Airs on American Experience on PBS Feb. 28, 2011 at 9:00pm on most PBS stations. Commemorating the workers' compensation centennial.
Showing posts with label insurance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label insurance. Show all posts
Monday, February 28, 2011
The Triangle Fire Airs on PBS Feb 28, 2011
Airs on American Experience on PBS Feb. 28, 2011 at 9:00pm on most PBS stations. Commemorating the workers' compensation centennial.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
AIG Reaches For Its Wallet to Cover $4.1 Billion in Work Comp Claims and Asbestos Liabilities
Image via Wikipedia
AIG's long and troubled history was the subject of investigative reporting in the Academy Award nominated film, Inside Job. The Many factors have impact on an insurance company's solvency including the ability to collect premiums in a down economic cycle, the investment of the premiums collected and colateral bad investments the have a massive economic impact of the financial worth of the company in general.
Workers' compensation claims continue despite a low employment cycle. Latent diseases, such as asbestos related lung cancer, asbestosis and mesothelioma, may be dormant for decades before manifesting into a chronic and terminal medical condition.
The industry continues to struggle on how workers' compensation should be employed to insure industries and employers from these condition. Originally the workers' compensation acts did not cover occupational conditions such as silicosis or asbestosis. In the 1950s acts were amended, at industries insistence to bring these occupational conditions under the umbrella of coverage and shield employers from civil lawsuits. With the expansion of products liability claims, based on the intentional concealment of information of the hazards of these conditions, as well as low economic recoveries from struggling workers' compensation systems put the boat back into the bottle, "the longest running tort", asbestos litigation, was born.
Industry continues to try to put the genie back into the bottle, which is reflected in the latest attempt in Missouri to bar liability claims against employers and co-workers. One of the incentives of a workers' compensation program is to prevent industrial accidents, but the system continues to struggle both economically and procedurally in achieving that objective.
The need for AIG to raise additional cash to pay claims raises a concern as to whether premium dollars to pay claims are being adequately protected in the first place, and whether those premiums ared being directed to injured workers and victims of occupational illness. Instead of trying to figure how to further restrict the payment of benefits, perhaps more attention should be paid to making a safer workplace by banning asbestos use, and providing more convenience access through universal medical care.
Related articles
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Out of State Medical Treatment Allowed By Workers Compensation Court
An employer is required to provide medical care, including surgery and followup care, to an employee even if the employee leaves the state within two days of an initial surgical intervention. Chubb Insurance was ordered to pay for medical care, including subsequent surgery, when an employee was required to leave the state for a family emergency.
The court held that the failure of the employer/insurance carrier to provide medical care for out-of-state treatment, even though requested by the employee, was deemed a refusal of the employer to provide adequate medical care to cure and relieve the worker of the work related injury. The employer/insurance company was ordered to pay for out-of-state medical care.
Ham v. Anchor Glass Container Corporation, Docket No. A-1797-09T3, Decided January 20, 2011 Not Reported in A.3d, 2011 WL 166206 (N.J.Super.A.D.)
The court held that the failure of the employer/insurance carrier to provide medical care for out-of-state treatment, even though requested by the employee, was deemed a refusal of the employer to provide adequate medical care to cure and relieve the worker of the work related injury. The employer/insurance company was ordered to pay for out-of-state medical care.
Ham v. Anchor Glass Container Corporation, Docket No. A-1797-09T3, Decided January 20, 2011 Not Reported in A.3d, 2011 WL 166206 (N.J.Super.A.D.)
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Medical Witness Cannot Be An Advocate - Knee Replacement Surgery Authorized
A workers' compensation medical witness is not permitted to be become an advocate. A Judge of Compensation disregarded an insurance company medical witness when the medical expert "crossed the line from being a medical witness to an advocate."
In reaching her decision, Diana Ferriero, Judge of Compensation, rationalized that the insurance company's medical expert by the "convoluted cover letter sent by respondent counsel," along with medical records on the injured worker.
The injured employer suffered two work related accidents as a mechanic for American Airlines. The first accident in to the right knee occurred in July 2004 and resulted in a partial menisectomy and no prolonged sequelae. The worker was symptom free until a second accident in January 2007when he slipped and fell on both knees and hands. The insurance company authorized 28 medical office visits, 15 Hyalgan injections, 14 aspirations and physical therapy for treatment to his right knee. A diagnosis was made by the treating physician and the insurance company refused the injured worker a total knee replacement claiming that the medical condition was unrelated to the 2nd accident of January 2007.
The workers' compensation Judge ordered an independent medical evaluation by a renowned specialist in knee and hip replacements, Mark A, Hartzband of the Hackensack University Medical Center. The judge concluded that, "Dr, Hartzband opined that petitioner's need for a right total knee replacement was directly and causally related to the accident of January 17, 2007."
The court also found that the insurance company's treating physician, who opined that the 2nd accident was unrelated to the need for a knee replacement, was "disingenuous given the contents of his office chart," and reasoned that the insurance company's authorized treating physician did not have an understanding of arthritis and its progression.
The court granted the injured workers' motion for medical treatment, evaluation and scheduling of the right knee replacement, and ordered the payment of temporary medical benefits.
Pepe v. American Airlines, CP No. 2008-5878, NJ DWC 2010), Decided November 11, 2010.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
AIG -The Inside Job
Advertised as 'The movie that took over $20 Trillion dollars to make", Inside Job, is now on the screens of theaters throughout the nation. The movie's premise is that the recent, systemic, financial collapse was founded upon AIG's feared inability to payout on the claims for failed sophisticated financial instruments that AIG insured. The resulting consequences of the AIG bailout became a vehicle to shelter and fund Wall Street at enormous taxpayer expense.
The lack of criminal accountability for AIG, and the insurance industry's inadequate disclosures, poor ratings and reserves, bad investments and resulting political cover, left the industry destitute and unable to meet its fiduciary obligations to its insureds. Despite all of the bad news, AIG continued to pay bonuses to its executives, scheduled junkets and act as a conduit for payments. The movie questions who is actually regulating the financial/insurance industry, and whether the industry has now become so fused with American politics that Wall Street is insulated no matter which political party is at the helm.
Workers' Compensation insurance coverage is premised on the legislative intent to provide remedial coverage and summary benefits. When major players in the insurance industry jeopardize that coverage, then the result impacts the ability of the system to function and causes lingering inability to pay. Government regulators have the moral, if not the legal obligation, to protect the system.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Iowa Workers' Compensation Commissioner Tells Congress AMA Guides Are Objectionable
The Commissioner of the Iowa Division of Workers' Compensation, Christopher James Godfrey, recently testified before Congress that AMA Guides 6 Ed. were problematic. The Commissioner cited the 2008 Iowa Task Force report that found multiple errors and cultural bais in the AMA Guides.
An additional objection made was that the Guides were in conflict with both Iowa statutory and case law. The Commissioner stated, "With all due respect to Dr. Brigham, the Iowa Workers’ Compensation system will evolve and improve when it is decided by the citizens of Iowa that it will evolve and improve. The system will not evolve at the whim or business opportunity of either one physician, one medical association, or a small consensus of the two."
An additional objection made was that the Guides were in conflict with both Iowa statutory and case law. The Commissioner stated, "With all due respect to Dr. Brigham, the Iowa Workers’ Compensation system will evolve and improve when it is decided by the citizens of Iowa that it will evolve and improve. The system will not evolve at the whim or business opportunity of either one physician, one medical association, or a small consensus of the two."
