Showing posts sorted by relevance for query medical fees. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query medical fees. Sort by date Show all posts
Friday, February 26, 2021
Law Would Increase Transparency in the Workers’ Compensation Medical Delivery System
Senator Troy Singleton (NJ D-7) has introduced legislation that would increase transparency in medical treatment arising from workers’ compensation claims.
Sunday, February 7, 2021
Investigative Report Raises Issues
The tension between public pension systems and workers' compensation programs was highlighted in a recent investigative report by the NJ State Comptroller. The report raises additional critical issues common to other state and national collateral social insurance programs challenged by current fiscal limitations.
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Path to Federalization: A National Workers Compensation System--US Supreme Court Validates
United States Supreme Court has taken a giant leap forward to facilitate the Federalization of the entire nation's workers' compensation system. By it's recent decision, upholding the mandate for insurance care under the Affordable Health Care for America Act (ACA) 2009, it has set the precedent to federalize the nation's fragmented and chaotic workers' compensation medical delivery system.
 |
| John G. Roberts Jr., Chief Justice US Supreme Court |
Validating Mechanism
In a 5 to 4 ruling, Chief Justice Roberts validated the individual mandate as a permissible exercise of congressional power under the Taxing Clause of the US Constitution. Under 26 U.S.C. Section 5000A. The law requires that: (a) an individual must maintain minimum essential coverage for each month beginning after 2012; and (b) if there is a failure to maintain minimum essential coverage, a "penalty" is imposed "on the taxpayer" of $695 per year or 2.5% of family income, whichever is greater. The penalty "shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes."
In a 5 to 4 ruling, Chief Justice Roberts validated the individual mandate as a permissible exercise of congressional power under the Taxing Clause of the US Constitution. Under 26 U.S.C. Section 5000A. The law requires that: (a) an individual must maintain minimum essential coverage for each month beginning after 2012; and (b) if there is a failure to maintain minimum essential coverage, a "penalty" is imposed "on the taxpayer" of $695 per year or 2.5% of family income, whichever is greater. The penalty "shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes."
The Chief Justice, writing for himself, stated, "Every reasonable construction must be resorted to in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality." If it is "fairly possible" to interpret the statute as merely imposing a tax on those who've failed to purchase insurance. Writing for the majority, the Chief Justice stated, that the penalty is not a tax for anti-injunction act purposes. The Court, he wrote, needs to look beyond the label when assessing the constitutionality. For constitutional purposes Justice Roberts reasoned that the penalty may be considered as a tax when: it is not so high that there is no choice; and it is not limited to willful violations; and the penalty is collected by the IRS through normal means.
 |
| Constitution of the United States |
The Court indicated that the assessment is not really a "penalty." "Taxes that seek to influence conduct are nothing new," the Chief Justice wrote. He reasoned for the Court that there are no negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, because beyond requiring a payment to IRS, Congress anticipated that some 4 million people would pay the penalty, and Congress did not treat them as "outlaws."
While certain taxes are prohibited under the U.S. Constitution, the penalty under the Affordable Health Care for America Act 2009 is not barred. The Court reasoned that the Constitution states, "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion of the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." The majority of the Court held that a tax on "going without health insurance" does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax since it is triggered by certain specific circumstances.
The US Supreme Court previously validated compulsory workers' compensation programs. Compulsory compensation systems have been held not to be an arbitrary classification contrary to the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution, 14th Amendment. The state-enacted systems were created for the protection of the lives, health and safety of the employees. The systems provide payment of compensation through a state mandated system for injuries to employees or for the death of employees resulting from injuries related to work, regardless of fault. The compensation systems are held as a simple, inexpensive and expeditious method of providing recovery to employees who are injured in a highly organized and modern industrial employment environment. New York Central Railroad Company v. White, 243 U.S. 188, 37 S.Ct. 247, 61 L.Ed. 667 (1917). See also, Lower Vein Coal Co. v. Industrial Board of Indiana, 255 U.S. 144, 41 S.Ct. 252, 65 L.Ed. 555 (1921) and In re Asbestos Litigation, 829 F.2d 1233 (3d Cir.1987), cert. denied 485 U.S. 1029, 108 S.Ct. 1586, 99 L.Ed.2d 901 (1988).
