthopedic clinics impose fees to put an arm in a cast or provide a splint, in addition to the usual bill for the office visit. On maternity wards, new mothers pay for a lactation consultant. An emergency room charges an "activation fee" in addition to its facility charges. Psychologists who have agreed to an insurer's negotiated rate for neuropsychological testing bill patients an additional $2,000 for an "administration charge."
Some of these fees may or may not end up being covered by your insurance, may or may not count as part of the in-network care, and may or may not apply to your out-of-pocket limit. This means individuals on the exchanges who often face huge deductibles can see their total spending on an unexpected illness exceed what they calculated even if they tried to be diligent health care consumers.
This is classic whac-a-mole. As soon as one specific problem is banned the industry quickly moves to find a slightly different new loophole to exploit. What is really needed is a broad solution, not a series of popular mallet whacks. There is no way our political system is set up to whack these problems as quickly as they are created.
The New York Times offers yet another example of the ongoing problem of consumer protection whac-a-mole. While the Affordable Care Act was meant to offer at least some limits on what people pay for preventive care and out-of-pocket spending, the health care industry is finding clever new fees that might not be cover. From the NYT:
As insurers ratchet down payments to physicians and hospitals, these providers are pushing back with a host of new charges: Ophthalmologists are increasingly levying separate "refraction fees" to assess vision acuity. Orthopedic clinics impose fees to put an arm in a cast or provide a splint, in addition to the usual bill for the office visit. On maternity wards, new mothers pay for a lactation consultant. An emergency room charges an "activation fee" in addition to its facility charges. Psychologists who have agreed to an insurer's negotiated rate for neuropsychological testing bill patients an additional $2,000 for an "administration charge."
Some of these fees may or may not end up being covered by your insurance, may or may not count as part of the in-network care, and may or may not apply to your out-of-pocket limit. This means individuals on the exchanges who often face huge deductibles can see their total spending on an unexpected illness exceed what they calculated even if they tried to be diligent health care consumers.
This is classic whac-a-mole. As soon as one specific problem is banned the industry quickly moves to find a slightly different new loophole to exploit. What is really needed is a broad solution, not a series of popular mallet whacks. There is no way our political system is set up to whack these problems as quickly as they are created.