- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
This Medical "Assistant" Practice should be considered fraudulent and criminal
Posted on 9/21/14 at 8:59 am
Posted on 9/21/14 at 8:59 am
Do Nothing "Assistants" Massive Double Billing
All these unnecessary new rules and regulation because of ObamaScam, and there are real issues that could be addressed.
First, these out-of-network "assistants" shouldn't be allowed in an emergency surgery type setting unless absof*ckinglutely necessary -- i.e., he is there to actually f*cking DO SOMETHING and is not just standing around jerking off while the real surgeon does the work.
Second, just like Medicare, these do-nothing assistance should only be allowed to charge a FRACTION of what the actual surgeon charges.
Finally, in non-emergency type situations, these do-nothing "assistants" should be required to explain IN DETAIL to any patient LONG BEFORE the surgery exactly why they are there, their EXACT charges, and why an in-network "assistant" is not available.
quote:
In Mr. Drier’s case, each surgeon billed for each step of the procedure. Dr. Tindel billed $74,000 for removing two disks and an additional $50,000 for placing the hardware that stabilized Mr. Drier’s spine. Dr. Mu billed $67,000 and $50,000 for those tasks.
All these unnecessary new rules and regulation because of ObamaScam, and there are real issues that could be addressed.
First, these out-of-network "assistants" shouldn't be allowed in an emergency surgery type setting unless absof*ckinglutely necessary -- i.e., he is there to actually f*cking DO SOMETHING and is not just standing around jerking off while the real surgeon does the work.
Second, just like Medicare, these do-nothing assistance should only be allowed to charge a FRACTION of what the actual surgeon charges.
Finally, in non-emergency type situations, these do-nothing "assistants" should be required to explain IN DETAIL to any patient LONG BEFORE the surgery exactly why they are there, their EXACT charges, and why an in-network "assistant" is not available.
This post was edited on 9/21/14 at 9:30 am
7
Posted on 9/21/14 at 9:02 am to MMauler
quote:
Dr. Tindel billed $74,000 for removing two disks and an additional $50,000 for placing the hardware that stabilized Mr. Drier’s spine. Dr. Mu billed $67,000 and $50,000 for those tasks.
Holy fricking shite...
So that procedure cost roughly $225k
That is absolutely fricking ridiculous.
Posted on 9/21/14 at 9:04 am to Lsut81
To me, it looks like a complete f*cking scam worked out among the doctors. They claim they didn't share in the "fee," but I'd love to see these guys financial records.
Posted on 9/21/14 at 9:06 am to MMauler
This post was edited on 1/19/21 at 7:09 pm
Posted on 9/21/14 at 9:08 am to MMauler
This is SOP, unfortunately. If we were gonna have healthcare reform, why was this kind of shite not addressed?
Posted on 9/21/14 at 9:09 am to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
They just shouldn't be allowed to spring surprises on patients after the fact.
And, no non-emergency patient should be required to sign ANY forms (ESPECIALLY financial releases) as they are on the gurney being wheeled in for surgery.
This post was edited on 9/21/14 at 9:11 am
Posted on 9/21/14 at 9:10 am to Lsut81
quote:
So that procedure cost roughly $225k
This is what happens when you have an orthopedist and neurosurgeon in the same rooom.
Posted on 9/21/14 at 9:19 am to MMauler
I agree the billing aspect is ridiculous.
But it's the potential liability that makes the assistants necessary in most cases. It's easy for you to dismiss that, but it's a constant, meaningful fear for every surgeon.
And for the 1,000,000,000th time...CHARGES are completely irrelevant! Some people here have a really difficult time grasping that.
But it's the potential liability that makes the assistants necessary in most cases. It's easy for you to dismiss that, but it's a constant, meaningful fear for every surgeon.
And for the 1,000,000,000th time...CHARGES are completely irrelevant! Some people here have a really difficult time grasping that.
Posted on 9/21/14 at 9:21 am to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
This is what happens when you have an orthopedist and neurosurgeon in the same rooom.
I have no issue with doctors being paid accordingly... They put in the time and are professional, but holy fricking shite.
What percentage is to the actual doctors and what percentage goes to facility, nurses, etc...???
In my mind, a surgery like that, should realistically cost somewhere in the 40-50k range, with 10-15k going to the docs
I could be way off, but 225k is fricking ridiculous.Posted on 9/21/14 at 9:23 am to MSMHater
quote:
And for the 1,000,000,000th time...CHARGES are completely irrelevant! Some people here have a really difficult time grasping that.