The US Supreme Court previously validated compulsory workers' compensation programs. Compulsory compensation systems have been held not to be an arbitrary classification contrary to the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution, 14th Amendment. The state-enacted systems were created for the protection of the lives, health and safety of the employees. The systems provide payment of compensation through a state mandated system for injuries to employees or for the death of employees resulting from injuries related to work, regardless of fault. The compensation systems are held as a simple, inexpensive and expeditious method of providing recovery to employees who are injured in a highly organized and modern industrial employment environment. New York Central Railroad Company v. White, 243 U.S. 188, 37 S.Ct. 247, 61 L.Ed. 667 (1917). See also, Lower Vein Coal Co. v. Industrial Board of Indiana, 255 U.S. 144, 41 S.Ct. 252, 65 L.Ed. 555 (1921) and In re Asbestos Litigation, 829 F.2d 1233 (3d Cir.1987), cert. denied 485 U.S. 1029, 108 S.Ct. 1586, 99 L.Ed.2d 901 (1988).
Medical Delivery & Fees
Generally, the ACA provides a much needed national structure for the regulation, delivery, and enforcement of medical coverage. The ACA contains significant fraud and abuse provisions. In 2010 the law significantly expanded the government's authority to prosecute Faults Claims Act (FCA) cases. In 2011-2012 the ACA triggers increased provider screening, oversight and reporting. The ACA also establishes the Independent Payment Advisory Board to evaluate fee schedules and expands the scope of Medicaid and CHIP payments.
Unlike most State compensation systems that presently struggle with both expeditious medical delivery as well the value and responsibility of medical care, the ACA provides a uniform system and expeditious system. The fragmented network of complex, dilatory and inconsistent results in the State programs have been described recently by national experts as "irrational" and "unjust." They characterize the present compensation programs as "....dizzying and frustrating in its complexity, and apparent irrationality," and they conclude that "a substantial proportion of persons with work-related disabilities do not receive workers' compensation benefits," and in need of a better format.
Generally, the ACA provides a much needed national structure for the regulation, delivery, and enforcement of medical coverage. The ACA contains significant fraud and abuse provisions. In 2010 the law significantly expanded the government's authority to prosecute Faults Claims Act (FCA) cases. In 2011-2012 the ACA triggers increased provider screening, oversight and reporting. The ACA also establishes the Independent Payment Advisory Board to evaluate fee schedules and expands the scope of Medicaid and CHIP payments.
Unlike most State compensation systems that presently struggle with both expeditious medical delivery as well the value and responsibility of medical care, the ACA provides a uniform system and expeditious system. The fragmented network of complex, dilatory and inconsistent results in the State programs have been described recently by national experts as "irrational" and "unjust." They characterize the present compensation programs as "....dizzying and frustrating in its complexity, and apparent irrationality," and they conclude that "a substantial proportion of persons with work-related disabilities do not receive workers' compensation benefits," and in need of a better format.
Non-Traditional Revenue Stream
In addition to the widely publicized tax for non-compliance, the ACA contains several other innovative revenue provisions that will provide additional funding from collateral sources without burdening al employers globally. In 2010 an indoor tanning service tax was implemented. In 2011 annual fee was instituted on pharmaceutical companies as well as an increased penalty for early withdrawal from health savings accounts. In 2013 the following provisions go into effect: the Medicare payroll tax will increase for high-income individuals, an excise tax on medical device manufacturers, limits on Flexible Spending Accounts, and the elimination of the deduction for Employer Part D subsidy. In 2014 there will be an annual fee on health insurance plans. In 2018 there will be an excise tax and high-cost plans commonly referred to as the "Cadillac tax."
In addition to the widely publicized tax for non-compliance, the ACA contains several other innovative revenue provisions that will provide additional funding from collateral sources without burdening al employers globally. In 2010 an indoor tanning service tax was implemented. In 2011 annual fee was instituted on pharmaceutical companies as well as an increased penalty for early withdrawal from health savings accounts. In 2013 the following provisions go into effect: the Medicare payroll tax will increase for high-income individuals, an excise tax on medical device manufacturers, limits on Flexible Spending Accounts, and the elimination of the deduction for Employer Part D subsidy. In 2014 there will be an annual fee on health insurance plans. In 2018 there will be an excise tax and high-cost plans commonly referred to as the "Cadillac tax."
