Re: [Was] elective breech deliveries [Now draconiang health insurance rules]
From: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com)
Thu Aug 9 15:25:50 2007
Heads they win, Tails you lose.
Such a deal.
Art
At Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Myer Bornstein wrote:
>
>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.
>> >
>>
--
art fougner, md
"May The Wings of Liberty Never Lose a Feather." - Jack Burton