Not when it's out-of-network and the insurance company doesn't cover it -- or, when they do agree to cover it and must pay the entire amount (as was discussed in the article) -- as that costs us all in increased premiums.
In these cases, the "conveniently out-of-network" fraudulent scam artist "assistant" bills and then sues the patient for the entire amount.
And, again as was explained in the article, typically a nurse or in-network doctor acts as the "assistant" for NO CHARGE as it's covered in the underlying insurance/hospital agreement.
I'm guessing you didn't read the article before you made an arse of yourself.
This post was edited on 9/21/14 at 9:28 am
Posted on 9/21/14 at 9:24 am to Lsut81
Docs average 21%-30% of charges.
So you're estimates aren't far off.
So you're estimates aren't far off.
Posted on 9/21/14 at 9:25 am to MSMHater
Yeah Ive been hit with out of network charge a few times with the anesthesiologist. Seems like it should be explained up front if an out of network charge is going to be billed. My guess is the insurance company is in on it.
Posted on 9/21/14 at 9:27 am to MSMHater
quote:
Docs average 21%-30% of charges.
So you're estimates aren't far off.
So on this, the two doctors made around 30k each?
For fricks sake, I know you are skilled, but imo, you should not make THAT much for a procedure.
But having said that, I guess when we see athletes that get paid upwards of 1m a game, its not bad
Posted on 9/21/14 at 9:27 am to MSMHater
quote:
But it's the potential liability that makes the assistants necessary in most cases. It's easy for you to dismiss that, but it's a constant, meaningful fear for every surgeon.
Yea there is definitely a strong component of "fear of liability" mixed in with all this.
Posted on 9/21/14 at 9:29 am to MMauler
You're right...I didn't read.
Yet all of my points stand in most cases.
Tell me, are oon charges like this one generally accepted by state insurance boards, thus making full payment required by the patient?
Do you really think the patient will have to pay that if they put any effort at all towards getting them abated?
Yet all of my points stand in most cases.
Tell me, are oon charges like this one generally accepted by state insurance boards, thus making full payment required by the patient?
Do you really think the patient will have to pay that if they put any effort at all towards getting them abated?
Posted on 9/21/14 at 9:31 am to MMauler
quote:
Not when it's out-of-network and the insurance company doesn't cover it -- or, when they do agree to cover it and must pay the entire amount (as was discussed in the article) -- as that costs us all in increased premiums. In these cases, the "conveniently out-of-network" fraudulent scam artist "assistant" bills and then sues the patient for the entire amount. And, again as was explained in the article, typically a nurse or in-network doctor acts as the "assistant" for NO CHARGE as it's covered in the underlying insurance/hospital agreement.
This makes me wonder about what happened in this case, because usually a resident will more than suffice as an extra pair of hands. What is possible is that the original orthopedist ran into some issues and needed fully trained neurosurgical assistance. Neurosurgeon "saves the day" and wants to get paid accordingly.
Posted on 9/21/14 at 9:33 am to MSMHater
quote:
Do you really think the patient will have to pay that if they put any effort at all towards getting them abated?
So, they run this scam and this guy has to go hire a lawyer, go before a judge and probably several medical review boards to get this "abated" when he shouldn't have been scammed in the first place if there had been a IN-NETWORK "medical assistant" within 200 miles of the hospital where the surgery took place?
Why not nip it in the bud and just make this practice illegal in the first place?
Posted on 9/21/14 at 9:35 am to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
What is possible is that the original orthopedist ran into some issues and needed fully trained neurosurgical assistance. Neurosurgeon "saves the day" and wants to get paid accordingly.
Read the article.
This is apparently a scam being run by doctors and this particular doctor/assistant seems to have built an entire practice around it.
This post was edited on 9/21/14 at 9:36 am
Posted on 9/21/14 at 9:35 am to MSMHater
quote:
And for the 1,000,000,000th time...CHARGES are completely irrelevant! Some people here have a really difficult time grasping that.
Can't make them understand that bill charge is irrelevant. Every insurance company has allowables and if the patient has 80/20 coverage they pay 20% of the allowable, not the difference. The hospital or surgery center writes off the rest of the cost.
I remember typing this exact thing a few weeks ago.
Posted on 9/21/14 at 9:36 am to MMauler
quote:
“The notion is you can make end runs around price controls by increasing the number of things you do and bill for,”
This nothing new.
The idea that doctors should bill by what they treat rather than for every single sub-service performed has been proposed - by liberals - but that would mean more government regulation so its bad.
Page 1 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News