"Libby Care"--Universal Care
 |
| Center for Asbestos Related Disease Libby, MT. |
The Future: Universal Health Care
 |
| Landmarks on the Path to Federalization |
History reveals that a series of efforts have been made by the Federal government to federalize medical care for industrial accidents and illnesses. Those efforts demonstrate a commitment to bring the nation ever closer to a universal care medical program incorporating the entire patchwork of workers' compensation medical delivery systems. The US Supreme Court has accelerated the nation down that promising path.
....
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).
Jun 14, 2012
Yesterday the US Congress passed and sent to the President, The World Trade Center Health Program, marking yet another advance on the path to federalize the nation's workers' compensation program. The Federally .
Dec 23, 2010
Yesterday the US Congress passed and sent to the President, The World Trade Center Health Program, marking yet another advance on the path to federalize the nation's workers' compensation program. The Federally ...
Feb 15, 2011
In December 2010 US Congress passed and President Obama signed, The World Trade Center Health Program, marking yet another advance on the path to federalize the nation's workers' compensation program.
Jul 05, 2010
The trend toward Federalization of workers' compensation benefits took a giant step forward by recent Presidential action creating the British Petroleum Oil Compensation Fund. While the details remain vague, the broad and ...
Jul 13, 2010
As The Path To Federalization expands, this debate will expand. A recent study by the Center for American Progress addresses these concerns. "Health threats from the oil spill may linger unseen, perhaps for more than a ...
Mar 16, 2011
Historically The Federal government's role has been to rise to the occasion and walk further down a path to federalization. On a smaller scale than the potential consequences of the Japanesse debacle, the US was first in line ...
Mar 05, 2011
Nationally, advocates to improve the delivery of medical benefits to injured workers have urged federalization of the medical delivery system into a single payer approach through universal health care. ... Compensation Claim Draws Major Public Attention (workers-compensation.blogspot.com); Vermont Governor Sets Out to Lead U.S. to True Universal Coverage (huffingtonpost.com); The World Trade Center Health Program Expands The Path to Federalization ...
Apr 03, 2010
The recent health care reform legislation provided for the Libby Care which will provide universal medical care for victims of asbestos related disease. The plan is a pilot program for occupational disease medical care fully ...
May 19, 2010
The “Libby Care” provisions, and its envisioned prodigies, will embrace more exposed workers, diseases and geographical locations, than any other program of the past. Potential pilot programs will now be available to ...
Related articles
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Hospital Controlled Physician Access and Workers' Compensation
As hospital consolidation of physician practices by acquisition continues, the question of the impact on control of the cost workers' compensation medical delivery remains uncertain.
Hospitals, supported by private equity, are now buying physician practices at a greater pace than ever before making choices for physician care more limited and at a higher cost. The New York Times reports that physicians who sell their practices hospitals find that they are under pressure to meet economic challenges of hospital targeted fees and are restricted in the referral of patients.
"....the consolidation of health care may be coming at a hefty price. By one estimate, under its current reimbursement system, Medicare is paying in excess of a billion dollars a year more for the same services because hospitals, citing higher overall costs, can charge more when the doctors work for them. Laser eye surgery, for example, can cost $738 when performed by a hospital-employed doctor, compared with $389 when done by an unaffiliated doctor, according to national estimates by the independent Congressional panel that oversees Medicare. An echocardiogram can cost about twice as much in a hospital: $319, versus $143 in a doctor’s office."
Read the complete article: A Hospital War Reflects a Bind for Doctors in the U.S.
Read more about "medical Costs" and workers' compensation
Hospitals, supported by private equity, are now buying physician practices at a greater pace than ever before making choices for physician care more limited and at a higher cost. The New York Times reports that physicians who sell their practices hospitals find that they are under pressure to meet economic challenges of hospital targeted fees and are restricted in the referral of patients.