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Congresswoman Woolsey Calls For A GAO Study of Workers Compensation-Cites Insurance Company Cost Shifting
Below are the prepared remarks of U.S. Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), chairwoman of the Workforce Protections Subcommittee, for a subcommittee hearing on “Developments in State Workers’ Compensation Systems” 11.17.2010
-
Thank you all for attending this hearing on “Developments in State Workers’ Compensation Systems.” Here in Congress, we don’t examine these state compensation programs very often because they are generally under the purview of state legislatures.
Thank you all for attending this hearing on “Developments in State Workers’ Compensation Systems.” Here in Congress, we don’t examine these state compensation programs very often because they are generally under the purview of state legislatures.
However, there have been some disturbing national trends that may compel a comprehensive reexamination of these state programs and their impact on injured workers.
As most of you are aware, workers’ compensation statutes were passed beginning in the early 20th century to establish a no fault system for providing efficient redress for injured workers.
Workers’ compensation was called the ‘grand bargain.’
Workers waived their rights to bring individual suits against their employers and in return receive compensation for work-related injuries regardless of fault.
Every state and the District of Columbia have workers’ compensation programs in place.
Most employers purchase private workers compensation policies, but others self-insure or purchase insurance from a state managed compensation fund.
Beginning in the 1990s, changes in state workers’ compensation laws--brought about by the lobbying efforts of employers and insurance companies---have resulted in stricter eligibility requirements and the reduction in both the amount and duration of benefits—particularly for those workers with permanent partial disabilities.
Unfortunately this ‘grand bargain’ of the 20th century is not so ‘grand’ any more, especially for injured workers.
In addition, there are two other recent developments that merit our attention
The first has to do with the American Medical Association’s (AMA) Guides to Permanent
Impairment.
And the second concerns a cost-shifting trend away from state workers compensation programs, where the employer is responsible for an employee’s injury, to the federal government’s medical and disability programs.
The AMA Guides have been in effect since 1971 and are now in widespread use.
Some states even require workers’ compensation programs to use the latest edition of the Guides.
These Guides were originally designed to be used by physicians in making a scientific assessment of a worker’s level of impairment---or loss of function---due to a work-related injury.
The determination of whether a worker is permanently disabled and entitled to workers compensation is based upon his or her impairment rating, which is then applied to the specific case of a given worker.
For example, a worker who loses a hand may not suffer permanent disability if he or she is a teacher, but that same worker would be permanently disabled if he or she works in construction.
In 2007, the AMA published the 6th edition of the Guides, and witnesses today will describe how this new edition has dramatically reduced impairment ratings for many types of conditions, without apparent medical evidence, and transparency.
The 6th edition has become so controversial that many states, including Iowa, Kentucky and Vermont have decided not to adopt them.
It also appears that the 6th edition was developed in near secrecy, without the transparency and consensus which should necessarily accompany the development of standards that will have widespread use by state governments.
In addition, it appears that the physicians who developed this latest edition may have ties to insurance companies, and are making a profit training doctors on the use of the 6th edition, which is complicated and very difficult to apply.
The National Technology Transfer Advancement Act of 1996 sets forth minimum criteria for the development of voluntary consensus standards: openness; balance of interests; due process protections; and consensus.
The process used for developing the 6th edition appears to significantly deviate from these standards and is a focus of testimony before us today.
Workers who are wholly dependent on this ‘grand bargain’ when they are injured on the job, are the ones paying the price.
The subcommittee invited the AMA to testify today, but unfortunately, it declined.
Another troubling policy issue is that as eligibility for workers’ compensation benefits have become more restrictive, there has been a cost shift to Medicare and Social Security Disability (SSDI), placing an additional burden on the taxpayer.
In addition, costs are being shifted to private health insurance that should be borne by workers’ compensation policies and employers.
This is particularly worrisome, especially during a time of record deficits.
Chairman Miller and I believe that this cost-shifting trend warrants further study.
Therefore, we will be asking the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to do a study and issue recommendations.
The testimony today will illuminate these problems facing injured workers and taxpayers, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
CMS Extends Interim Dollar Reporting Threshold Date
II. Extension of Current Dollar Thresholds for Liability Insurance
(Including Self-Insurance) and Workers’ Compensation
The interim dollar reporting thresholds set forth in Section 11.4 of version 3.1 of the MMSEA 111 Liability Insurance (Including Self-Insurance), No-Fault, and Workers’ Compensation User Guide have all been extended by one calendar year.
Under Section 11.4, “Workers’ Compensation ORM”, the date 12/31/2011 is changed to 12/31/2012.
Under Section 11.4, “Liability Insurance and Workers’ Compensation TPOC Amounts”, the last four bullets are revised to read:
• Claim reports where the last (most recent) TPOC Date is prior to January 1, 2013 with TPOC Amounts totaling $0.00 - $5,000.00, are exempt from reporting. Initial claim reports (add records) with no ORM (ORM Indicator = ‘N’) where the most recent TPOC Date is prior to January 1, 2013 with a total TPOC amount less than or equal to $5000.00 will be rejected.
• Claim reports where the last (most recent) TPOC Date is January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013 with TPOC Amounts totaling $0.00 - $2000.00, are exempt from reporting. Initial claim reports (add records) with no ORM (ORM Indicator = ‘N’) where the most recent TPOC Date is prior to January 1, 2014 with a total TPOC amount less than or equal to $2000.00 will be rejected.
• Claim reports where the last (most recent) TPOC Date is January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014, with TPOC Amounts totaling $0.00 - $600.00 are exempt from reporting. Initial claim reports (add records) with no ORM (ORM Indicator = ‘N’) where the most recent TPOC Date is prior to January 1, 2015 with a total TPOC amount less than or equal to $600.00 will be rejected.
• No threshold applies to claims where the last (most recent) TPOC Date is January 1, 2015 and subsequent.
November 09, 2010
Medicare Secondary Payer Mandatory Reporting Provisions in
Section 111 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007
(See 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)(7)&(b)(8))
(Including Self-Insurance) and Workers’ Compensation
The interim dollar reporting thresholds set forth in Section 11.4 of version 3.1 of the MMSEA 111 Liability Insurance (Including Self-Insurance), No-Fault, and Workers’ Compensation User Guide have all been extended by one calendar year.
Under Section 11.4, “Workers’ Compensation ORM”, the date 12/31/2011 is changed to 12/31/2012.
Under Section 11.4, “Liability Insurance and Workers’ Compensation TPOC Amounts”, the last four bullets are revised to read:
• Claim reports where the last (most recent) TPOC Date is prior to January 1, 2013 with TPOC Amounts totaling $0.00 - $5,000.00, are exempt from reporting. Initial claim reports (add records) with no ORM (ORM Indicator = ‘N’) where the most recent TPOC Date is prior to January 1, 2013 with a total TPOC amount less than or equal to $5000.00 will be rejected.
• Claim reports where the last (most recent) TPOC Date is January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013 with TPOC Amounts totaling $0.00 - $2000.00, are exempt from reporting. Initial claim reports (add records) with no ORM (ORM Indicator = ‘N’) where the most recent TPOC Date is prior to January 1, 2014 with a total TPOC amount less than or equal to $2000.00 will be rejected.
• Claim reports where the last (most recent) TPOC Date is January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014, with TPOC Amounts totaling $0.00 - $600.00 are exempt from reporting. Initial claim reports (add records) with no ORM (ORM Indicator = ‘N’) where the most recent TPOC Date is prior to January 1, 2015 with a total TPOC amount less than or equal to $600.00 will be rejected.
• No threshold applies to claims where the last (most recent) TPOC Date is January 1, 2015 and subsequent.
