Out of Network Exposed NY Times

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

GatorCHOMPions

Full Member
15+ Year Member
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Quite a lot of pain docs are OON in my area. I wonder if this exposure will have any impact. A colleague in another practice routinely collects over 1k for ESI's, but of course he is not the owner and sees a fraction of it.
 
I have heard the hammer is coming down on OON for at least 10 years if not more. And yet, it is alive and well especially in NY/NJ. I know so many small practices in NJ that are still OON although I’m hearing payment is delayed by 6 months-1 year many times…and it has to be chased
 
this is a loophole in OON that is being exploited by practice admin.

TL/DR summary - physician practice charges an exhorbitant OON fee for procedure done in an in network facility. the physician practice is supposed to have patient sign a waiver prior to surgery, to bill the patient directly for costs not covered by insurance. the patient does not sign the waiver (probably never gets the chance), and because of that, the insurer is required to pay extra and so it goes to arbitration.

arbitrators seem to tend to favor the physician over the insurer (tho in truth it is the practice that does the billing). the arbitrators (who are also getting paid), have to decide between what the insurer will pay and what the physician practice has charged. if the insurer fees seem unreasonably low, they cant choose a different value. arbitrators may also have a hidden incentive to favor physicians as that generates more arbitrations.



fwiw, apparently some of the physicians questioned are salaried and are not getting the windfall. the practice is.


its admin. its always admin.

(tho it might be the physician who is the admin...)