randy62 Hi, Randy,
First, congratulations on being given a ticket to ride once again! What a huge step toward freedom!
Regarding your questions:
I can't remember the exact dates with the two incidents. My husband's most intensive treatment for cancer was between April 2008 and January 2009, so it was somewhere in that window. He probably had 15-20 hospitalizations in all, and multiple ER visits. I think that the issue with the hospital being OON when both the hospital and insurance company told him, by phone, on the same day, that it was IN network was when he was on a Medicare Part C PPO plan -- United's "Complete Choice." When the bills were rejected, the hospital was actually stunned to learn that they had not been In-Network at that time. Multiple people were involved in these calls. So, even though, both the hospital and the insurer had given us incorrect information, they still said that we were responsible for the differential, which I think was about $7,500. In that case, if I had fought it, I think I'd have won, because all calls are recorded and my husband had the dates and exact times for every call, and the names of everyone he spoke with. But as I said in my earlier posting, we were just worn down to a state of complete exhaustion and made a payment plan. In retrospect, even if we'd been told it was OON we probably would have gone there because they were so extraordinary, but this was clearly a mess when nobody in the hospital or the insurance company could be relied on to give us correct information.
After that "experience," I shifted my husband to my health insurance plan at work (also with United), because we were definitely NOT saving money by using the Medicare part C plan. When we took it, we didn't expect the kind of catastrophic problems that arose.
The second experience, with the physician who was OON when the ER was In-Network (same hospital) was after my husband had been shifted to my plan. I recently read through some of the ultra-fine print on the website for my school insurance plan (also United), and it does say that even if you go to an IN-network facility, you need to verify that all providers are in-network, because some of them may not be. That seems crazy to me. Am I supposed to ask the anesthesiologist, the laboratories, and all of the ancillary providers if they accept my plan? I thought the hospital is supposed to coordinate the care. But the insurance company put this statement on their website, so now we are all responsible. I had a colonoscopy this year, and actually tried to verify in advance that the anesthesiologist was in-network, and nobody could give me a straight answer or tell me who the anesthesiology provider would be. It's all contracted out. On the day of the test, before he put me under, I actually did ask him, "Do you accept United?" What if I had a heart attack or was unconscious? Am I supposed to magically ask the ambulance service if they accept United?
Bottom line is that even if you have insurance, it only means that maybe they will pay and maybe they won't. They themselves can't tell you, and if they do tell you, they will not be accountable if what they say is wrong.
With the Lovenox "experience," my husband had been on Coumadin after having deep vein thrombosis (DVT) with embolisms to his lung. The Coumadin failed, and he got another DVT. At this point, his oncologist and cardiologist agreed he had to be on Lovenox or he would die. At first, United told us it was covered with a $30 copay. Then they told us a $100 copay. Then they told us it would not be covered. They paid for one prescription, but only gave us 5 shots instead of 30. Then they refused to pay at all. We appealed it through all levels of the company. Even though it was listed on their formulary, they said it really wasn't covered. Even though my husband's oncologist and cardiologist phoned and wrote to say he would die without it, they wouldn't budge. If not for the Veteran's Administration, which made a special exemption to cover it at a cost of $9/month, I don't know what we would have done. We were truly dancing on the edge of a sword. When you appeal, they bury you in paperwork and form letters and delay and delay -- probably hoping you'll die before their decision gets reversed.
Last year, after doing some research, I learned that I could actually cover my husband through Medicare with the Medigap F plan, which covers every penny of your medical treatment -- no copays, no deducibles, no nothing. It was much more affordable than I thought possible. Because he was switching from my health care plan, it was considered a "status change" and there was no pre-existing condition clause. It was a miracle. We pay $105/month for Medicare Part B, and $334/month for the Medigap F supplement. (My husband is 78, so I never thought it could be that affordable.) Given the amount of ongoing medical care he needs, and all the tests and doctor's visits, this saves us thousands of dollars a year even if nothing goes wrong. If something does go wrong -- Katy bar the door if you don't have this kind of coverage. The copays alone on my school insurance plan would wipe us out. Even though they say there is an out-of-pocket maximum, a lot of things are not counted toward the OOP max, and then there's always the question of whether they'll cover it at all, as described above.
