Copyright

(c) 2010-2024 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.
Showing posts with label Health insurance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Health insurance. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Workers’ Compensation Benefits for Injured Workers Continue to Decline While Employer Costs Rise

Study Finds Benefits as a Share of Payroll Approach Lowest in Three Decades

Workers’ compensation benefits as a share of payroll for injured workers continue to decline even as employment grows and overall employer costs increase, according to anew report from the National Academy of Social Insurance (the Academy).

Friday, August 22, 2014

Why More, Not Fewer, People Might Start Getting Health Insurance Through Work

Today's post was shared by WCBlog and comes from www.nytimes.com

In an earnings call last week, Walmart announced that its workers were signing up for health insurance en masse. The news was bad for the company’s shareholders, since the added $500 million it will cost to cover them will eat into expected profits. But it also means that many more low-income families have health insurance now than did last year.
The change didn’t come because of a more generous company policy. Walmart has long offered health insurance to its full-time workers for relatively low premiums — about $18 every two weeks for its lowest-paid workers. It came because many more workers decided to take advantage of the offer.
It’s early yet to be sure of a strong trend, but the Walmart experience mirrors evidence from early polls and the historical experience of Massachusetts, which enacted a law similar to the Affordable Care Act in 2006. More people may be signing up for employer-based coverage than did before.
When we talk about the effect of the Affordable Care Act on health insurance, we often focus on people who were shut out of the market before, either because a prior illness made insurance inaccessible to them or because a high premium put coverage out of their financial reach. What Walmart’s experience reminds us is that there were also uninsured people who simply chose not to buy coverage before there was a law requiring them to do so. Now they may be changing their minds.This increase, if it is permanent, is going to cost...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Sunday, July 27, 2014

IRS prepping for Obamacare employer mandate in 2015

What will happen with the employer mandate? Will the consequences be that the workers' compensation carriers expand coverage to employer based policies that are cheaper than traditional workers' compenaation policies. Today's post is shared from Politico.com
The Obama administration signaled Thursday it’s not backing down from the controversial health law employer mandate that has been delayed twice and is the centerpiece of the House’s lawsuit against the president.
The IRS posted drafts of the forms that employers will have to fill out to comply with the Obamacare requirement that employers provide health insurance to workers.
Some business groups said the information was still too tentative and too incomplete to let them prepare for new obligations under the health law. “Our immense frustrations with the IRS continue,” Christine Pollack, vice president of Government Affairs at the Retail Industry Leaders Association, said in a statement.
An administration official said the White House is sticking to the timeline announced earlier this year. Companies with 50 to 99 employees will have another year — until 2016 — to start the coverage. Companies with 100 or more employees do have to comply next year, although they have two years to phase up so that they are covering 95 percent of their workers. Smaller businesses are exempt.
The House Republicans are planning to sue President Barack Obama, saying he overstepped his authority in...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Thursday, July 17, 2014

Retiree Health Plans Considered

Today's post was shared by CRR Boston College and comes from squaredawayblog.bc.edu

Bar chart showing large firms who offer retiree health benefits

Dave Gardner says:
The health exchanges are also a help to many retirees losing group coverage. It is also an alternative to COBRA or state benefits continuation. This is especially true for those who can qualify for a premium subsidy (tax credit) based on income.
Still, it is hard to tell retirees their loss of benefits has a “silver lining.” Most will not see it that way.
Between the availability of the exchanges, premium subsidies and continued “dumping” of group health for Medicare eligible coverages, it is no surprise major corporations favored the ACA. In a number of ways, this is another example of passing the buck to govt. to pay i.e. privatizing profits while socializing losses.
Corporate welfare is still welfare. Eventually Elizabeth Warren, Ralph Nader and the Tea Party will realize they share common ground here.
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Prices Soaring for Specialty Drugs, Researchers Find

Workers' Compensation insurance covers the FULL cost of prescription drugs.Today's post was shared by The New York Times and comes from www.nytimes.com

Even as the cost of prescription drugs has plummeted for many Americans, a small slice of the population is being asked to shoulder more and more of the cost of expensive treatments for diseases like cancer and hepatitis C, according to a report to be released on Tuesday by a major drug research firm.
The findings echo the conclusions of two other reports released last week by major pharmacy benefit managers, which predicted that spending on so-called specialty drugs would continue to rise.
The report, by the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics, also found that consumers’ use of health care — visits to the doctor, hospital admissions and prescription drug use — rose in 2013 for the first time in three years, mainly because of the improving economy, it said.
“Following several years of decline, 2013 was striking for the increased use by patients of all parts of the U.S. health care system,” Murray Aitken, executive director of the IMS Institute, said in a statement. He noted that the spike came before the Affordable Care Act, which has helped provide health insurance to millions of new customers, fully went into effect.
But even as consumers became more confident about spending money on health care last year, the report found that a divide is developing between those with medical conditions that can be treated with cheap generic drugs, and those with rare and often more serious diseases that can come with breathtaking price tags.
More than...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]


