published Monday, November 8th, 2010

Sticker shock hits sickbed bills


by Emily Bregel
  • photo
    Staff Photo Illustration by Tracey Trumbull/Chattanooga Times Free Press This copy of an actual 2010 hospital bill shows the wide disparity between the hospital's charges (left column), and what it is actually willing to accept from a patient's private insurer (right column).

It's a common form of sticker shock: After a hospital stay, an insured patient gets home to find an explanation of benefits form listing charges in the thousands, or tens of thousands, of dollars.

But upon closer inspection, the form reveals that the hospital and the patient's insurer have agreed that the final bill is only a fraction of the original charge.

So where did the initial number even come from?

"A lot of it really is just a made-up number," said David Howard, health economist at Emory University's Rollins School of Public Health.

At one time, private insurers and Medicare commonly paid hospitals based on a percentage of charges, but today the charges figure is all but obsolete, he said.

The exception is for uninsured patients who, in some cases, have been hit with hardline collection tactics from hospitals trying to get payment on the full charges.

"It's not different from any other area of life where the biggest customer pays the lowest prices," Howard said.

Those aggressive collections against uninsured patients have come under scrutiny in recent years, following news coverage of a few horror stories in the early 2000s.

"In some states, hospitals were putting liens on patient's homes or garnishing wages," said Jessica Curtis, project director for the Hospital Accountability Project and staff attorney with Community Catalyst, a Boston-based consumer advocacy group. In some cases, patients could be jailed if they didn't show up to court, she said.

The news sparked a public outcry and a call for citizen protections by some U.S. legislators, she said, including U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.

Some states have initiated their own consumer protections. Tennessee limits hospital charges for uninsured patients to a maximum of 175 percent of actual costs. That could still give the hospital a profit of 75 percent. The law passed the General Assembly in 2007.

Gordon Bonnyman, executive director of the Tennessee Justice Center in Nashville, said the legislation is a relatively modest concession from the hospital industry.

"This is an industry that's primarily tax-exempt. As a charity, you're only going to mark up your services by 75 percent? And I don't have insurance? It doesn't sound very good," he said.

Federal health care reform includes provisions that require 501(c)(3) nonprofit hospitals to limit charges to patients who qualify for financial assistance to the amount billed to insured patients.

Still, the "charges" figures will continue to show up on patients' explanation of benefits for the foreseeable future, hospital officials said.

Last month, Lisa Shivers, 52, of Signal Mountain, underwent a mastectomy and reconstruction surgery at Memorial Hospital, following a breast cancer diagnosis. She hasn't yet received a bill for the surgery, but the numbers on an explanation of benefits for scans she underwent in September show a wide disparity between charges and payments.

The "billed amount" for her insurer, United Healthcare, was $10,671, but United paid only about $3,600, said Shivers.

The array of numbers on the benefits statement is just "the way it works," she said.

"Certainly I'm sure most people would prefer it's like McDonald's and you walk in and everything is on the menu and you know how much everything is going to cost. But that's pretty much the way our health care system right now seems to work," she said.

PAYMENTS VS. CHARGES

Locally, reported charges bear little relation to the payments hospitals actually get from insurance companies.

Last year in Chattanooga, private insurers paid Parkridge Medical Center, Erlanger and Memorial only about 40 percent of charges the hospitals reported for patient services, according to their 2009 provisional Joint Annual Reports. Hospitals must submit the reports annually to the state health department.

Charges were more relevant before 1983, when Medicare switched from a cost-based reimbursement system to a "prospective payment system," in which hospitals are paid a pre-determined rate for each Medicare admission regardless of what services are provided.

As part of the Medicare change, the actual payment is based on a code assigned to the patient, indicating his or her diagnosis and severity level.

Each diagnosis code is assigned a payment based on an expectation of what resources should be used to treat patients in that group, according to the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The system aimed to encourage hospitals to be more cost-efficient, hospital industry officials said.

"Nowadays, (charges are) like a manufacturer's suggested retail price," said David McClure, with the Tennessee Hospital Association. "There may be no real correlation between [charges and] the cost of providing that service."

In rare cases, some plans still base payments on a percentage of charges, so hospitals need to keep those charges in order and updated to reflect medical inflation, local financial officials said. But most insurers ignore listed charges, said Parkridge Chief Financial Officer Jay St. Pierre.

"Years ago, raising the charges had a much bigger impact," he said. "What happens [now] is you're paid a fixed amount based on the acuity or severity of that diagnosis. We get paid the same amount for an open heart surgery for Medicare whether that patient was here six days or 16 days."

Thirty states have some kind of law aimed at making hospital charges reportable and transparent, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Tennessee requires hospitals to report charges to the Tennessee Department of Health, but the reporting could actually end up misleading patients, said Steve Johnson, vice president for payer relations at Erlanger Health System.