November 09, 2010
Medicare Secondary Payer Mandatory Reporting Provisions in
Section 111 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007
(See 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)(7)&(b)(8))
Monday, November 8, 2010
California Applicants' Attorneys Association Announces New Legislative Team
The California Applicants’ Attorneys Association (CAAA), whose members represent Californians injured on the job, today announced a new legislative advocacy team. CAAA President Barry Hinden said, “CAAA is announcing a new team that will be a strong voice on behalf of the rights and dignity of Californians injured while doing their jobs. Our legislative team looks forward to working with all stakeholders to insure that insurance carriers pay to heal workers’ on-the-job injuries and income support while disabled. Over the past six years many families have been left without medical care or disability compensation due to changes demanded by Governor Schwarzenegger. We look forward to working with the new governor, legislature and the workers’ compensation community to make changes to restore balance, and make the system work more effectively and efficiently by reducing unnecessary delays and costs.”
Hinden announced the following legislative representation team:
Mike Herald – Legislative & Policy Advocate – Mr. Herald, an attorney, has spent the past two decades advocating on behalf of low income Californians in the State Capitol while representing the Western Center on Law & Poverty. “My experience representing struggling California families has shown me how important it is people injured at work receive adequate insurance coverage. Workers’ compensation insurance is to provide workers the opportunity to heal, knowing they won’t lose their home or drown in debt. It is in everyone’s interest to have adequate insurance so that costs for injured workers do not fall upon the taxpayers. I look forward to collaborating with legislators, administrators and stakeholders to improve the workers’ compensation insurance system.” Mr. Herald will be CAAA’s lead legislative representative in the Capitol.
Richie Ross – Legislative and Political Consultant – Mr. Ross, a longtime California labor advocate and campaign consultant, has advised CAAA for more than 15 years. He will now serve as political and legislative consultant, advising CAAA on strategy, lobbying, and political contributions and campaigns. “I look forward to strengthening CAAA’s alliances with organized labor, civil rights and consumer organizations. Californians injured at their jobs often have difficulty getting insurance companies to pay their legitimate claims. There are many others who face similar obstacles. And when insurance companies don’t meet their obligations, it is the taxpayers who end up footing the bill. Californians want to prevent that cost shifting.”
Sen. Martha Escutia (Ret.) – Legislative Counsel – "The Senators (ret.) Firm - legislative counsel: founded by former Senators Martha Escutia and Joe Dunn, the firm brings extensive legislative and political experience to the CAAA team. In fact, Senators (ret) Escutia and Dunn were two of the three "no" votes in the State Senate on SB899. Sen. Escutia (ret) will serve as the lead partner from The Senators Firm for CAAA. Ms Escutia, trained as a civil rights attorney, and said, “I look forward to using my experience in advocating for the civil rights of women and minorities on behalf of those injured at work. Those injured on the job often have their medical care delayed or denied, and their permanent disabilities are largely uncompensated, and insurance companies discriminate in apportioning disability compensation. I intend to involve diverse California communities in efforts to improve California’s workers’ compensation insurance system, and seeking fair compensation and prompt, quality medical care.”
.....
For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman 1.973.696.7900 jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered work related accident and injuries.
.....
For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman 1.973.696.7900 jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered work related accident and injuries.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
NJ Rejects Broad Medicare Release Language in Judgments
The NJ Division of Workers Compensation has indicated that broad release "language should not be included as part of a settlement order, attached to a settlement order or placed or part of the settlement record."
Specifically the following sample language was rejected, The claimant, , agrees to indemnify defendant, hold harmless the respondent from any action by Medicare seeking payment of past, current or future medical expenses for the claimant. Claimant shall further hold the respondent harmless from any and all adverse consequences in the event the settlement results in the loss of right to Social Security and/ Medicare benefits to the extent claimant would have been entitled to those benefits in the absence of the settlement agreement."
A memo was issued on October 28, 2010, by the Director and Chief Judge, The Honorable Peter J. Calderone.
...
For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman 1.973.696.7900 jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered work related accident and injuries.
Specifically the following sample language was rejected, The claimant, , agrees to indemnify defendant, hold harmless the respondent from any action by Medicare seeking payment of past, current or future medical expenses for the claimant. Claimant shall further hold the respondent harmless from any and all adverse consequences in the event the settlement results in the loss of right to Social Security and/ Medicare benefits to the extent claimant would have been entitled to those benefits in the absence of the settlement agreement."
A memo was issued on October 28, 2010, by the Director and Chief Judge, The Honorable Peter J. Calderone.
...
For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman 1.973.696.7900 jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered work related accident and injuries.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
No Social Security COLA for 2011
Like so many state workers' compensation programs, Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits for more than 58 million Americans will not automatically increase in 2011, the Social Security Administration announced.
The Social Security Act provides for an automatic increase in Social Security and SSI benefits if there is an increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) from the third quarter of the last year a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) was determined to the third quarter of the current year. As determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there is no increase in the CPI-W from the third quarter of 2008, the last year a COLA was determined, to the third quarter of 2010, therefore, under existing law, there can be no COLA in 2011.
Other changes that would normally take effect based on changes in the national average wage index also will not take effect in January 2011. Since there is no COLA, the statute also prohibits a change in the maximum amount of earnings subject to the Social Security tax as well as the retirement earnings test exempt amounts. These amounts will remain unchanged in 2011. The released agency fact sheet provides more information on 2011 Social Security and SSI changes.
Information about Medicare changes for 2011, when available, will be found at www.Medicare.gov. The Department of Health and Human Services has not yet announced if there will be any Medicare premium changes for 2011. Should there be an increase in the Medicare Part B premium, the law contains a “hold harmless” provision that protects more than 70 percent of Social Security beneficiaries from paying a higher Part B premium, in order to avoid reducing their net Social Security benefit. Those not protected include higher income beneficiaries subject to an income-adjusted Part B premium and beneficiaries newly entitled to Part B in 2011. In addition, almost 20 percent of beneficiaries have their Medicare Part B premiums paid by state medical assistance programs and thus will see no change in their Social Security benefit. The state will be required to pay any Medicare Part B premium increase.
For additional information about the 2011 COLA, go to www.socialsecurity.gov/cola.
For additional information about changes in the national average wage index, go to www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html.
.....For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman 1.973.696.7900 jon@
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Patent Awarded for Compensatory Patient Invoicing
The US Patent Office has issued a patent to Stephen Ambrose for a system and method for enabling health care providers to effect compensatory invoicing of patients who use a coverage entity in addition to their health insurer.
Stephen Ambrose is the President of ICEX Data Reporting a Virginia area information technology and services company.
A system and method is provided for compensatory invoicing of a patient for health care services rendered by a Health Care Provider. The system and method enables a Health Care Provider to obtain payment of Full Rates for services rendered to a patient in circumstances where a Health Insurance Entity provides less than full-rate compensation (e.g., compensation at Contracted Rates) to the Health Care Provider AND the patient has been reimbursed additionally by another payment party for claims already paid for by the Health Insurance Entity. In one implementation, the patient contracts with the Health Care Provider to ensure that the Health Care Provider is fully compensated for the services rendered after the patient receives payments from a tortfeasor and/or First and/or Third Party Payment Entity (e.g., an auto insurance carrier, worker's compensation insurance carrier, Medpay, PIP etc.) for the services. The invention tracks claim(s) filed by the patient against the tortfeasor and/or First and/or Third Party Payment Entity and tracks payments) made by the tortfeasor and/or First and/or Third Party Payment Entity to the patient. The patient and/or the First and/or Third Party Payment Entity is then billed for the difference in payments made to the Health Care Provider by the Health Insurance Entity, effecting compensatory invoicing for a Full Rate fee chargeable by the Health Care Provider in cases when a tortfeasor and/or First and/or Third Payment party has reimbursed the patient for similar services as already reimbursed by the Health Insurance Entity.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
In the current health care arena, physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers (hereinafter the "Health Care Provider") contract with health insurance companies, managed care organizations ("MCOs"), or other health insurance providers (hereinafter the "Health Insurance Entity"). Typically, both a Health Care Provider and a patient have a contractual relationship with a Health Insurance Entity. In general, when a patient visits an "in-network" Health Care Provider, the patient receives services which are subsequently billed to the Health Insurance Entity by the Health Care Provider. The Health Insurance Entity is typically the primary payer for services and will cover necessary treatment and care for the patient's various health problems, including acute injuries.
