Posts: 2,084
Joined: November 2006
|
|
#53658
04/25/2013 6:52 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,002
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,002 |
Ok, I have started getting EOBs from Medicare showing a 2% reduction in payments, presumably from the sequestration BS. BUT, the EOB still shows the "allowed amount" as the amount that was allowed before. So, if I am entitled to the Medicare allowed amount, then someone needs to pay me that, right? If not Medicare and not the secondary then, the way I see it, the patient should have to. The allowed amount is still the same but now, rather than paying 80% of the allowed amount, Medicare is only paying 78%. Anybody interpret this differently?
Leslie Hospital Employed Physician Who Misses The Old AC
"It's a good thing for a doctor to have prematurely grey hair and itching piles. It makes him appear to know more than he does and gives him an expression of concern which the patient interprets as being on his behalf. "
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,002
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,002 |
I just read the official statement on the CMS site...you cannot bill the patient. So, why did the CMS not just reduce the allowed amount instead of having us have to jump through another stupid accounting hoop???
Leslie Hospital Employed Physician Who Misses The Old AC
"It's a good thing for a doctor to have prematurely grey hair and itching piles. It makes him appear to know more than he does and gives him an expression of concern which the patient interprets as being on his behalf. "
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,811
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,811 |
Because government bureaucrats function from the mindset of control and directive.
They do not care how much work they make for you, but they are imperative about you NOT doing things that highlight them negatively.
I absolutely agree with you about the logic; what other market can a customer tell you unilaterally they are going to pay you less AND that you cannot seek out the balance of transaction from the other parties to the transaction.
It is price controls and a misguided belief that they can control the market by directive. In human history, it has never been successful for long, and it is another marker for the end-stage of a system.
The salient question is what comes next.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 386
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 386 |
Because they want you to notice it on every EOB and be angry. Republican answer Because if we lower the allowed amount you might not get it back. Democratic answer
Dan Rheumatology
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 44
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 44 |
My understanding is the "allowed amount" for that procedure code will not change. But somewhere on the EOB it should reflect the 2% reduction. You can not bill the patient for more than the EOB states "patient responsibility". All these new rules are confusing, by the time you figure them out and how to implement them, it's too late.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 667
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 667 |
Though I am not happy about the sequestration cut, I am quite relieved that the allowable does not seem to be changing. All of my commercial contracts are based on a % of medicare allowable so only Medicare pts are being cut and not everyone....so far.
Bill Leeson, M.D. Solo Family Medicine Santa Fe, NM
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,128
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,128 |
Bill: good answer. Do you actually make LESS on your commercial contracts than Medicare? (Our worst payer).
Chris Living the Dream in Alaska
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 667
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 667 |
No, I make more but they pay based on Medicare allowable.
Bill Leeson, M.D. Solo Family Medicine Santa Fe, NM
|
|
|
0 members (),
46
guests, and
40
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|