For example, a hospital with higher charges listed online could have actually negotiated a deeper discount with insurance companies than a hospital with lower charges listed, he said. So the patient choosing the lower-charge hospital might end up facing higher out-of-pocket costs, he said.

Insured patients' out-of-pocket costs, such as co-payments, are based on a percentage of what their insurance provider pays, not on a hospital's charges, he said.

about Emily Bregel...

Health care reporter Emily Bregel has worked at the Chattanooga Times Free Press since July 2006. She previously covered banking and wrote for the Life section. Emily, a native of Baltimore, Md., earned a bachelor’s degree in American Studies from Columbia University. She received a first-place award for feature writing from the East Tennessee Society of Professional Journalists’ Golden Press Card Contest for a 2009 article about a boy with a congenital heart defect. She ...

10
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
ceeweed said...

O.K., is anybody else dizzy after reading this article? It seems we are all shills in this health care game. None of the administrators, cited in this story, really explained what is going on. The Federal Government has yet to explain what the Historic health care reform bill is going to do for people, like me, who work for a living. The only defense I have against this confusing health care industry is to pray I'll stay healthy and be able to work until the day I die.

November 8, 2010 at 8:09 a.m.
fairmon said...

Hospital charges should be like a restaurant menu. You know up front what the cost for each service will be and the cost should be the same for every patient regardless if insured or not. HMO's and other plans have negotiated rates with providers at the expense of others.

No doubt the entire health care system is broken and the driver for big providers is how to game the system. Making it simple and to repeat an over used word, transparent would go a long way toward controlling cost and abuse. In large hospital bills patients can find duplicate charges and other errors.

November 8, 2010 at 8:19 a.m.
dendod said...

I hope they aren't charging anything for the shoddy psychiatric evaluations they are "giving" in the ER. They just make a mockery of mental illness when it involves suicidal thinking. Our Veterans deserve better. We all deserve better. I think Erlanger should be investigated for not following Medicaid and medicare guidelines. Mental as well as physical crisis are both classified as "medical emergencies" by the government.

November 8, 2010 at 9:21 a.m.
JusticeSeeker said...

Erlanger needs to get with the program. They roll out the red carpet for a heart attack victim but don't want to assist the people with a mental crisis in their ER. Mental illness strikes 1 in 4 families each year. Where's the compassion. If they are a "Teaching" hospital, what are they teaching concerning one of the most prevalent problems in our society today. They need to address the quality of their psychiatric evaluations in their ER. They owe it to us, non-profit or not.

November 8, 2010 at 9:54 a.m.
GetReal said...

"Federal Health Care Reform includes provisions that require 501(c)(3) nonprofit hospitals to limit charges to patients who qualify for financial assistance to the amount billed to insured patients". This is just another classic example of the protection this "Health Care Bill" offers the public. People need to open their eyes and start thinking for themselves (regardless of their political affilation) rather than allowing self-serving politicians of any respective party to tell the public what is good or what is bad for them.

November 8, 2010 at 10:38 a.m.
JusticeSeeker said...

I know Erlanger does great work in some fields. I also know they are all about the "money". They need to give better consideration to the people who come to their ER with a mental crisis. This is 2010, not 1973. Stop Stigma. Our veterans deserve the best evaluations possible weather it's mental or physical.

November 8, 2010 at 11:15 a.m.
hambone said...

On the "EOB" my hospital charges are always 3 times what the hospital ultimately gets paid. And I'm suppose to beleive they are losing 2/3rds of what they would get if I didn't have insurance? Why do they bother to bill this way?

November 8, 2010 at 1:26 p.m.
JusticeSeeker said...

Non profit hospitals need to provide services fairly and equally. Erlanger seems to want to deal with some types of emergency properly and others improperly. People who are suicidal need proper treatment. Medicaid and medicare rules demand it. Erlanger needs to step up and help give much needed treatment to those who have risked their lives for this country. They don't lose money. How can a non profit lose money. They got caught breaking the rules in 2005 and it cost them $40,000,000. If they had that $40,000,000 back I guess we wouldn't be hearing all the whine.

November 8, 2010 at 1:46 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Wow! Legislators have limited hospital charges for uninsured patients to a maximum of 175 percent of the actual costs – such a deal for the uninsured citizenry. Now everyone can afford to have at least one little medical emergency before going bankrupt due to exorbitant healthcare costs.

November 8, 2010 at 1:57 p.m.
Humphrey said...

"Federal Health Care Reform includes provisions that require 501(c)(3) nonprofit hospitals to limit charges to patients who qualify for financial assistance to the amount billed to insured patients". This is just another classic example of the protection this "Health Care Bill" offers the public. People need to open their eyes and start thinking for themselves (regardless of their political affilation) rather than allowing self-serving politicians of any respective party to tell the public what is good or what is bad for them.


isn't that a good thing? That poor people can't be charged more than insurance companies are charged? I don't get it.

November 8, 2010 at 5:02 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement
400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.