Upon contracting with the Health insurance Entity, the Health Care Provider generally agrees to accept contracted rates set by the Health Insurance Entity (hereinafter "Contracted Rates"). These Contracted Rates are typically lower than the normal, full-rate fees charged by the Health Care Provider (hereinafter "Full Rates") for the delivery of a variety of billable services. In return, the Health Care Provider is given access to the Health Insurance Entity's patients, some of whom may be assigned to the Health Care Provider. The Health Care Provider also agrees that, during the term of the patient's coverage by the Health insurance Entity, if the patient is to be billed for the Health Care Provider's services directly for any reason, the Health Care Provider can only bill at the Contracted Rates for the services performed, provided that these are services normally paid for by the Health Insurance Entity.
In most Health Insurance Entity/Health Care Provider contracts, the Health Care Provider is prohibited from billing a patient for any amounts attributable to the difference between the Health Care Provider's Full Rates and the Contracted Rates. This type of billing, is known commonly as "Balance Billing" i.e., billing the patient for the balance between the Contracted Rates and the Full Rates). The difference in rates can sometimes he quite large. Thus, while a Health Care Provider obtains some benefits from contracts with Health insurance Entities, certain financial drawbacks exist.
When a patient visits a Health Care Provider for medical attention of injuries, symptoms, or disease stemming from an accident or other event for which there is an applicable liability insurance product and/or an individual, group or business who is determined responsible in a court of law or otherwise, for the patient's injury or reason for obtaining medical attention (hereinafter known as "tortfeasor"), there may be instances when one or more parties other than a Health Insurance Entity, such as a first and/or third party payer as well as compensation paid by a tortfeasor to the patient and/or their Agent may provide payments for the Health Care Provider's services. For example, in the case of an auto accident, the first party payer may be the auto insurance company for any injured individual through an attached medical payment rider, regardless of fault in the accident (hereinafter "Medpay") or the insurer for any auto insurance rider known as Personal Injury Protection (hereinafter "PIP"). Medpay, PIP insurers and other first party payment entities can be referred to as a first party payer (hereinafter "First Party Payment Entity"). Another example is the patient or their use of an attorney, agent or legal representative (hereinafter "Agent") in utilizing their health care bills in part or full, so as to obtain a legal judgment and/or agreement with the tortfeasor, allowing for payment to the patient and/or their Agent. An example of a third party payer may be the automobile (or other) liability insurance company for the driver (or other entity) who was "at-fault" or responsible for the Covered Event, e.g. for causing the auto (or other) accident and the injuries for which the injured, non-responsible party received treatment. Third party payers, for example, may include auto insurance carriers, liability, property & casualty and worker's compensation insurance carriers, and other third party payers, among other types of entities (hereinafter "Third Party Payment Entity"). For example, if a patient visits a Health Care Provider because he or she was in an automobile accident, the patient's Health Insurance Entity may be billed, and the patient's Health Insurance Entity may subsequently pay medical bills to the Health Care Provider who provided services to the patient. In some instances, the Health Insurance Entity may elect to seek reimbursement for monies paid for services from a First and/or Third Party Payment Entity who has also paid monies for similar health services, through a process known as subrogation.
However, in many jurisdictions (e.g., states), there is a legal doctrine known as the " Collateral Source Rule" that, allows an injured, patient and/or their Agent to submit medical bills to a First and/or Third Party Payment Entity, even if the bills have already been paid by the Health Insurance Entity to the respective health care provider(s). The Collateral Source Rule prohibits the admission at trial of evidence that a patient's injuries were already compensated from a health insurance policy or other source of compensation. For example, in a personal injury case, evidence that a Plaintiffs medical bills were paid by his or her medical insurance are not admissible. This is largely because the Collateral Source Rule is intended to promote justice and assess remedies for fault of the tortfeasor (the entity or entities that caused the injury).
Additionally, some insurance or other payment sources that pay for an injured party's damages may gain a lien or right of subrogation in any ultimate recovery by or on behalf of the injured party. In these circumstances, the injured patient must pay back the party with the subrogation right, who had previously paid on charges from Health Care Providers), assuming the patient received additional payment for the same billed services by other payment sources other than the party with the subrogation rights.
One problem with this system is that complete and full rate payment may not be made to the Health Care Providers for services performed and billed. Agents and/or injured parties however, can submit the Health Care Provider's medical bills as part of a lawsuit and/or directly to a tortfeasor and/or to a First and/or Third Party Payment Entity and receive compensation at Full Rates, even if the medical bills were already paid. Thus, the Health Care Provider receives payment at the lower Contracted Rates, while the patient and/or their Agent through utilizing the provider's bills, can receive compensation paid by a tortfeasor to the patient and/or their Agent as well as by a First and/or Third Party Payment Entity at the higher Health Care Provider's Full Rates.
Additionally, many Health Care Provider/Health Insurance Entity contracts provide for a waiver of subrogation on the Health Care Provider's part. Subrogation is a legal concept where one entity assumes the legal rights of another entity for whom the first entity has paid expenses or a debt on their behalf. For example, when an insurer is required to pay a claimant a sum of money, the insurer usually is allowed to sue in the name of the claimant against any person who was responsible for the loss. This concept enables an insurance company to sue on behalf of its insured if it is required to pay the insured for a loss caused by another entity. Subrogation is generally considered in most legal systems to form part of the law of restitution by preventing unjust enrichment. In other words, subrogation prevents the subrogor (e.g., the patient) from receiving/utilizing funds from the subrogee (e.g., the health care insurer), and then still claiming the original sum of money from the tortfeasor (e.g., the entity that caused the accident). Pursuant to the waiver of subrogation, the Health Insurance Entity may be able to recover any payments made for services provided to a patient following an auto accident or other Covered Event, provided that the First and/or Third Party Payment Entity paid monies for the same set of services. Thus, even if the Health Insurance Entity receives payment at the Full Rates, the Health Care Provider gets nothing more than the Contracted Rates. In this sense, patients, attorneys and other parties can leverage the Health Care Provider's efforts to financially benefit. for themselves, many times at the full fee rates, while the Health Care Provider receives only the Contracted Rates.
These and other drawbacks exist with known billing practices.
In the current health care arena, physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers (hereinafter the "Health Care Provider") contract with health insurance companies, managed care organizations ("MCOs"), or other health insurance providers (hereinafter the "Health Insurance Entity"). Typically, both a Health Care Provider and a patient have a contractual relationship with a Health Insurance Entity. In general, when a patient visits an "in-network" Health Care Provider, the patient receives services which are subsequently billed to the Health Insurance Entity by the Health Care Provider. The Health Insurance Entity is typically the primary payer for services and will cover necessary treatment and care for the patient's various health problems, including acute injuries.
Upon contracting with the Health insurance Entity, the Health Care Provider generally agrees to accept contracted rates set by the Health Insurance Entity (hereinafter "Contracted Rates"). These Contracted Rates are typically lower than the normal, full-rate fees charged by the Health Care Provider (hereinafter "Full Rates") for the delivery of a variety of billable services. In return, the Health Care Provider is given access to the Health Insurance Entity's patients, some of whom may be assigned to the Health Care Provider. The Health Care Provider also agrees that, during the term of the patient's coverage by the Health insurance Entity, if the patient is to be billed for the Health Care Provider's services directly for any reason, the Health Care Provider can only bill at the Contracted Rates for the services performed, provided that these are services normally paid for by the Health Insurance Entity.
