That was DISCOUNTED Yikes! From what? Any chance that they coded the wrong test? I imagine not as I expect you can see the service in plain English but it just seems wrong that a plain ultrasound is so expensive
I just noticed they do not have the actual test name in the services description but instead something generic so I'm going to follow up on that. The initial bill from the hospital was $2K more.
My doctor recommended that I have an ultrasound test recently. The test lasted under an hour and the bill came to almost $5K.
Was this a specialized/non-standard test? Under Covered California, I thought diagnostic imaging was a flat copay amount.
Hospitals, clinics, and many specialists are billing not based on the services given but instead on what is potentially billable. In other professions that would be called "overbilling". You should check the billing codes, which should be on the EOB, and be prepared to challenge it.I don't think it was anything out of the ordinary. I know it didn't take long because I was running late so I had DH drop me off at the front entrance and then I called him to pick me up, and the call time is on my cell phone. So a little over an hour elapsed from when he dropped me off and picked me up, and in between a lot of my time was spent in admissions and the waiting room.
DH says apparently I was suffering from an enlarged wallet and they had the cure for that.
Hospitals, clinics, and many specialists are billing not based on the services given but instead on what is potentially billable. In other professions that would be called "overbilling". You should check the billing codes, which should be on the EOB, and be prepared to challenge it.
I looked up the prices online and the web sites that have averages for medical services showed the $5K was way out of line with what these kinds of tests normally cost on average in the U.S. I live in a high cost of living area so I would not feel so ripped off at even the high end of the range but what they charged me was crazy high. We're just shocked that I could almost reach my out of pocket annual max over a 45 minute test.
We visited a neonatal cardiopulmonary radiologist (I think I remember the medical specialty correctly ) for a brief consult just before our third kid was born. 10 minutes. $3500.
Result: "medically unremarkable" which means things are normal I guess. $3500 for 10 minutes of work is nice if you can get it. Of course they probably spent an hour or two behind the scenes making notes to protect against a medical malpractice lawsuit, and filing with the insurance, and fighting to get paid by insurance. So on second thought, the money isn't that great.
I can't remember the negotiated discount and what we paid but it was shockingly high for such a short visit. We thought it was at a regular doctor's office but it was next door to the local hospital, so I assume they charged as a hospital.
Of course they probably spent an hour or two behind the scenes making notes to protect against a medical malpractice lawsuit, and filing with the insurance, and fighting to get paid by insurance. So on second thought, the money isn't that great.
.
I think people mention single payer for everybody and not just Medicare age. And that was what I was referring to. Everywhere you read on the internet, especially on some forums, people keep mention we need single payer. We already have Medicare which is a single payer for 65 and over. If that's what they refer to, I'm sure there is no need to say we need single payer. We already have single payer like VA and Medicare.
So, given the skill required, that $3500 charge was reasonable.A neonatal cardiopulmonary radiologist (who in my experience is usually a pediatric cardiologist) has years of very specialized training. Imaging and interpreting the anatomy of a thumbnail sized fetal heart through the mother's abdominal wall is a completely different level of complexity from interpreting the anatomy of an adult on ultrasound (the OP did not state what part of her anatomy was examined).
How about "Single Payer" for all. Currently it is only for a select few.
You should read my post. There is only a few countries have them. Last I've heard the VA system was not so hot.
But I try to refrain from making political comment. But how about giving back all your wealth for free healthcare?
Yes, I will challenge it. I didn't notice the missing test name in the services description until this thread prompted me to look at the EOB closer.
But the U.K. And Canada people have been paying them all these years with very high tax, same with other countries in Europe. In fact from what I've read, if the U.K. were to start single payer today they can't afford it. Lately, what I've read is the U.K. is going to increase tax on inheritance to fund NHS. My husband said he still has a full set of teeth while his sister doesn't. He prefers the US system.I am a Canadian Citizen and a UK Citizen. Whatever you call those systems. They work, ours here does not (Based on the numbers of completely covered US citizens and those with no coverage at all. Cost in Canada at my income level is between $150 and $182 per month for me an DW No Deductibles no Copays. Depending on the Province. This covers basically 100% of Canadian Citizens, AKA a working System.
That is the fallback, but it is too cold up there. .
ACA worked for us. This year it is $145pm for me a DW + $4000 OOP no Deductible. I am happy with that.
Lately, what I've read is the U.K. is going to increase tax on inheritance to fund NHS.
But the U.K. And Canada people have been paying them all these years with very high tax, same with other countries in Europe. In fact from what I've read, if the U.K. were to start single payer today they can't afford it. Lately, what I've read is the U.K. is going to increase tax on inheritance to fund NHS. My husband said he still has a full set of teeth while his sister doesn't. He prefers the US system.
So, given the skill required, that $3500 charge was reasonable.
My husband said it's from the Economist. But I don't know if I can find the link. I found it, but there are other links out there for the same article, so it's not far fetching idea.Where did you hear that because they have just decreased inheritance tax income, beginning this tax year by excluding part of the value of the family house. Inheritance tax in total amounts to less than 1% of tax revenues and even the record high in 2016 of inheritance tax revenues was less than £5B (NHS spending is about £120B)
Tax revenue sources in UK | Economics Help
UK Treasury sees 70% boom in inheritance tax revenues in five years | This is Money