SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
'This is classic whac-a-mole,' writes Walker. 'As soon as one specific problem is banned the industry quickly moves to find a slightly different new loophole to exploit.' (Photo: Medscape.com)
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:
Oct 27, 2014
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.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 FireDogLake
Jon Walker
Jon Walker is political writer who has written for FireDogLake, Vice, The Intercept, @TheProspect and The Week. He is an expert on health care policy and the politics of health care reform.
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.
Jon Walker
Jon Walker is political writer who has written for FireDogLake, Vice, The Intercept, @TheProspect and The Week. He is an expert on health care policy and the politics of health care reform.
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.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.