In most Health Insurance Entity/Health Care Provider contracts, the Health Care Provider is prohibited from billing a patient for any amounts attributable to the difference between the Health Care Provider's Full Rates and the Contracted Rates. This type of billing, is known commonly as "Balance Billing" i.e., billing the patient for the balance between the Contracted Rates and the Full Rates). The difference in rates can sometimes he quite large. Thus, while a Health Care Provider obtains some benefits from contracts with Health insurance Entities, certain financial drawbacks exist.
When a patient visits a Health Care Provider for medical attention of injuries, symptoms, or disease stemming from an accident or other event for which there is an applicable liability insurance product and/or an individual, group or business who is determined responsible in a court of law or otherwise, for the patient's injury or reason for obtaining medical attention (hereinafter known as "tortfeasor"), there may be instances when one or more parties other than a Health Insurance Entity, such as a first and/or third party payer as well as compensation paid by a tortfeasor to the patient and/or their Agent may provide payments for the Health Care Provider's services. For example, in the case of an auto accident, the first party payer may be the auto insurance company for any injured individual through an attached medical payment rider, regardless of fault in the accident (hereinafter "Medpay") or the insurer for any auto insurance rider known as Personal Injury Protection (hereinafter "PIP"). Medpay, PIP insurers and other first party payment entities can be referred to as a first party payer (hereinafter "First Party Payment Entity"). Another example is the patient or their use of an attorney, agent or legal representative (hereinafter "Agent") in utilizing their health care bills in part or full, so as to obtain a legal judgment and/or agreement with the tortfeasor, allowing for payment to the patient and/or their Agent. An example of a third party payer may be the automobile (or other) liability insurance company for the driver (or other entity) who was "at-fault" or responsible for the Covered Event, e.g. for causing the auto (or other) accident and the injuries for which the injured, non-responsible party received treatment. Third party payers, for example, may include auto insurance carriers, liability, property & casualty and worker's compensation insurance carriers, and other third party payers, among other types of entities (hereinafter "Third Party Payment Entity"). For example, if a patient visits a Health Care Provider because he or she was in an automobile accident, the patient's Health Insurance Entity may be billed, and the patient's Health Insurance Entity may subsequently pay medical bills to the Health Care Provider who provided services to the patient. In some instances, the Health Insurance Entity may elect to seek reimbursement for monies paid for services from a First and/or Third Party Payment Entity who has also paid monies for similar health services, through a process known as subrogation.
However, in many jurisdictions (e.g., states), there is a legal doctrine known as the " Collateral Source Rule" that, allows an injured, patient and/or their Agent to submit medical bills to a First and/or Third Party Payment Entity, even if the bills have already been paid by the Health Insurance Entity to the respective health care provider(s). The Collateral Source Rule prohibits the admission at trial of evidence that a patient's injuries were already compensated from a health insurance policy or other source of compensation. For example, in a personal injury case, evidence that a Plaintiffs medical bills were paid by his or her medical insurance are not admissible. This is largely because the Collateral Source Rule is intended to promote justice and assess remedies for fault of the tortfeasor (the entity or entities that caused the injury).
Additionally, some insurance or other payment sources that pay for an injured party's damages may gain a lien or right of subrogation in any ultimate recovery by or on behalf of the injured party. In these circumstances, the injured patient must pay back the party with the subrogation right, who had previously paid on charges from Health Care Providers), assuming the patient received additional payment for the same billed services by other payment sources other than the party with the subrogation rights.
One problem with this system is that complete and full rate payment may not be made to the Health Care Providers for services performed and billed. Agents and/or injured parties however, can submit the Health Care Provider's medical bills as part of a lawsuit and/or directly to a tortfeasor and/or to a First and/or Third Party Payment Entity and receive compensation at Full Rates, even if the medical bills were already paid. Thus, the Health Care Provider receives payment at the lower Contracted Rates, while the patient and/or their Agent through utilizing the provider's bills, can receive compensation paid by a tortfeasor to the patient and/or their Agent as well as by a First and/or Third Party Payment Entity at the higher Health Care Provider's Full Rates.
Additionally, many Health Care Provider/Health Insurance Entity contracts provide for a waiver of subrogation on the Health Care Provider's part. Subrogation is a legal concept where one entity assumes the legal rights of another entity for whom the first entity has paid expenses or a debt on their behalf. For example, when an insurer is required to pay a claimant a sum of money, the insurer usually is allowed to sue in the name of the claimant against any person who was responsible for the loss. This concept enables an insurance company to sue on behalf of its insured if it is required to pay the insured for a loss caused by another entity. Subrogation is generally considered in most legal systems to form part of the law of restitution by preventing unjust enrichment. In other words, subrogation prevents the subrogor (e.g., the patient) from receiving/utilizing funds from the subrogee (e.g., the health care insurer), and then still claiming the original sum of money from the tortfeasor (e.g., the entity that caused the accident). Pursuant to the waiver of subrogation, the Health Insurance Entity may be able to recover any payments made for services provided to a patient following an auto accident or other Covered Event, provided that the First and/or Third Party Payment Entity paid monies for the same set of services. Thus, even if the Health Insurance Entity receives payment at the Full Rates, the Health Care Provider gets nothing more than the Contracted Rates. In this sense, patients, attorneys and other parties can leverage the Health Care Provider's efforts to financially benefit. for themselves, many times at the full fee rates, while the Health Care Provider receives only the Contracted Rates.
These and other drawbacks exist with known billing practices.
What is claimed is:
1. A billing and payment collection method utilized by a health care provider to bill and collect payment associated with treatment of a patient, the method comprising: transmitting a health care service bill from the health provider to a patient's health insurance plan for health care services provided to the patient by the health care provider, wherein the health care service bill is for the normal and full charge for the rendered health care services; accepting a contractual rate payment from the health insurance plan in response to the transmitted health care service bill, wherein the contractual rate payment is lower than the health care provider's normal and full charge for the rendered health care services; determining that an additional payment party exists, which is not the patient's health insurance plan, wherein the additional payment party is responsible to pay the patient for the health care service bill, when submitted by the patient, irrespective of the patient's health insurance plan paying the health care provider for the same health care service bill; entering into a private billing contract between the health care provider and the patient for differential monies, wherein the differential monies are the difference between the normal and full charge for the rendered health care services, and the contractual rate payment made by the health insurance plan in response to the health care service bill, wherein the differential monies are only due to the health provider upon the patient submitting the health care service bill to an additional party and receiving payment therefrom; submitting via the patient the health care service bill to the additional payment party; receiving, by the patient, from the additional payment party monies in response to the submitted health care service bill, wherein the received monies includes differential monies; billing and collecting the differential monies from the patient by the health care provider based upon the private billing contract; and wherein the prior steps are performed by one or more computers.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the billing and collection for the health provider is performed by a third party.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the patient submits the health care service bill to the additional payment party via an attorney or legal representative.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the health care service bill relates to an injury claim involving the patient.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the private billing contract is made prior to any care being rendered by the health care provider to the patient.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the health care provider is a provider selected from a group consisting of a health system, hospital, surgical center, rehab facility, physician's practice, ambulatory center, medical service business, imaging center, outsourced diagnostic testing company, home health agency, therapy clinic, chiropractic and any non-medical practitioner and facility legally allowed to perform health care services.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the health care services are services selected from a group consisting of consultation, examination, treatment, surgery, use of pharmaceutical products, home health, therapy, imaging, laboratory services and use of medical equipment.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the additional payment party is based upon an insurance rider selected from a group consisting of a Med Pay, No-Fault, Uninsured Motorist, Underinsured Motorist and Personal Injury Protection riders on an automobile insurance of the patient.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the additional payment party is based on a liability insurance product representing the at-fault party, selected from a group consisting of general liability, professional liability, auto liability, employer liability, public liability and product liability.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the additional payment party is a party selected from a group consisting of an individual, group, business, partnership, limited liability company, insurance coverage, association, municipality, county, state, and federal government entity.
