Insurance Companies: Hospital Scam Partners?

The US health insurance industry is rife with scams and fraudulent activities that dupe unsuspecting consumers. Scammers often pose as insurance agents or government officials and target unsuspecting individuals to steal their personal information, financial data, or trick them into paying for non-existent or fraudulent insurance plans. They may also send fake emails, texts, or social media messages, offering significant discounts without providing clear details on what is covered and which healthcare providers are part of the plan. It is important to be vigilant and cautious when dealing with unsolicited offers and never to share sensitive information unless the source can be trusted. Additionally, insurance companies have been accused of conspiring with brokers to discriminate against disabled Americans and steering beneficiaries towards plans that maximize profits rather than meeting their needs. These practices highlight the need for regulatory intervention to protect consumers from exploitation and ensure equitable access to healthcare services.

Hospitals overcharge patients, and insurance companies don't question the legitimacy of the charges

Hospitals overcharging patients is a common issue, with analysts estimating that hospitals overcharge patients by over $10 billion each year. This is often a result of hospitals billing uninsured patients significantly more than insured patients for the same services. Hospitals are required by law to charge uninsured patients the same rate as insured patients, but they often ignore this provision and engage in medical overbilling. This practice of billing patients excessively for procedures that were not consented to or provided during their visit is known as "surprise billing" and is more common than most people think.

For example, a family was charged $18,000 for a nap and a bottle of baby formula after taking their 8-month-old son to the emergency room when he hit his head. In another instance, a woman was charged nearly $6,000 for an ice pack and a bandage after fainting and cutting her ear. These surprise bills occur because hospitals make more money by doing so and face little risk of losing customers as patients rarely choose hospitals based on price.

Additionally, hospitals may charge higher prices for out-of-network doctors, who are more likely to order expensive tests and procedures. A Yale study found that when a hospital hired an out-of-network physician staffing firm, patients were more likely to be billed under the highest procedure codes, resulting in higher costs. Furthermore, hospitals may increase their revenue by raising charges for privately insured patients, as the amount a hospital receives is based on a fixed percentage of its total gross charge to the insurer.

Insurance companies, meanwhile, have little incentive to question these charges. While patients may expect their insurance companies to protect them from excessive charges, this often does not happen. As a result, patients can be left with significant and unexpected financial burdens, contributing to the growing problem of medical debt in the United States.

Insurance companies reject claims on medical grounds without even opening them

The American healthcare system has been criticised for its for-profit insurance companies, with patients' out-of-pocket expenses rising over the years with no justifiable reason. Insurance companies have been known to reject claims on medical grounds without even reviewing them, as revealed by an investigation into Cigna, a major insurance provider in the country. This investigation found that Cigna had built a system that incentivised doctors to reject claims without reviewing patients' files, in violation of state laws and insurance regulations.

According to the investigation, Cigna's system has saved the company millions, if not billions, of dollars by fast-tracking claim rejections. This practice has resulted in patients being denied coverage for medically necessary procedures and tests, causing significant financial strain and frustration.

In response to these allegations, patients whose claims have been wrongfully denied are encouraged to seek justice and fight for the coverage they are owed. They have the right to appeal the insurance company's decision and request a full and fair review, which the company is obligated to conduct, especially in urgent cases. If patients are dissatisfied with the outcome of the internal appeal, they can take their case to an independent third party for an external review.

It is important to note that insurance companies are required to follow certain processes before denying a claim. They must review the patient's file, medical evidence, and consult with proper physicians to determine medical necessity. Unfortunately, some companies, like Cigna, have been accused of bypassing these steps and putting profit before the interests of their customers.

Insurance companies deny prenatal screenings, deeming them not medically necessary

The American healthcare system has been criticised for its for-profit insurance companies, with patients' out-of-pocket expenses rising over the years with no justifiable reason. Insurance companies have been known to deny prenatal screenings, deeming them not medically necessary.

In one example, a woman describes her frustrating experience of being denied prenatal screenings by her insurance company, despite paying a large sum each month. She was bounced between third-party vendors and was on hold for hours, with no explanation as to why the standard testing, which should have been covered, was denied. The physician, paid by the insurance company, had no experience in prenatal care.

