Doctors may not get paid for care if patients don’t pay their ACA premiums

Status
Not open for further replies.

Steve Williams

Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
By: ALICIA AULT, Ob.Gyn. News Digital Network

Will you get paid for the care you provide to patients who have gained insurance coverage through the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance claims? You’ll soon find out.

Under the health reform law, patients must pay their first month’s premium to be considered enrolled; they then have 90 days to pay the next premium.

If the patient doesn’t pay his or her premiums for the second month, the insurer can hold or "pend" all claims. By the third month, if the patient still has not paid, the insurer can terminate his or her policy. The physician is left to collect whatever is owed for all outstanding claims from the patient.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) clarified the grace period policy in a letter to insurers last year.

The first ripples could come in April. Patients who started and paid for coverage in January, but who did not pay in February or March, might get dropped from coverage. That could leave physicians scrambling to cover the unreimbursed care.

Physicians’ organizations including the American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, and the American Academy of Family Physicians have been working to reverse this provision of the Affordable Care Act, to no avail so far.

In a March 5 letter to the CMS, dozens of organizations and state medical societies urged the agency to require insurers to tell physicians whether patients had up-to-date coverage during the verification of eligibility. As the law and current regulations are written, insurers can notify physicians on their own timeline whether a patient’s coverage has lapsed.

The organizations also asked the CMS to "require issuers to assume full financial responsibility if an issuer provides inaccurate eligibility information during the last 60 days of the grace period."

"Managing risk is typically a role for insurers, but the grace period rule transfers two-thirds of that risk from the insurers to physicians and health care providers," Dr. Ardis Dee Hoven, president of the American Medical Association, said in a statement.

She added that the AMA is now offering some resources to help physicians manage the "potential negative impact" from having unwittingly given uncompensated care.

Among the resources is a sample letter for patients that explains the 90-day grace period and the importance of paying premiums on a timely basis and in full. The AMA also provides a step-by-step outline suggesting how to collect from patients whose coverage has lapsed.

It is unclear how many individuals have paid for coverage under the Affordable Care Act. The Health and Human Services department said on March 17 that 5 million Americans have signed up for coverage through the state and federal exchanges since Oct. 1. But the department continues to say that it does not know how many have paid their premiums.
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
Evidently physicians didn't lobby as effectively as insurance companies.
 

rockitman

Member Sponsor
Sep 20, 2011
7,097
414
1,210
Northern NY
sounds like people with Obamacare will have limited choices getting doctors as many may choose not to treat them. Another fantastic democrat policy milestone...LOL
 

slowGEEZR

Member Sponsor
Sep 20, 2010
1,322
79
968
72
Colorado Springs, CO
Christian, perhaps if the republicans would have given any value whatsoever by working with the peoples' will and the democrats on this issue, this particular issue could have already been worked out. But no, the party of no did nothing, except complain, as usual. It's a national disgrace watching the republicans in action on the national health care issue. Keep your democrat slams to yourself and I'll keep my republican slams likewise. Fair enough for you?
 

rockitman

Member Sponsor
Sep 20, 2011
7,097
414
1,210
Northern NY
Christian, perhaps if the republicans would have given any value whatsoever by working with the peoples' will and the democrats on this issue, this particular issue could have already been worked out. But no, the party of no did nothing, except complain, as usual. It's a national disgrace watching the republicans in action on the national health care issue. Keep your democrat slams to yourself and I'll keep my republican slams likewise. Fair enough for you?

LOL, sounds like you are talking about democrats. I hear what your saying though..Republican's should just sign off on democratic policy crap....no matter what the negative consequences are. Cheers !
 

rbbert

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2010
3,820
239
1,000
Reno, NV
No, Republicans should propose and support some reasonable alternatives if that's really what they want. They aren't doing that, so it appears they like the current system which favors pharmaceutical companies, medical device makers and insurance companies over the health and welfare of the American public.
 
Last edited:

Asamel

Well-Known Member
Jan 22, 2012
578
1
263
Philly
I'm a doctor. The Republicans are as out to get us as the Democrats.

Bruce in PA
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
Doctors? Oh yeah, ya'll are nearly as screwed as patients. I have no sympathy for the GOP on this issue though. What we had before ACA? The most inefficient system in the developed world? That's exactly what they asked for, and got, when we fought this battle
With the Clinton's -- we let the
Markets (insurance companies) fix it. And everyone but insurance and pharma got screwed.
 

rockitman

Member Sponsor
Sep 20, 2011
7,097
414
1,210
Northern NY
Doctors? Oh yeah, ya'll are nearly as screwed as patients. I have no sympathy for the GOP on this issue though. What we had before ACA? The most inefficient system in the developed world? That's exactly what they asked for, and got, when we fought this battle
With the Clinton's -- we let the
Markets (insurance companies) fix it. And everyone but insurance and pharma got screwed.

you think Obamacare is more efficient than the prior system ? (not here to debate)
 

rbbert

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2010
3,820
239
1,000
Reno, NV
you think Obamacare is more efficient than the prior system ? (not here to debate)

Who knows? We'll find out one way or another, perhaps; or if we're lucky (not likely) something new and better (?) will come along before we've had the chance.
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
you think Obamacare is more efficient than the prior system ? (not here to debate)

I do. But given that you're not here to debate, I guess I should leave it at that?

