Proponents argue that such changes to the form of approval could offer some protection against surprising bills, although there are several important reservations about this largely unsusclused idea. A father, Jeffrey Fox, seized on his story, how he successfully challenged his son`s medical bills by paying the fees to protect his creditworthiness, and then filed a complaint in a small claims court seeking a refund. When the health care provider did not come to court, Mr. Fox walked into the basics of open price contract theory, and also managed to avoid the voluntary payment doctrine that can make a first-war strategy more difficult to pay. Mr. Fox won in a default judgment and eventually had the joy of receiving a cheque from his son`s health care provider, which reimburses the difference between the actual costs and what the judge considered appropriate. Mr. Fox agreed to have me tell his story and the documents he used to challenge his claim, in case it would be helpful to other patients who would like to challenge their outrageous medical bills. (Of course, neither Mr. Fox nor I offer legal advice; Your mileage may vary.) Patients who try to do so could still be struck with great balance.
But “the difference is that you can say `I offered it, but they refused`” instead of signing the original agreement to pay all the fees, said Al Lewis, chief executive of Quizzify, a health education company that is a supporter of defining its own terms. As these recent cases show, surprise bills are not as easy to enforce as hospitals and doctors thought. When patients instead challenge their bills, these cases are often brought before judges and jurors, who consider the practice to be unfair and therefore unenforceable. ElAP`s unbeaten record in court is evidence of what can happen when patients defend themselves in an organized manner against unfair counts. Even if Congress continues to do nothing, we can assume that the courts will continue to provide a fair and effective solution to one of the most monstrous health practices. Health care providers oppose the plans managed by the ELAP by instilling plan participants because of the difference between the provider`s bill and what the plan pays after the ELAP review. As part of their approval of health plans, ELAP defends plan participants at the expense of the ELAP in the face of these actions. To date, ELAP has successfully defended plan participants against additional costs by arguing for a reasonable interpretation of the contract or quantum conditions as described above.
This is, say, a new way of dealing with surprising medical bills. But he has some prominent supporters. Al Lewis, a Harvard lawyer and famous skeptic of worksite-wellness, told Dr. Makary`s story on his blog. He even goes so far as to suggest wearing a card for your employees, and has even created a template. He suggests that the card say what is effective: “I agree to appropriate treatment and be responsible for reasonable fees (including applicable insurance payments) up to twice the Medicare rate.” Patients often say that no binding contract has ever been concluded because the parties have never agreed on an essential concept: price.