11. The method of claim 4, wherein the injury claim is based upon an injury selected from a group consisting of an auto accident, work-related injury, soft-tissue injury, liability on premises, liability due to environment, product defect, pharmaceutical product, birth injury, assault, slip, fall, circumstance relating negligence and medical malpractice.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the private billing contract is a medical lien between the provider and patient.
13. The method of claim 1, wherein the submission of the health care service bill to the additional payment party by the patient is conducted via an attorney or legal representative.
14. The method of claim 1, wherein the differential monies exclude monies paid to the health care provider, said excluded monies selected from a group consisting of a health insurance co-payment, a health insurance deductible and co-insurance.
15. The method of claim 4, wherein the health care provider collects differential monies relating to the injury claim from the patient via an attorney or legal representative of the patient.
16. A computerized investigation method to determine whether differential monies legally owed to a health care provider by a patient are in the possession of the patient, the method comprising: transmitting a heath care service bill from the health provider to the patient's health insurance plan for health care services provided to the patient by the health care provider, wherein the health care service bill is for the normal and full charge for the rendered health care services accepting a contractual rate payment from the health insurance plan in response to the transmitted health care service bill, wherein the contractual rate payment is lower than the health care provider's normal and full charge for the rendered health care services; determining an additional payment party exists, which is not the patient's health insurance plan, wherein the additional payment party is responsible to pay the patient for the health care service bill, when submitted by the patient, irrespective of the patient's health insurance plan paying the health care provider for the same health care service bill; entering into a private billing contract between the health care provider and the patient, wherein existing differential monies are deemed owed from the patient to the health care provider, wherein the differential monies are the difference between the normal and full charge for the rendered health care services, and the contractual rate payment made by the health insurance plan in response to the health care service bill, wherein the differential monies are only due to the health provider upon the patient submitting the health care service bill to an additional party and receiving payment therefrom; submitting via the patient the health care service bill for the rendered health care services to the additional payment party; determining by the health care provider, through an investigation, that the patient received monies from the additional payment party in response to the submitted health care service bill, wherein the received monies include the differential monies; and wherein the prior steps are performed by one or more computers.
17. The method of claim 16, wherein the additional payment party is based upon an insurance rider selected from a group consisting of a Med Pay, No-Fault, Uninsured Motorist, Underinsured Motorist and Personal Injury Protection riders on an automobile insurance of the patient.
18. The method of claim 16, wherein the additional payment party is based on a liability insurance product representing the at-fault party, selected from a group consisting of general liability, professional liability, auto liability, employer liability, public liability and product liability.
19. The method of claim 16, wherein the additional payment party is a party selected from a group consisting of an individual, group, business, partnership, limited liability company, insurance coverage, association, municipality, county, state, and federal government entity.
20. The method of claim 16, wherein the injury claim is based upon an injury selected from a group consisting of an auto accident, work-related injury, soft-tissue injury, liability on premises, liability due to environment, product defect, pharmaceutical product, birth injury, assault, slip, fall, circumstance relating negligence and medical malpractice.
21. The method of claim 16, wherein the private billing contract is a medical lien between the provider and patient.
22. The method of claim 16, wherein the submission of the health care service bill to the additional payment party by the patient is conducted via an attorney or legal representative.
23. The method of claim 16, wherein the investigation for the health care provider is performed by a third party.
24. The method of claim 16, wherein the patient submits the health care service bill to the additional payment party via an attorney or legal representative.
25. The method of claim 16, wherein the health care service bill relates to an injury claim involving the patient.
26. The method of claim 16, wherein the private billing contract is made prior to any care being rendered by the health care provider to the patient.
27. The method of claim 16, wherein the health care provider is a provider selected from a group consisting of a health system, hospital, surgical center, rehab facility, physician's practice, ambulatory center, medical service business, imaging center, outsourced diagnostic testing company, home health agency, therapy clinic, chiropractic and any non-medical practitioner and facility legally allowed to perform health care services.
28. The method of claim 16, wherein the health care service is a service selected from a group consisting of consultation, examination, treatment, surgery, use of pharmaceutical products, home health, therapy, imaging, laboratory services and use of medical equipment.
29. The method of claim 16, wherein the differential monies exclude monies paid to the health care provider, said excluded monies selected from a group consisting of a health insurance co-payment, a health insurance deductible and co-insurance.
1. A billing and payment collection method utilized by a health care provider to bill and collect payment associated with treatment of a patient, the method comprising: transmitting a health care service bill from the health provider to a patient's health insurance plan for health care services provided to the patient by the health care provider, wherein the health care service bill is for the normal and full charge for the rendered health care services; accepting a contractual rate payment from the health insurance plan in response to the transmitted health care service bill, wherein the contractual rate payment is lower than the health care provider's normal and full charge for the rendered health care services; determining that an additional payment party exists, which is not the patient's health insurance plan, wherein the additional payment party is responsible to pay the patient for the health care service bill, when submitted by the patient, irrespective of the patient's health insurance plan paying the health care provider for the same health care service bill; entering into a private billing contract between the health care provider and the patient for differential monies, wherein the differential monies are the difference between the normal and full charge for the rendered health care services, and the contractual rate payment made by the health insurance plan in response to the health care service bill, wherein the differential monies are only due to the health provider upon the patient submitting the health care service bill to an additional party and receiving payment therefrom; submitting via the patient the health care service bill to the additional payment party; receiving, by the patient, from the additional payment party monies in response to the submitted health care service bill, wherein the received monies includes differential monies; billing and collecting the differential monies from the patient by the health care provider based upon the private billing contract; and wherein the prior steps are performed by one or more computers.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the billing and collection for the health provider is performed by a third party.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the patient submits the health care service bill to the additional payment party via an attorney or legal representative.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the health care service bill relates to an injury claim involving the patient.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the private billing contract is made prior to any care being rendered by the health care provider to the patient.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the health care provider is a provider selected from a group consisting of a health system, hospital, surgical center, rehab facility, physician's practice, ambulatory center, medical service business, imaging center, outsourced diagnostic testing company, home health agency, therapy clinic, chiropractic and any non-medical practitioner and facility legally allowed to perform health care services.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the health care services are services selected from a group consisting of consultation, examination, treatment, surgery, use of pharmaceutical products, home health, therapy, imaging, laboratory services and use of medical equipment.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the additional payment party is based upon an insurance rider selected from a group consisting of a Med Pay, No-Fault, Uninsured Motorist, Underinsured Motorist and Personal Injury Protection riders on an automobile insurance of the patient.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the additional payment party is based on a liability insurance product representing the at-fault party, selected from a group consisting of general liability, professional liability, auto liability, employer liability, public liability and product liability.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the additional payment party is a party selected from a group consisting of an individual, group, business, partnership, limited liability company, insurance coverage, association, municipality, county, state, and federal government entity.
11. The method of claim 4, wherein the injury claim is based upon an injury selected from a group consisting of an auto accident, work-related injury, soft-tissue injury, liability on premises, liability due to environment, product defect, pharmaceutical product, birth injury, assault, slip, fall, circumstance relating negligence and medical malpractice.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the private billing contract is a medical lien between the provider and patient.