I just turned 65 the other day. I waited to have my THR until I could switch to Medicare and the Medigap F, so that I wouldn't have to pay the co-pays, etc., on my school insurance plan. I couldn't have afforded to have this surgery, even WITH insurance, if not for Medicare. I pay $105/month for Medicare Part B, and $205/month for the Medigap F supplement. Plus, because the payment is based on your age when you signed up (not year by year), my rates won't go up for the rest of my life, except for small increases based on inflation. I'll always receive the lowest rate on the chart because I signed up at 65.
Neither my husband nor I have to worry about networks any longer, as long as the doctor or facility accept Medicare. I can't tell you what a relief that is. United Healthcare covers the difference between what Medicare pays and what is due, but they have NO freedom to decide if it is allowable. If Medicare covers one penny, they have to pay the balance. Medicare controls how much providers get reimbursed. They may bill $5,000 for some service, and if Medicare pays $500, that's what they get. But they know that going in. They like it, because Medicare pays more quickly and more reliably than any of the insurance companies. Why they initially bill these crazy inflated charges is something I don't understand. But the kicker is that if you don't have insurance, your bill really is for the $5,000, because the negotiations that Medicare or insurance companies create with providers doesn't apply. If you don't pay it, your credit will be ruined or they can sue you for everything you own. The majority of bankruptcies in America are related to medical bills.
I know more about this than most people do because life has made us heavy "consumers" of medical care, even though my husband is super-responsible and does everything humanly possible to take good care of himself. He is only the second male in 5 generations in his family to make it to the age of 60, because of hereditary coronary artery disease. He has benefited from every advance made in modern medicine. He is a walking, talking miracle, and I could not be more grateful for all the care and help he has received, which has enabled us to reach our 24th anniversary. The honeymoon lives.
But there are elements of our healthcare system that truly need to be fixed. So much of the cost is because of the layers and layers of expenses built in for reasons described above, and others. Millions of people can't get care or insurance no matter what, and they just die. These are not lazy people who don't want to work for a living and are just "takers." These are hardworking, decent people who just can't find a way to get the care they need under our system.
No system is "free." Everything has to be paid for one way or another. In America, we are afraid of "rationing," but we already have "rationing." Some people are rationed out of the system entirely. Others are rationed by the insurance issues described above. The United Kingdom and Canada ration by means of waiting lists and all kinds of restrictions.
I would like to see a more thoughtful and sustainable system that allows everyone to be covered. Everyone would have to pay -- nothing is free. How to solve this is enormously complex. In addition, it is so hard to understand that it is near impossible politically to get anything to happen. What we now call "Obamacare" represents the first time in nearly 100 years that the US has managed to pass something to provide expanded access, though it won't really be universal. There have been so many compromises that I don't know whether it will work as intended. Most people are scared of it even though they don't understand what it is supposed to do or how it will work. Changes will definitely be made to it, but even with all the problems I have to think it is a huge step forward.
When Medicare was enacted in 1965, the American Medical Association opposed it and said it was "socialized medicine." Lots of people were as terrified of Medicare as they now are of Obamacare. Not too many people want it ended now. It is one of the most treasured features of our political/social system.
I have two master's degrees and most of a Ph.D. (all but dissertation). I've invested massive amounts of time learning about all these billing and insurance issues, partly through my education, mostly through necessity. And yet I still run up against new and unexpected surprises. Most people can't wade through 1,000 pages of fine print to determine what is really available to them, and what the choices they make really mean.
This has been such a long posting, Randy. I am not trying to pressure you into changing your views on anything, just sharing some thoughts. A central question that all countries try to answer is, "What is the good society? What kind of world do we want to live in, to create?" The United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and most other advanced nations believe that includes some form of universal access to medical care. We have not joined that group of countries yet. I wouldn't want to have to live with some of the restrictions those systems impose, but I think that there has to be a better way to provide and pay for healthcare than what we have now. It should preserve the strengths of the American system, while addressing some of the flaws. Everybody wants that, but it is super-hard to get agreement on what that means, what should be done, etc.
Enough for today!