Glad to have Health Insurance

[bUU]

Surely:

Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA)
In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual's ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with EMCs. If a hospital is unable to stabilize a patient within its capability, or if the patient requests, an appropriate transfer should be implemented.

I didn't think it was an issue given that it was a government website.

 

[MichaelB]

I didn't think it was an issue given that it was a government website.

Thank you. It is a courtesy to other members so they don't have to open a link and go to another site when a summary might do. Community rues also encourage this

Please do not post “naked” links, defined as links posted without explanation, interpretation or context.

See here http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/misc.php?do=sknetwork&page=rules

 

[bUU]

Make sense. Will do from now on.

 

[GoneFishing]

Thanks for the clarification. This makes more sense, and looks like the pricing I have seen as well. Not sure I'd call it a discount, though. More like a price dysfunction. Pity the person stuck with no insurance and a bit of money in the bank.

+1

 

[Accidental Retiree]

This. So nobody else is paying, IMO. But even those "negotiated" prices are inflated to pay for those who cannot. Not saying this in anger, just sayin'.

Maybe this explains why a podiatrist told me that orthotics (which I did not get) would cost $600 if I had insurance, $300 if I did not.

That surprised me.

A similar situation occurred with my optometrist. For years I had VSP, and they still encourage me to buy an individual policy. When I heard their summary of costs to a VSP-insured client and how much that client had 'saved,' I realized that as a privately paying individual, I was already paying the lower rate. I was paying the same out of pocket that the VSP-insured client was paying out of pocket.

I finally figured they wanted me to purchase VSP so that they could bill VSP those higher rates. In effect, I would be purchasing insurance and getting the same prices on my optometric services, but they would be making more money because they would be able to bill VSP those higher rates.

So my out of pocket costs would have increased by the amount of the premiums, and I figured I wasn't going to save much on the other services I received.

What a system!

 

[grasshopper]

When my doc left his practice to go teach, I tried to get another doc in the practice that wasn't taking new patients. I finally got in when I said I had BCBS. My dentist on the other hand suggested I drop my DI, he said I could pay a cash price, well below DI allowed fees. So far so good saved $1112 in the last 2 years.