13. The method of claim 1, wherein the submission of the health care service bill to the additional payment party by the patient is conducted via an attorney or legal representative.
14. The method of claim 1, wherein the differential monies exclude monies paid to the health care provider, said excluded monies selected from a group consisting of a health insurance co-payment, a health insurance deductible and co-insurance.
15. The method of claim 4, wherein the health care provider collects differential monies relating to the injury claim from the patient via an attorney or legal representative of the patient.
16. A computerized investigation method to determine whether differential monies legally owed to a health care provider by a patient are in the possession of the patient, the method comprising: transmitting a heath care service bill from the health provider to the patient's health insurance plan for health care services provided to the patient by the health care provider, wherein the health care service bill is for the normal and full charge for the rendered health care services accepting a contractual rate payment from the health insurance plan in response to the transmitted health care service bill, wherein the contractual rate payment is lower than the health care provider's normal and full charge for the rendered health care services; determining an additional payment party exists, which is not the patient's health insurance plan, wherein the additional payment party is responsible to pay the patient for the health care service bill, when submitted by the patient, irrespective of the patient's health insurance plan paying the health care provider for the same health care service bill; entering into a private billing contract between the health care provider and the patient, wherein existing differential monies are deemed owed from the patient to the health care provider, wherein the differential monies are the difference between the normal and full charge for the rendered health care services, and the contractual rate payment made by the health insurance plan in response to the health care service bill, wherein the differential monies are only due to the health provider upon the patient submitting the health care service bill to an additional party and receiving payment therefrom; submitting via the patient the health care service bill for the rendered health care services to the additional payment party; determining by the health care provider, through an investigation, that the patient received monies from the additional payment party in response to the submitted health care service bill, wherein the received monies include the differential monies; and wherein the prior steps are performed by one or more computers.
17. The method of claim 16, wherein the additional payment party is based upon an insurance rider selected from a group consisting of a Med Pay, No-Fault, Uninsured Motorist, Underinsured Motorist and Personal Injury Protection riders on an automobile insurance of the patient.
18. The method of claim 16, wherein the additional payment party is based on a liability insurance product representing the at-fault party, selected from a group consisting of general liability, professional liability, auto liability, employer liability, public liability and product liability.
19. The method of claim 16, wherein the additional payment party is a party selected from a group consisting of an individual, group, business, partnership, limited liability company, insurance coverage, association, municipality, county, state, and federal government entity.
20. The method of claim 16, wherein the injury claim is based upon an injury selected from a group consisting of an auto accident, work-related injury, soft-tissue injury, liability on premises, liability due to environment, product defect, pharmaceutical product, birth injury, assault, slip, fall, circumstance relating negligence and medical malpractice.
21. The method of claim 16, wherein the private billing contract is a medical lien between the provider and patient.
22. The method of claim 16, wherein the submission of the health care service bill to the additional payment party by the patient is conducted via an attorney or legal representative.
23. The method of claim 16, wherein the investigation for the health care provider is performed by a third party.
24. The method of claim 16, wherein the patient submits the health care service bill to the additional payment party via an attorney or legal representative.
25. The method of claim 16, wherein the health care service bill relates to an injury claim involving the patient.
26. The method of claim 16, wherein the private billing contract is made prior to any care being rendered by the health care provider to the patient.
27. The method of claim 16, wherein the health care provider is a provider selected from a group consisting of a health system, hospital, surgical center, rehab facility, physician's practice, ambulatory center, medical service business, imaging center, outsourced diagnostic testing company, home health agency, therapy clinic, chiropractic and any non-medical practitioner and facility legally allowed to perform health care services.
28. The method of claim 16, wherein the health care service is a service selected from a group consisting of consultation, examination, treatment, surgery, use of pharmaceutical products, home health, therapy, imaging, laboratory services and use of medical equipment.
29. The method of claim 16, wherein the differential monies exclude monies paid to the health care provider, said excluded monies selected from a group consisting of a health insurance co-payment, a health insurance deductible and co-insurance.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The invention addressing these and other drawbacks relates to a system and method for enabling a Health Care Provider to effect compensatory invoicing of patients for a Covered Event in instances where the patient has contracted with a Health Insurance Entity for provision of health care services at a Contracted Rate and additionally, there exists compensation paid by a tortfeasor to the patient and/or their Agent and/or a responsible First and/or Third Party Payment Entity who is liable for payment due to the Covered Event.
According to an aspect of the invention, a Health Care Provider may take one or more steps to ensure that it is in a legal position to effect compensatory invoicing of a patient to effectively bill a patient, while honoring the Health Care Provider/Health Insurance Entity Contract (under certain circumstances) by enforcing a billing arrangement which would enable the Health Care Provider to be paid their Full Rate when a patient or their Agent receives compensation paid by a tortfeasor and/or First and/or Third Party Payment Entity other than their Health Insurance Entity.
For example, in one implementation, a Health Care Provider, prior to rendering services to a new (or current) patient who is seeking care stemming from a Covered Event, requires the patient to sign a legal contract between the patient and the Health Care Provider, specifically outlining the billing policies of the Health Care Provider, where the contract includes a provision entitling the Health Care Provider to be entitled to their Full Rate (not the Contracted Rate) if the patient and/or their Agent uses the Health Care Provider's bills for compensation by submitting the bills to a tortfeasor via a lawsuit or otherwise and/or First and/or Third Party Payment Entity (e.g., an entity other than the Patient's Health Insurance Entity).
Once a signed contract is in place by and between the patient and the Health Care Provider, the Health Care Provider provides necessary services to the patient in the ordinary course, bills the Health Insurance Entity at the Contracted Rates, and receives payment from the Health Insurance Entity for the rendered services at the Contracted Rates.
Subsequently, the Health Care Provider (or someone on behalf of the Health Care Provider) may monitor a variety of sources to determine whether the patient and or their Agent has had compensation paid by a tortfeasor and/or a First and/or Third Party Payment Entity relating to services provided by the Health Care Provider. Monitored sources may, for example, include Court records (electronic or otherwise) as well as the use of various health provider and billing databases, many of which are currently known (but used for other purposes). This may also include providing a questionnaire with the paperwork which the patient fills out and signs at the Health Care Provider's office prior to, during or subsequent to treatment, asking if the injury or reason the patient is seeking care stems directly from an accident or Covered Event, and if so, identification of any pending lawsuits or submission of provider's health bills to a tortfeasor and/or First and/or Third Party Payment Entities. The requesting of treatment records, bills, statements, etc. either by the patient or a representative (agent) of the patient may also be a trigger, alerting the Health Care Provider and related staff that compensatory invoicing may be appropriate.
Monitoring may further be performed manually and/or electronically at predetermined intervals or otherwise. Additionally, the patient may also allow the Health Care Provider to bill the First and/or Third Party Payment Entity as well as collect from the patient and/or their Agent any compensation paid by a tortfeasor to the patient and/or their Agent. Whichever the case, the Health Care Provider (or agent) enforces the billing contract between the Health Care Provider and the patient to effect compensatory invoicing and collect the difference between the Full Rates and the Contracted Rates in appropriate circumstances.
According to an aspect of the invention, a system is provided, which enables the review and subsequent auditing of past patient records by comparing them against a monitoring system allowing the Health Care Provider to effect compensatory invoicing and collect any difference(s) between their Full Rate(s) and Contracted Rate(s) for rendered services if the patient and/or their agent/representative uses the Health Care Provider's bills and has compensation paid by a tortfeasor and/or First and/or Third Party Payment Entity (e.g., an entity other than the Patient's Health insurance Entity).