Related Articles:
Dec 18, 2013
A major international pharmaceutical company has made a major change in strategy for the sale of prescription drugs. Part of the change was induced by the economics of litigation and the threat additional lawsuits. Today's ...
Jul 12, 2012
Prescription drugs have become an increasingly important issue in workers' compensation law. Their use in workers' compensation claims has resulted in both a major direct financial cost to the system, and has had .
Jun 18, 2013
The CDC latest statistics show close to 40,000 drug overdose deaths each year in the United States, more than half of which involve prescription drugs. Deaths in which opioids are used now exceed deaths involving heroin ...

Monday, February 24, 2014

Freeing Workers From the Insurance Trap

Removing major medical coverage from a condition of employment will ultimately improve working condition. Today's post was shared by Steven Greenhouse and comes from www.nytimes.com

The Congressional Budget Office estimated on Tuesday that the Affordable Care Act will reduce the number of full-time workers by 2.5 million over the next decade. That is mostly a good thing, a liberating result of the law. Of course, Republicans immediately tried to brand the findings as “devastating” and stark evidence of President Obama’s health care reform as a failure and a job killer. It is no such thing.

The report estimated that — thanks to an increase in insurance coverage under the act and the availability of subsidies to help pay the premiums — many workers who felt obliged to stay in a job that provided health benefits would now be able to leave those jobs or choose to work fewer hours than they otherwise would have. In other words, the report is about the choices workers can make when they are no longer tethered to an employer because of health benefits. The cumulative effect on the labor supply is the equivalent of 2.5 million fewer full-time workers by 2024.

Some workers may have had a pre-existing condition and will now be able to leave work because insurers must accept all applicants without regard to health status and charge premiums unrelated to health status. Some may have felt they needed to keep working to pay for health insurance, but now new government subsidies will help pay premiums, making it more possible for them to leave their jobs.

The report clearly stated that health reform would not produce an increase in...


[Click here to see the rest of this post]

….
Jon L. Gelman of Wayne NJ is the author NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson). For over 4 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 occupational accidents and illnesses.

Thursday, December 12, 2013

Wah, Wah, Wah

Occupational disease claims present difficulty in the delivery of medical care. Today's post was shared by WorkCompCentral and comes from daviddepaolo.blogspot.com

At least that's the message that I got out of the latest study from researchers at National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in their study just published by the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

According to them, accepted workers' compensation claims that do not result in medical payments could be costing group health insurers at least $212 million a year because folks who don't get their treatment through work comp for their work injuries or illnesses do so through their group health provider.

Claims that do not result in medical payments through work comp are referred to as "zero-cost claims" in the study.

The researchers' analysis of more than 12,000 claims from 2002 through 2005 revealed that 15.9% of the claims were zero-cost claims. Claimants with zero-cost claims were more likely to use group health insurance services and incur more group health costs.

"In the three months before an occupational injury, 53.9% of workers with positive-cost workers' compensation medical claims and 61.6% of workers with zero-cost workers' compensation medical claims used the outpatient group health insurance at least once," the study says. "Within three months after an occupational injury, group health insurance utilization for outpatient services increased to 61.2% and 74.1% for workers with positive- and zero-cost workers' compensation medical claims, respectively."

In addition, one of the study's most significant findings...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

More Cost Shifting

A recent study reports that zero-cost workers' compensation claims merely creates cost shifting to other programs.


Objective: Previous research suggests that non–workers' compensation (WC) insurance systems, such as group health insurance (GHI), Medicare, or Medicaid, at least partially cover work-related injury and illness costs. This study further examined GHI utilization and costs.
Methods: Using two-part model, we compared those outcomes immediately after injuries for which accepted WC medical claims made zero or positive medical payments.
Results: Controlling for pre-injury GHI utilization and costs and other covariates, our results indicated that post-injury GHI utilization and costs increased regardless of whether a WC medical claim was zero or positive. The increases were highest for zero-cost WC medical claims.
Conclusion: Our national estimates showed that zero-cost WC medical claims alone could cost the GHI $212 million per year.


Wednesday, September 18, 2013

For Workers Leaving Their Jobs, Health Exchanges Offer Insurance Choices Beyond COBRA

The Affordable Care Act will impact all areas of the delivery of medicine in the workplace.Today's post was shared by Kaiser Health News and comes from www.kaiserhealthnews.org


Workers who lose their jobs and their employer-based health insurance will have new coverage options when the Affordable Care Act's state marketplaces open in October. But consumer advocates are concerned many may not realize this and lock themselves into pricier coverage than they need.