Tim
 

rockitman

Member Sponsor
Sep 20, 2011
7,097
414
1,210
Northern NY
I do. But given that you're not here to debate, I guess I should leave it at that?

Tim

How about tort reform... elimination of expensive frivolous lawsuits/unlimited damage awards and a threshold for what you can sue for ? Big cost driver for both doctors (malpractice) and primary care insurance for the patients and taxpayers (Medicaid/medicare). That's right, the Lawyer's lobby is well protected by democrats. Interstate competition ? Nope, we can't let market forces of competition lower insurance costs. That is not the democratic way. That is about all I have to say.
 

rbbert

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2010
3,820
239
1,000
Reno, NV
Tort (non) reform is unfortunately a bipartisan position; the trial lawyers lobby makes sure of that. And the actual economic benefits of tort reform, or the costs of malpractice judgements and defensive medicine, are a subject of some debate. Perhaps more importantly the current tort system in medicine tends to be a lottery, with some deserving "victims" shut out and many more questionable cases decided for big bucks. A no-fault compensation system for medically related injuries and bad outcomes would definitely be more fair, and perhaps less expensive. But that would necessitate a lot of government involvement...
 

Vapor1

New Member
Oct 19, 2012
35
0
0
St Louis, MO
www.vaporsound.com
Who knows? We'll find out one way or another, perhaps; or if we're lucky (not likely) something new and better (?) will come along before we've had the chance.

I'm sure we will someday witness and entirely new system, after the weight our entitlement programs forces a hard reboot. Obamacare brings that day closer to reality.

In my thought process it makes sense to do away with health insurance for all but catastrophic coverage. As is there's just too much abuse, which is what drives cost up for everyone. If parents had to pay the bill every time little Jimmy has a sniffle, they would 1) only go when it's necessary, and 2) shop for price. Doctors/providers would compete based on price and service, now there's no incentive for them to do so.
 

Steve Williams

Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
I'm sure we will someday witness and entirely new system, after the weight our entitlement programs forces a hard reboot. Obamacare brings that day closer to reality.

In my thought process it makes sense to do away with health insurance for all but catastrophic coverage. As is there's just too much abuse, which is what drives cost up for everyone. If parents had to pay the bill every time little Jimmy has a sniffle, they would 1) only go when it's necessary, and 2) shop for price. Doctors/providers would compete based on price and service, now there's no incentive for them to do so.

now that's an interesting twist on things. I bet someone can make money on that. It's called Managed Care (HMO's) ;)
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
How about tort reform... elimination of expensive frivolous lawsuits/unlimited damage awards and a threshold for what you can sue for ? Big cost driver for both doctors (malpractice) and primary care insurance for the patients and taxpayers (Medicaid/medicare). That's right, the Lawyer's lobby is well protected by democrats. Interstate competition ? Nope, we can't let market forces of competition lower insurance costs. That is not the democratic way. That is about all I have to say.

In the broadest sense, tort reform is a good idea. In execution, it would probably screw the little guy out of his right to fight back against abuse. Nature of the beast, I'm afraid. But in healthcare? It's a good headline but not a significant issue. Wouldn't put a decent dent in the cost of healthcare in America. That data isn't at all hard to find if you want to know.

Tim
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
In my thought process it makes sense to do away with health insurance for all but catastrophic coverage. As is there's just too much abuse, which is what drives cost up for everyone. If parents had to pay the bill every time little Jimmy has a sniffle, they would 1) only go when it's necessary, and 2) shop for price. Doctors/providers would compete based on price and service, now there's no incentive for them to do so.

I remember this well enough. In fact, I've been pretty close to it recently, when self-employed and minimally insured (very high deductibles). It was OK back in the day, when I was a kid, when health care was hospitalization. But there are two big problems with it, one old, one fairly new:

1) it is absolutely anti-preventative and would force American medicine even further away from prevention, healthcare, and toward disease and injury treatment, health problem resolution. I know of no respectable data that says treatment is less expensive than prevention. None. This is the hard way.

2) Medicine doesn't work this way anymore...you know, where you don't need insurance until something catastrophic happens. Medicine is about short-term hospital visits, out-patient procedures and therapies and drugs, lots of pharmacological therapies. Contemporary medicine could easily bankrupt families without a major catastrophic event.

It's just not the kind of coverage our current system requires and it doesn't point toward the future we need to be heading to.

I'm sure we will someday witness and entirely new system, after the weight our entitlement programs forces a hard reboot. Obamacare brings that day closer to reality.
Entitlements are huge, but their solutions are not. Medicare and Social Security could be fixed tomorrow; Reagan extended SS for a generation with a bit of ink, back in the 80s. What we lack is not the ability, but the political will to do so. Healthcare? Makes entitlements look like chump change because you don't just have to get around politicians' unrealistic ideological expectations, you have to get past the pharma and insurance lobbies, and they are deep in the financial genetic code of DC.

Tim
 

Ron Party

WBF Founding Member
Apr 30, 2010
2,457
13
0
Oakland, CA
Always fascinating to read the comments of the well and very well to do about issues that disproportionately affect the not so well to do.

Tort reform? That's a laugh to those of us who do this every day, unless you're talking about either expanding, not restricting, an individual's ability to seek proper redress or removing the neanderthals masquerading as U.S. Supreme Court justices who hold a majority of the Court.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing