General Category > General Questions
"Time of Service" Discounts?
Billergirlnyc:
--- Quote ---Great.. we understand you have no problem with the doctor just making random and arbitrary arrangements with patients. Your job is then easier, but let us do what we feel in the best interest of our clients. We, no, I'll speak for myself, would rather air on the side of caution and add COMMON SENSE to the mix, and spend my time much more efficiently that working with providers who are not interested in right and wrong unless I legally prove it to them. If I had a client that was randomly giving away the farm to some and not others, didn't have an office/financial policy, and didn't care enough to put his business first, then, I'm not needed and my time is better spent with clients who do want to do the plain ol "RIGHT" thing. I do feel better your picking on others and not just me <g>
--- End quote ---
LOL @ picking on someone else. Since you opened-up this part up, let me state I don't feel "picked-on" we all have a right to challenge someone's comments, and those who are challenged have a right to set the parameters in which they will respond. I know what I know and there are some things I don't feel like I have to defend. But, I refuse dictation of any kind (meaning no one and I do no one will tell me how I should or should've responded to a topic when I'm essentially following forum policies) that's just plain silly. Saying you disagree with what I'm saying is one thing. Saying HOW I should respond is another. This is a public forum that requires us to register to respond. You don't have to respond to any topic or comment that doesn't appease your personal standards and you should always do your own research (and consult outside this forum) no matter who responded or how many links or case laws they throw-up.
PMRNC:
I wonder if all the people who want legal references realize this is the US and anyone can take anyone to court for anything. You don't have to be wrong to be served a supena. In this industry common sense prevails and I don't deal with physicians who want me to PROVE something with legal references when I'm just doing my job to protect them.
RichardP:
I understand that guys communicate differently than gals. But I think that has no bearing on my point, which was: when someone asks specifically about something, it is useful to the questioner when someone actually addresses the question asked. I was not saying anybody's comments were wrong. I was simply saying they did not address the question asked. I was not saying that people cannot comment however they please. I was just pointing out that the comments up to that point did not address the question asked. Which was: what is the legality of it all?
That question required a reference to relevant laws and regulations in any answers given, or an "I don't know". Since most of us (all of us?) here can't know the specific answer to this person's question (without the questioner giving us more information), pointing the questioner to the doctor's health-care attorney for answers would have been about the only proper response to the actual question. This comment stands by itself and is not meant to address the issue of whether adding in personal opinion would benefit the questioner.
I have sometimes asked questions on forums and received many responses, none of which actually addressed my specific question. So I tend to be a bit sensitive to this issue.
You gave some good responses to my comments. The original questioner will benefit from that. There is much meat to sort through. I think that is a good thing, not a bad thing - given that this site exists to educate its readers.
PMRNC:
I think the ISSUE was def addressed with opinions to which go with our experience. I will admit it was THIS part that may not have been addressed:
--- Quote ---Many providers have similar cash dicounts, but what is the legality of it all?
--- End quote ---
I guess if we are going to nit pick I'd say this would be a better question on a forum with attorney's then.
Personally, I don't think this NEEDED a legal reference because common sense prevails.
RichardP:
I'm trying to be helpful here, not mean.
The question asked: ... but what is the legality of it all?
The answer given: Providers can indeed give a cash discount, they just have to show it on the bill as a courtesy cash payment and they also have to adhere to ONE policy in their office financial policy. For example they can't just charge Mrs. Smith $50 (no insurance, cash pay) and then charge Mr. Black $40 (also no insurance cash pay) ONE policy for all cash pay discounts.
Linda, that is what started my comments. I'm not picking on you. I'm pointing out to you and to anyone else who reads this that your answer is wrong - if you are actually answering the question asked - which is what it seemed you were doing. You did not begin your answer by saying I don't know about legal, but this is what I require of my clients. If you had, I would not have responded at all.
By not qualifying your answer, you gave the impression that it was the legal answer to to the question what is the legality of it all. For example, you say they can't just charge Mrs. Smith $50 (no insurance, cash pay) and then charge Mr. Black $40 (also no insurance cash pay). Without a qualification of some sort, readers will think that is a legal requirement. It is not. As I pointed out in a post above, doctors and hospitals are free to discriminate in the pricing of their services, except where contrained by state and Federal regulations, and by their contracts with the insurance carriers. For a doctor who is seeing cash patients, as in your example, the constraints are (almost?) non-existant (I phrase it that way, because I do not know the regulations in every state). That is, for a non-medicare cash patients, the doctor can legally charge each patient a different price.
I have clients in Beverly Hills who routinely price their services to non-medicare cash patients based on the way the patient is dressed. That may be distasteful to you, but it is not illegal.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version