Today, the only option for many laid-off workers is to continue their employer-provided coverage for up to 18 months under the federal law known as COBRA. Because they have to pay the entire premium plus a 2 percent administrative fee, however, the coverage can be a financial hardship for people who are scrambling to keep up with expenses after losing their jobs.

Many of these people will likely be better off buying a plan on the state health insurance marketplaces, also called exchanges. Plans sold there must cover a comprehensive set of 10 "essential health benefits," and consumers can choose among four plan types with different levels of cost-sharing. Premium tax credits will be available to people with incomes between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($11,490 to $45,960 for an individual in 2013), often making exchange coverage significantly more affordable than COBRA.

"COBRA was a transitional type of coverage while you're between jobs, but now we have a subsidized form of coverage available, exchange plans with subsidies," says Edwin Park, vice president for health policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
It's...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Thursday, August 22, 2013

Tacking Health Care Costs Onto California Farm Produce

Today's post was shared by WCBlog and comes from www.nytimes.com

Farm labor contractors across California, the nation’s biggest agricultural engine, are increasingly nervous about a provision of the Affordable Care Act that will require hundreds of thousands of field workers to be covered by health insurance.

While the requirement was recently delayed until 2015, the contractors, who provide farmers with armies of field workers, say they are already preparing for the potential cost the law will add to their business, which typically operates on a slender profit margin.

“I’ve been to at least a dozen seminars on the Affordable Care Act since February,” said Chuck Herrin, owner of Sunrise Farm Labor, a contractor based here. “If you don’t take the right approach, you’re wiped out.”

Monday, August 19, 2013

It's Complicated: Obamacare's Choices for People with Disabilities

Thought of as safety-net for those injured workers who are caught in disputed litigation over workers' compensation benefits, Obamacare option will provide a complicated insurance program with multiple offerings.

"The Affordable Care Act has set new standards — called essential health benefits — outlining what health insurance companies must now cover. But there's a catch: Insurance firms can still pick and choose to some degree which specific therapies they'll cover within some categories of benefit. And the way insurers interpret the rules could turn out to be a big deal for people with disabilities who need ongoing therapy to improve their day-to-day lives.

Read "Obamacare Presents Complex Choices For People With Disabilities"a recent article collaborated by NPR, Colorado Public Radio and Kaiser Health News.

Related articles

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Health Benefits, US Supreme Court and Workers Compensation

U.S. Supreme Court building.U.S. Supreme Court building.
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

On Monday, the US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments concerning the validity of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Whatever the US Supreme Court decides in the pending matters, the nation's patchwork of workers' compensation systems will ultimately feel the impact. The implementation of the Act will ultimately have far reaching consequences of the overall operation of both the delivery of workers' compensation medical benefits and the ultimate assessment/apportionment of permanent disability.

Workers' Compensation systems have been struggling with the delivery of medical benefits. As more cases are denied initial compensability determinations, and alterate medical care is sought for the prevention, identification and treatment of underlying, co-existing and pre-existing medical conditions will be even more significant issues  in workers' compensation matters.

Thompson-Reuters News & Insight identifies some of the issues the US Supreme Court will consider:


"* Adult children remaining on their parents' insurance coverage through the age of 26.

* An end to lifetime limits on the dollar value of benefits available to people with serious medical conditions that can lead to astronomical treatment costs.

* Preventive healthcare benefits including free coverage for mammograms and birth control.

* For Medicare beneficiaries stuck in the prescription drug benefit coverage gap known as the "doughnut hole," a 50 percent discount on covered brand name drugs and 14 percent savings on generic drugs.

* A requirement that insurance companies justify unreasonably large healthcare premium increases.

* Tax credits for small employers with no more than 25 employees and average annual wages of less than $50,000 that provide health insurance for employees.

* Temporary insurance coverage programs for retirees who are over age 55 but not eligible for Medicare.

* Temporary insurance coverage for individuals with pre-existing medical conditions who have been uninsured for at least six months.

* A requirement that health plans report the proportion of premium dollars spent on clinical services, quality, and other costs, and provide rebates to consumers if the share of the premium spent on clinical services and quality is less than 85 percent in the large group market and 80 percent in the individual and small group markets.