In another case, a woman with Aetna insurance in New Jersey had her claim for a routine ultrasound for pregnancy partially denied because it was not deemed medically necessary. The insurance company stated that since the labs were done, there was no need for a doctor to review the ultrasound. However, the woman argued that these are routine tests for all pregnancies, and she was unsure how they were deemed medically unnecessary.

In Washington State, insurance companies typically do not consider expanded carrier screening to be "medically necessary" or a covered service. However, some providers order expanded carrier testing through companies that work directly with patients' insurance companies to lower the cost. Most insurance plans in Washington will cover one first-trimester ultrasound and a second-trimester ultrasound between 16 and 22 weeks.

The issue of insurance companies denying medically necessary treatments is not limited to prenatal care. Another person with Aetna insurance shared their experience of having to fight for months to get approval for an MRI, with the insurance company offering no alternative treatment.

These examples highlight the challenges faced by patients in the American healthcare system, where insurance companies often prioritise profits over providing necessary medical care.

Insurance brokers direct beneficiaries to plans that are not in their best interest

Insurance brokers play an important role in helping Medicare beneficiaries choose the right healthcare plans. They are supposed to act as unbiased intermediaries between beneficiaries and insurers, using their expertise to recommend policies that best fit their clients' needs. However, in some cases, insurance brokers have been accused of prioritizing their financial gains over their clients' interests.

Under the Medicare Advantage (MA) Program, Medicare beneficiaries can choose to enrol in healthcare plans offered by private insurance companies. Many beneficiaries rely on insurance brokers to help them select an MA plan that meets their unique needs. Unfortunately, some brokers have allegedly directed beneficiaries to plans that were not necessarily in their best interest.

In a lawsuit filed by the United States government, three national health insurance companies and three brokers were accused of unlawful kickbacks and discrimination against disabled Americans. The defendant brokers allegedly steered Medicare beneficiaries towards the plans offered by insurers that paid the brokers the most in kickbacks, regardless of the suitability of the MA plans for the beneficiaries. The broker organizations were accused of incentivizing their employees to sell plans based on kickbacks and even refusing to sell MA plans of insurers who did not pay sufficient kickbacks.

This practice is not only unethical but also illegal, as it undermines the interests of federal healthcare programs and the patients they serve. It is important for insurance brokers to uphold their responsibility to represent the best interests of their clients and ensure that their recommendations are based on the specific needs of each individual.

To avoid falling victim to such scams, it is crucial for Medicare beneficiaries to educate themselves about the available plans and seek advice from multiple sources, including independent licensed agents or brokers, patient advocates, and online tools. By gathering information from various sources, beneficiaries can make more informed decisions and ensure that their healthcare needs are optimally met.

Insurance companies raise premiums and deductibles and reduce the number of accessible services

In the United States, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was signed into law in 2010. The ACA was a federal health policy initiative that brought about significant changes to the healthcare system, including improved access to health insurance and the expansion of the Medicaid program. However, insurance companies have been accused of exploiting the system to increase profits at the expense of patients.

One way insurance companies achieve this is by raising premiums and deductibles while reducing the number of accessible services. This tactic allows insurance providers to increase their revenue while decreasing the likelihood of paying out for claims. By raising premiums, insurance companies can increase their cash flow, and by reducing accessible services, they lower the chances of having to pay for medical treatments.

For example, insurance companies may offer lower premiums to attract customers, but this often triggers a surge in deductibles—the amount a customer must pay before their insurance coverage begins. This means that while customers may be attracted to the lower upfront cost of the premium, they end up paying more out-of-pocket expenses before their insurance coverage kicks in. This results in higher profits for insurance companies and increased financial burdens on patients.

Additionally, insurance companies have been accused of conspiring with brokers to direct Medicare beneficiaries towards plans that benefit the companies' financial interests rather than the patients' needs. This practice involves insurance companies providing kickbacks to brokers who enroll beneficiaries in their plans. As a result, brokers may reject referrals of disabled beneficiaries or steer them away from plans that would better suit their needs, prioritizing profit over patient care.

The consequences of these practices can be significant. Patients may find themselves unable to afford necessary medical treatments, and hospitals may overcharge patients, resulting in excess charges. Ultimately, these practices contribute to a healthcare system that prioritizes profits over patient well-being.

Frequently asked questions