"....the consolidation of health care may be coming at a hefty price. By one estimate, under its current reimbursement system, Medicare is paying in excess of a billion dollars a year more for the same services because hospitals, citing higher overall costs, can charge more when the doctors work for them. Laser eye surgery, for example, can cost $738 when performed by a hospital-employed doctor, compared with $389 when done by an unaffiliated doctor, according to national estimates by the independent Congressional panel that oversees Medicare. An echocardiogram can cost about twice as much in a hospital: $319, versus $143 in a doctor’s office."
Read the complete article: A Hospital War Reflects a Bind for Doctors in the U.S.
Read more about "medical Costs" and workers' compensation
Nov 01, 2012
Planned changes by Mitt Romney to Medicare and Medicaid will have a dire effect on the regulations of the future cost of workers' compensation medical treatment. Proposed changes to the Federal program will indirectly ...
Nov 22, 2012
A report issued by NCCI concludes that medical costs in Workers' Compensation were higher in some instances than in Group Health Plans. The main findings were: For comparable injuries, when WC pays higher prices than ...
Nov 15, 2012
“While the average medical cost for a workers compensation claim is approximately $6,000, the medical cost of an individual claim can be a few hundred dollars or millions of dollars. In 2010, an NCCI study found that claims ...
Nov 29, 2012
The perpetual cost generator that continues to rage out of control in workers' compensation programs is the medical component. Medical costs are crashing the system to failure across the country, with no hope in sight for ...
Saturday, January 24, 2009
2009 Supplement to Workers' Compensation Law - Order Now
Jon L. Gelman's 2009 supplement to the 3 volume hard bound practice series has been published. Now available for order. The newly enacted statutory changes to the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act permitting Emergent Medical Care Motions, new registration requirements for insurers, and new judicial enforcement powers of Judges of Compensation, including sanctions and contempt powers, are contained in this supplemental material.
The mandatory reporting requirements of the SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 are described as well as the appeal procedure under the reimbursement provision of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act.
These pocket parts provide information concerning the requirements for medical monitoring in workers’ compensation claims. It discusses. the Asbestos Fund, which has been established for those entities where workers’ compensation coverage cannot be established. The newly designed forms that need to be utilized in filing for benefits are included. Also, the recently modified Motion for Temporary and Medical Benefits, including a form Certification, is provided and discussed.
The newly revised Judgments for Total and Permanent Disability are provided in this pocket part. The Judgments include new refinements in offsets for pensions and Social Security disability benefits. Reviewed also is the “intentional wrong exception” to the Exclusivity Bar which has been the subject of new workers’ compensation insurance policy language and regulation.
The recently promulgated administrative rules governing the disposition of Temporary Disability Benefits are discussed. The non-duplication of benefits provisions are reviewed including the multiple agency adjudication process. An expansion of benefits available to Federal public safety officers is reviewed in this supplement.
Collateral medical benefit issues are discussed in light of the recent Supreme Court decision concerning this matter. The pocket parts include a Motion to Join the Collateral Health Carrier and provide sample Certifications to be used in support of the application.
Additionally, these pocket parts provide information concerning the new rules of the Division of Workers’ Compensation embodying electronic filing requirements and new procedures involving both formal and informal proceedings, motion practice, post judgment process, and judicial performance. The expanded Medicare secondary reporting requirements and the mandatory coordination of benefits are reviewed in this supplement. The recovery aspects of Medicare conditional payments as well as future medical provisions are updated and discussed. The new Child Support Lien distribution forms, computation worksheets and judgments are provided and explained in depth. The NJ Supreme’ Court ruling and the legislative enactments are discussed concerning same sex couples and the availability of workers’ compensation benefits.
This supplement reviews the newly promulgated Rules concerning the Uninsured Employers’ Fund and audio and video coverage of workers’ compensation proceedings. The horrific tragedy of September 11th, 2001 and the impact it has upon the Workers’ Compensation system is discussed. This supplement reviews the newly enacted Smallpox Emergency Protection Act as well as recent court decisions concerning acts of terrorism. The subsequent legislative changes enacted in response to potential terrorist threats are reviewed, including the Public Safety Officers’ Benefit Act as well as the liberalized legislative enactments involving rescue workers and medical personnel.