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, No. 11-393; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida, No. 11-398; and Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services, No. 11-400

Related articles

Friday, March 18, 2011

Industry Coalition Wants to Cut CMS Conditional Payments

A group of about 50 employers, insurance carriers and vendors have formed a coalition to endorse legislation  (H.R.1063) introduced this week that would ease reporting requirements and reimbursement procedures of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS). The organization, the Medicare Advocacy Recovery Group [MARC],  contends that the proposed legislation will:
  • "Empowering Medicare to provide settling parties with the amount of their MSP repayment obligation during the settlement process, will allow taxpayers to settle quicker, and repay the Medicare Trust Fund faster.
  • "MSP Reform will provide a more affordable and less intrusive MSP system that protects beneficiaries and the Medicare Trust Fund, but does not waste limited judicial and other resources or needlessly confuse parties trying to settle a claim resulting from an injury to a beneficiary. 
  • "MSP Reform will also eliminate the required use of Social Security Numbers (SSNs) and Health Insurance Claim Numbers (HICNs) in the reporting process, create a basic right of appeal for all parties to resolve a CMS MSP determination, clarify the statute of limitations, and require the CMS Actuary to determine a threshold below which the recoveries are so small it makes no sense to apply the complex MSP laws. 
Theoretically it sounds like the change would create a more efficient system to establish: time limits for claim reimbursement; a statute of limitations for liability (3 years); an avenue for redress directly to the judicial system; and a threshold amount for reimbursement. However, the proposal would actually defeat the basic philosophy of the workers' compensation act. 

The convoluted logic of the employer/insurance group just makes no sense. It is like saying that I didn't bother buying enough postage on a timely basis so I will just mail my letter at half-price. The universal legislative intent of workers' compensation act mandates that the employer is responsible for medical care of its injured workers. The insurance industry has tried other gimmicks  before to continue its long history of cost shifting, and those have rightly failed as Congress wouldn't buy into them.

While employers and insurance carriers delay and deny compensation benefits, shifting the cost to the taxpayers through depletion of the Medicare system, is both offensive and repugnant. If the coalition wants to ride the carousel of "it's not how long, but how much," in doling out benefits, then they should not blame CMS for delays and penalties, caused by the coalition's own failure to report on a timely basis in the first place.

Related articles

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

California Report Makes Recommendations To Curtail Lien Claimants

A California workers' compensation report has made sweeping recommendations to reduce and manage the filling of liens in pending cases. One recommendation is to charge a $100 filing fee to be paid by a lien claimant.

The California workers compensation court has become a collection agency for unpaid bills. This issue is mirrored throughout the US as medical costs have soared and a single payer system has not yet been enacted as in European countries.

The study commission concluded that the volume of liens alone amounts to "coercion to settle." The report reveals that 35% of the present court calendar now involves liens. The cost to employers amounts to an estimated $200 Million annually. Over 450,000 liens are predicted to be filed this yea alone. Medical liens represent the vast majority of the liens filed in compensation cases.

Excluded from consideration in he report are Federal medical programs such a Medicare (Medicare Secondary Benefit claims), VA Medical claims and TRICARE (Military Health Plans.). Those claims can only be resolved only by a tribunal cloaked with  Federal jurisdiction.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

New Jersey Issues Workers Compensation Guidance on Evaluating Disputed Medical Provider Claims

A NJ Workers' Compensation Task Force report has been published that provides guidance to the parties in evaluating disputed medical provider claims. While declaring that, "certainly there are no overnight solutions," the report provides a manual type of suggestions for negotiation, litigation and resolution.

1. The new WCRI report, Benchmarks for Designing Workers’ Compensation Medical Fee Schedules. Fee schedules vary dramatically from state to state and based upon the type of payer;

2. The fees customarily paid for like services within the same community;

3. The fees paid to the same physician or medical provider by other payers for like treatment;

4. The fees billed and the accepted payments for such bills by a given provider. The Court may wish to consider the disparity in payments accepted from different sources (i.e. Medicare vs. PIP and commercial carriers);

5. A review of the Health Insurance Claim Forms (“HCFA”) submitted by the provider to the claim payer and the Explanations of Benefits (“EOB”) that that claim payer sends to the provider. The EOB provides the amount billed for a given procedure or service performed on a particular date of services. The EOB also provides the amount paid and, where applicable, identifies the reason why a disparity may exist in the amount billed and the amount paid. The use of certified professional coders may be employed to review the bill along with the medical records to be sure that it is consistent with CPT coding standards;

6. The HCFAs or EOBs from other medical providers in the same geographic area or community for the same medical treatment provided;

7. Using commercial and/or private databases such as Ingenix’s Prevailing Healthcare Charges System (“PHCS”); the Medical Data Resource (“MDR”) database, and; Wasserman’s Physician Fee Reference (“PFR”) database to name a few;

8. The type of facility where the procedure was performed. For example, was the services provided at a Level 1 trauma center versus a community hospital;

9. Consideration of whether there was a contract between a claim payer and the medical provider, such as a PPO network, in which case the contract would be controlling;

10. Consideration ofMedicare/Medicaid reimbursement rates;

11. Testimony from medical office personnel as to what services were billed for, the payments received and how the bill was formulated;

12. Consideration of state sanctioned PIP fee schedules;

13. Consideration of commercial carrier authorized payments.

.....
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 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. 

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.

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.