In one implementation, the system may comprise a computer system, and the computer system may further host, interface with, or otherwise enable access to a billing management application for tracking information/contracts for those patients who are seeking payment for healthcare services (either in full or in part) from a tortfeasor and/or a First and/or Third Party Payment Entity (other than the Patient's Health Insurance Entity). The billing management application may comprise an "add-on" application to existing or subsequently developed billing applications, or may comprise a separate "stand-alone" application.
In one implementation, the computer system (and billing application) may be in operative communication with one or more external data sources (e.g., legal databases that include information on Court proceedings and other data sources). Information gathered from the one or more external data sources may be maintained, for example, in one or more associated databases. The information may comprise, among other things, information on claims filed by patients (contracting with the Health Care Provider) and/or their Agent against any tortfeasor and/or First and/or Third Party Payment Entity (other than the patient's Health Insurance Entity) and the status of any such proceedings related to the claims. The information may also comprise data on any payment-related activities that have occurred between contracted patients and any tortfeasor and/or First and/or Third Party Payment Entity.
For each patient contracting with the Health Care Provider, die billing management application may generate reports on-demand, or at pre-determined intervals, that include the current status of any efforts by the particular contracting patient to recover money from a patient and/or Agent in lieu of a tortfeasor's compensation as well as a First and/or Third Party Payment. Entity (other than the patient's Health insurance Entity).
In one implementation, if a patient has been compensated by a tortfeasor and/or First and/or Third Party Payment Entity, the billing management application may generate, pursuant to the contract between the patient and the Health Care Provider, a bill for the difference between the Health Care Provider's Full Rates (for services rendered by the Health Care Provider to the patient) and the payment received by the Health Care Provider from the Health Insurance Entity at the Contracted Rates.
Various other objects, features, and advantages of the invention will be apparent through the detailed description of the preferred embodiments and the drawings attached hereto. It is also to be understood that both the foregoing general description and the following detailed description are exemplary and not restrictive of the scope of the invention.
The invention addressing these and other drawbacks relates to a system and method for enabling a Health Care Provider to effect compensatory invoicing of patients for a Covered Event in instances where the patient has contracted with a Health Insurance Entity for provision of health care services at a Contracted Rate and additionally, there exists compensation paid by a tortfeasor to the patient and/or their Agent and/or a responsible First and/or Third Party Payment Entity who is liable for payment due to the Covered Event.
According to an aspect of the invention, a Health Care Provider may take one or more steps to ensure that it is in a legal position to effect compensatory invoicing of a patient to effectively bill a patient, while honoring the Health Care Provider/Health Insurance Entity Contract (under certain circumstances) by enforcing a billing arrangement which would enable the Health Care Provider to be paid their Full Rate when a patient or their Agent receives compensation paid by a tortfeasor and/or First and/or Third Party Payment Entity other than their Health Insurance Entity.
For example, in one implementation, a Health Care Provider, prior to rendering services to a new (or current) patient who is seeking care stemming from a Covered Event, requires the patient to sign a legal contract between the patient and the Health Care Provider, specifically outlining the billing policies of the Health Care Provider, where the contract includes a provision entitling the Health Care Provider to be entitled to their Full Rate (not the Contracted Rate) if the patient and/or their Agent uses the Health Care Provider's bills for compensation by submitting the bills to a tortfeasor via a lawsuit or otherwise and/or First and/or Third Party Payment Entity (e.g., an entity other than the Patient's Health Insurance Entity).
Once a signed contract is in place by and between the patient and the Health Care Provider, the Health Care Provider provides necessary services to the patient in the ordinary course, bills the Health Insurance Entity at the Contracted Rates, and receives payment from the Health Insurance Entity for the rendered services at the Contracted Rates.
Subsequently, the Health Care Provider (or someone on behalf of the Health Care Provider) may monitor a variety of sources to determine whether the patient and or their Agent has had compensation paid by a tortfeasor and/or a First and/or Third Party Payment Entity relating to services provided by the Health Care Provider. Monitored sources may, for example, include Court records (electronic or otherwise) as well as the use of various health provider and billing databases, many of which are currently known (but used for other purposes). This may also include providing a questionnaire with the paperwork which the patient fills out and signs at the Health Care Provider's office prior to, during or subsequent to treatment, asking if the injury or reason the patient is seeking care stems directly from an accident or Covered Event, and if so, identification of any pending lawsuits or submission of provider's health bills to a tortfeasor and/or First and/or Third Party Payment Entities. The requesting of treatment records, bills, statements, etc. either by the patient or a representative (agent) of the patient may also be a trigger, alerting the Health Care Provider and related staff that compensatory invoicing may be appropriate.
Monitoring may further be performed manually and/or electronically at predetermined intervals or otherwise. Additionally, the patient may also allow the Health Care Provider to bill the First and/or Third Party Payment Entity as well as collect from the patient and/or their Agent any compensation paid by a tortfeasor to the patient and/or their Agent. Whichever the case, the Health Care Provider (or agent) enforces the billing contract between the Health Care Provider and the patient to effect compensatory invoicing and collect the difference between the Full Rates and the Contracted Rates in appropriate circumstances.
According to an aspect of the invention, a system is provided, which enables the review and subsequent auditing of past patient records by comparing them against a monitoring system allowing the Health Care Provider to effect compensatory invoicing and collect any difference(s) between their Full Rate(s) and Contracted Rate(s) for rendered services if the patient and/or their agent/representative uses the Health Care Provider's bills and has compensation paid by a tortfeasor and/or First and/or Third Party Payment Entity (e.g., an entity other than the Patient's Health insurance Entity).
In one implementation, the system may comprise a computer system, and the computer system may further host, interface with, or otherwise enable access to a billing management application for tracking information/contracts for those patients who are seeking payment for healthcare services (either in full or in part) from a tortfeasor and/or a First and/or Third Party Payment Entity (other than the Patient's Health Insurance Entity). The billing management application may comprise an "add-on" application to existing or subsequently developed billing applications, or may comprise a separate "stand-alone" application.
In one implementation, the computer system (and billing application) may be in operative communication with one or more external data sources (e.g., legal databases that include information on Court proceedings and other data sources). Information gathered from the one or more external data sources may be maintained, for example, in one or more associated databases. The information may comprise, among other things, information on claims filed by patients (contracting with the Health Care Provider) and/or their Agent against any tortfeasor and/or First and/or Third Party Payment Entity (other than the patient's Health Insurance Entity) and the status of any such proceedings related to the claims. The information may also comprise data on any payment-related activities that have occurred between contracted patients and any tortfeasor and/or First and/or Third Party Payment Entity.
For each patient contracting with the Health Care Provider, die billing management application may generate reports on-demand, or at pre-determined intervals, that include the current status of any efforts by the particular contracting patient to recover money from a patient and/or Agent in lieu of a tortfeasor's compensation as well as a First and/or Third Party Payment. Entity (other than the patient's Health insurance Entity).
In one implementation, if a patient has been compensated by a tortfeasor and/or First and/or Third Party Payment Entity, the billing management application may generate, pursuant to the contract between the patient and the Health Care Provider, a bill for the difference between the Health Care Provider's Full Rates (for services rendered by the Health Care Provider to the patient) and the payment received by the Health Care Provider from the Health Insurance Entity at the Contracted Rates.
Various other objects, features, and advantages of the invention will be apparent through the detailed description of the preferred embodiments and the drawings attached hereto. It is also to be understood that both the foregoing general description and the following detailed description are exemplary and not restrictive of the scope of the invention.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Class Action Certification Sought in NCCI et al v AIG Premium Case
Class Action certification is being sought in a claim against AIG brought by NCCI Holdings Inc., Liberty Mutual and Travelers Insurance for underreporting of workers ' compensation premiums. See AIG tries to block workers comp competitors' class action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)