The impact of the newly promulgated Federal rules and regulations concerning medical record privacy and compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) medical authorization requirements are reviewed in this supplement and model forms are furnished. The recently enacted statutory workers' compensation coverage options available to proprietors and partners are discussed. The supplement reviews the recent court decisions expanding the responsibility of the Second Injury Fund for pre-existing medical conditions in cases in which latent diseases become manifest during retirement. The statutory enactments concerning State Temporary Disability Benefits are reviewed. The recently amended Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act is explained in detail and forms are furnished and discussed.
The recent Supreme Court decisions concerning the high judicial threshold for evaluation of scientific evidence are analyzed. The requirements for proof of scientific evidence in complex workers’ compensation cases are discussed including the admissibility of testimony from non-physicians experts. Furthermore, the evolving and expanding issues concerning medical monitoring are reviewed.
This pocket part also discusses recent changes in the application for counsel fees. The supplement includes the newly promulgated administrative directive embodying those changes.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Workers Compensation Law 2012 Now Shipping
Electronic Discovery s.22.33
Medicare Conditional Payments 29.32 and 29.33
Jon L. Gelman's 2012 supplement to the 3 volume hard bound practice series, Workers' Compensation Law 3rd Ed., has been published. Order these important supplements now. The supplement provide almost a quarter of a century continuing and unparalleled analysis on workers' compensation law. The volumes and supplements are integrated into the Westlaw(R), part of Thomson Reuters system for "Better Results Faster."
The newly enacted statutory changes to the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act and promulgated Rules permitting Emergent Medical Care Motions, new registration requirements for insurers, and new judicial enforcement powers of Judges of Compensation, including sanctions and contempt powers, are contained in this supplemental material.An analysis of the newly adopted procedures for the reimbursement of conditional payments established by Medicare and the protocols to co-ordinate workers’ compensation claims with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is contained in this supplement. The materials also provide the authorizations required to obtain conditional payment information from the Coordinator of Benefits. Debt collection referral to the Department of the Treasury is also reviewed.
The new Community and Worker Right to Know material has been incorporated into this supplement. The current hazardous substance lists and the substances that have been deemed extremely dangerous are provided.The supplement reviews new case law concerning electronic cancellation of coverage as well as the standard for claims to be considered casually related to the employment.The mandatory reporting requirements of the SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 are described as well as the appeal procedure under the reimbursement provision of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act.These pocket parts provide information concerning the requirements for medical monitoring in workers’ compensation claims. It discusses. the Asbestos Fund, which has been established for those entities where workers’ compensation coverage cannot be established.
The newly designed forms that need to be utilized in filing for benefits are included. Also, the recently modified Motion for Temporary and Medical Benefits, including a form Certification, is provided and discussed.The newly revised Judgments for Total and Permanent Disability are provided in this pocket part. The Judgments include new refinements in offsets for pensions and Social Security disability benefits. Reviewed also is the “intentional wrong exception” to the Exclusivity Bar which has been the subject of new workers’ compensation insurance policy language and regulation.The recently promulgated administrative rules governing the disposition of Temporary Disability Benefits are discussed. The non-duplication of benefits provisions are reviewed including the multiple agency adjudication process.
An expansion of benefits available to Federal public safety officers is reviewed in this supplement.Collateral medical benefit issues are discussed in light of the recent Supreme Court decision concerning this matter. The pocket parts include a Motion to Join the Collateral Health Carrier and provide sample Certifications to be used in support of the application.Additionally, these pocket parts provide information concerning the new rules of the Division of Workers’ Compensation embodying electronic filing requirements and new procedures involving both formal and informal proceedings, motion practice, post judgment process, and judicial performance. The expanded Medicare secondary reporting requirements and the mandatory coordination of benefits are reviewed in this supplement.
The recovery aspects of Medicare conditional payments as well as future medical provisions are updated and discussed. The new Child Support Lien distribution forms, computation worksheets and judgments are provided and explained in depth. The NJ Supreme’ Court ruling and the legislative enactments are discussed concerning same sex couples and the availability of workers’ compensation benefits.This supplement reviews the newly promulgated Rules concerning the Uninsured Employers’ Fund and audio and video coverage of workers’ compensation proceedings. The horrific tragedy of September 11th, 2001 and the impact it has upon the Workers’ Compensation system is discussed.
