Re: [Was] elective breech deliveries [Now draconiang health insurance rules]
From: Myer Bornstein (mborn@massmed.org)
Thu Aug 9 14:59:48 2007
Re: BC/BS in Massachusetts no balance bulling except what is owed on a
deductible, this is secondary to the contract between the physician and
BC/BS
However in Massachusetts you must accept what ever Medicare pays since this
is a state law
Myer
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net [mailto:ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net] On Behalf Of Dean
> Huffman .
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 3:45 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L
> Subject: Re: [Was] elective breech deliveries [Now draconiang health
> insurance rules]
>
> .
>
> Maybe someone can help me here.
>
> It seems that back in the mid 1980's in Massachusetts, if a patient had
> BC/BS,
> the physician was obligated by law to accept the BC/BS payment and was
> prohibited by law from "balance billing" the patient for the difference. I
> have
> not paracticed in Massachusetts since the mid 1980's.
>
> I also understand that if one takes assignment on a single Medicare
> patient,
> then one has bought into Medicare for the remainder of the fiscal year. In
> order to opt out of Medicare for one patient, the physician has to opt out
> for
> all patients. Further, I understand that there are very draconian rules
> for
> physicans who want to do care not provided for by Medicare, even if the
> patient
> wants the care.
>
> I am grateful that I see very few Medicare patients.
>
> It would seem that if the physician and the patient agree, they sould be
> able to
> opt out of any health insurance plan for any visit, hospitalization, etc.
> But I
> guess that is not the way things work.
>
> Maybe somebody can clarify the rules for Medicare and for Massachusetts
> for me.
>
> - - - -
>
> From: "art fougner, md" <evsono@pipeline.com>
> Subject: Re: elective breech deliveries
> Date: Aug 9, 2007 12:53 PM
> Joe
>
> this pertains to the situation in Canada.
>
> http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070722/SPECIAL/107
> 220049/1001
>
> Art
>
> At Thu, 9 Aug 2007, DoctorJoe@aol.com wrote:
> >
> >In a message dated 8/9/07 12:49:57 AM, stephen.raymond@dhhs.tas.gov.au
> >writes:
> >
> >> The juxtaposition of public and private hospitals in New Zealand is the
> >> same as most other countries, and you only carry private medical
> >> insurance if you want to use private medical care in preference to
> >> public which can be slow and less personal
> >>
> >And this is always important to remember when comparing other systems to
> the
> >proposed "Hillary Care" in the US. In Hillary Care, it was going to
> be
> >criminally illegal to go outside the system. E.g., you were committing a
> crime
> if you
> >took cash from a patient to treat them outside the system. I understand
> this
> >is okay in England, for example. I don't know how Canada or Australia
> works,
> >but I suspect it's the same.
> >
> >So there's a FAR CRY from the proposed draconian changes proposed in the
> US,
> >which are characterized as "it works great in the UK, so we can do it
> here."
> >
> >Joe P.
> >
>
|
|