This supplement reviews the newly enacted Smallpox Emergency Protection Act as well as recent court decisions concerning acts of terrorism.
The subsequent legislative changes enacted in response to potential terrorist threats are reviewed, including the Public Safety Officers’ Benefit Act as well as the liberalized legislative enactments involving rescue workers and medical personnel. The impact of the newly promulgated Federal rules and regulations concerning medical record privacy and compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) medical authorization requirements are reviewed in this supplement and model forms are furnished. The recently enacted statutory workers’ compensation coverage options available to proprietors and partners are discussed. The supplement reviews the recent court decisions expanding the responsibility of the Second Injury Fund for pre-existing medical conditions in cases in which latent diseases become manifest during retirement. The statutory enactments concerning State Temporary Disability Benefits are reviewed.
The recently amended Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act is explained in detail and forms are furnished and discussed.The recent Supreme Court decisions concerning the high judicial threshold for evaluation of scientific evidence are analyzed. The requirements for proof of scientific evidence in complex workers’ compensation cases are discussed including the admissibility of testimony from non-physicians experts. Furthermore, the evolving and expanding issues concerning medical monitoring are reviewed.This pocket part also discusses recent changes in the application for counsel fees.
The recently amended Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act is explained in detail and forms are furnished and discussed.The recent Supreme Court decisions concerning the high judicial threshold for evaluation of scientific evidence are analyzed. The requirements for proof of scientific evidence in complex workers’ compensation cases are discussed including the admissibility of testimony from non-physicians experts. Furthermore, the evolving and expanding issues concerning medical monitoring are reviewed.This pocket part also discusses recent changes in the application for counsel fees.
The supplement includes the newly promulgated administrative directive embodying those changes.
Sunday, July 22, 2018
Medical Fees: Does One Price Fit All?
The Federal government has proposed a simplified medical billing process that may impact workers' compensation billing practices going forward. Most workers' compensation fee medical fee schedules are linked either directly and indirectly the to Federal Medicare model and a proposed Rule published last week in the Federal Register proposes a single fee for all office visits.
Saturday, February 10, 2018
Just Published: 2018 Update - Gelman on Workers' Compensation Law
Jon Gelman’s newly revised and updated 2018 treatise on Workers’ Compensation Law is now available from by West Group of Egan, MN within the next few weeks. The treatise is the most complete work available on NJ Workers’ Compensation law and integrated with WESTLAW™, the "most preferred online legal research service.'"
Thursday, August 2, 2012
NJ Supreme Court Bars Expansion of Injured Workers Remedies
Additional tort claim disallowed against insurance companies for intentional failure to comply with court of compensation's, an administrative agency, order to provide provide benefits.
Wade Stancil v. ACE USA (067640)
Argued 3/26/12 Decided 8/1/12 see http://tinyurl.com/d4pycqw
Wade Stancil v. ACE USA (067640)
Argued 3/26/12 Decided 8/1/12 see http://tinyurl.com/d4pycqw
SYLLABUS
(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the
convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the
interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized.)
Wade Stancil v. ACE USA (A-112-10) (067640)
Argued March 26, 2012 -- Decided August 1, 2012
HOENS, J., writing for a majority of the Court.
The Court considers whether an injured employee may sue
his employer’s compensation carrier for pain and suffering caused by the
carrier’s delay in paying for medical treatment, prescriptions, and other
services. Plaintiff Wade Stancil was injured in 1995
while employed by Orient Originals. He received workers’ compensation
benefits from his employer’s compensation carrier, defendant ACE USA (ACE).
In 2006, following a trial, the court of compensation determined that Stancil
was totally disabled. In 2007, Stancil filed a motion in the compensation
court seeking an order compelling ACE to pay outstanding medical bills.
During a hearing on the motion, the compensation
judge commented that ACE had a history of failing to make payments when ordered
to do so. On September 12, 2007, the compensation judge granted
Stancil’s motion, warned ACE against any further violation of the order to
pay, and awarded Stancil counsel fees. On October 29, 2007, the parties
returned to the compensation court for a further proceeding relating to
the disputed bills. After finding that the bills identified in the
September 12 order remained unpaid and that ACE’s failure to make payment was a
willful and intentional violation of the order, the court issued another
order compelling ACE to make immediate payment and again awarding counsel
fees.
The court commented on its limited ability to ensure that
carriers would comply with orders, noted that it lacked the authority to
enforce orders through contempt proceedings, found that Stancil had
exhausted his administrative remedies, and suggested that he seek further
relief in the Superior Court. In 2008, Stancil underwent additional
surgery and psychiatric treatment. Stancil’s physician attributed the
need for additional treatment to an earlier treatment delay caused by the
carrier’s delay in paying medical providers.
On April 15, 2009, Stancil filed this lawsuit
in the Superior Court. In his complaint, Stancil claimed that ACE required him to undergo medical examinations by physicians
of its own choosing and then rejected the recommendations of those
physicians and refused to authorize the recommended medical care. The
complaint stated further that Stancil obtained orders from the
compensation court, but ACE failed to comply. Stancil contended
that ACE’s failure to authorize needed treatment caused him unnecessary
pain and suffering, a worsening of his medical condition, and expenses
that should have been paid by ACE. ACE responded by filing a motion to
dismiss the complaint. ACE argued that the Workers’ Compensation
Act, N.J.S.A. 34:15-1 to -142 (the Act), is the exclusive remedy for the
claims pled in the complaint and therefore no damages could be awarded.
The trial court granted ACE’s motion. The court analyzed the
impact of then-recently adopted amendments to the Act and found that the Legislature
had foreclosed resort to the Superior Court for the kind of tort-based relief
demanded by Stancil.
The Appellate Division affirmed. 418 N.J.
Super. 79 (App. Div. 2011). The panel agreed with the trial court
that The Legislature’s amendments to the Act foreclosed Stancil’s claims.
The panel also rejected Stancil’s argument that ACE’s willful
disregard of compensation court orders met the Act’s intentional wrong exception
to the litigation bar. The Supreme Court granted certification limited to
determining whether an employee who suffered a work-related injury has a
common-law cause of action for damages against a workers’ compensation carrier
for its willful failure to comply with court orders compelling it to
provide medical treatment when the delay or denial of treatment causes a
worsening of the employee’s medical condition and/or pain and suffering.
207 N.J. 66 (2011).
HELD: An injured employee does not have a common law
right of action against a workers’ compensation carrier for pain and
suffering caused by the carrier’s delay in paying for or authorizing treatment
because 1) the workers’ compensation system was designed to provide
injured workers with a remedy outside of the ordinary tort or contract remedies
cognizable in the Superior Court; 2) in amending the Workers’ Compensation Act
in 2008, the Legislature rejected a provision that would have given the
compensation courts broader permission to authorize a resort to the Superior
Court and adopted a remedy that permits compensation courts to act through a
contempt power; and 3) 2allowing a direct common-law cause of action against a
carrier would undermine the workers’ compensation system by substituting a
cause of action that would become the preferred manner of securing
relief.
CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER, JUSTICE LaVECCHIA, and JUDGE WEFING (temporarily assigned) join in JUSTICE HOENS’s opinion. JUSTICE ALBIN filed a separate, dissenting opinion. JUSTICE PATTERSON did not participate.
CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER, JUSTICE LaVECCHIA, and JUDGE WEFING (temporarily assigned) join in JUSTICE HOENS’s opinion. JUSTICE ALBIN filed a separate, dissenting opinion. JUSTICE PATTERSON did not participate.
Related Blog Articles
Aug 05, 2011
The lower court had rejected the case and dismissed it holding that the jurisdiction for bad faith is exclusively within the purview of the Division of Workers' Compensation. Stancil v. ACE USA, 418 N.J. Super. 79, 12 A. 3rd 223...
Apr 23, 2012
A-112-10 Wade Stancil v. ACE USA (067640). 3. The Exclusivity Rule: Under the circumstances of this case, which include a finding by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration that the accident was the result ...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)