The patient is the one with which you have a contract. The insurance company has no obligation to you at all.
Wrong. This tells me that you don't know about this issue. When I am IN network with an insurance company, I have a contract surround their rate of payment and other issues. Standard procedure in the industry. I have a contract with them and the patient and the insurance company has an obligation to follow the contract, as do I. For example, if I agree to their reduced in-network rate, I cannot choose to charge the client an additional fee in their co-pay to make up the difference between the in-network rate and whatever my actual rate is.
So, you are completely incorrect about this.
Are you being dishonest or just stupid. I specified your specialty. I'm guessing you are just being dishonest as dishonesty is quite common with your kind.
Since suicide is in the top 5 causes of death for just about any age group, and depression is the most common reason leading to suicide, again, you obviously don't know what you are talking about. And this is just one example. 10% of all folks with eating disorders, die. Perhaps you should educate yourself on this issue before you speak about it.
If they are not abiding by the rules, it is you that is letting them get away with it by continuing to accept patients that have their insurance.
They are using loopholes to get away with bending the rules. More regulation will close those loopholes.
Require the patient pay you and let them worry about getting reimbursed by the insurance coimpany.
In-network contracts do not allow this. Again, learn about what we are discussing.
So don't accept patients that have that insurance. :doh
I already explained this. I'm not going to repeat myself to someone who is neither listening nor seems to know about what we are discussing.
This time, based on some of your previous posts commenting on business, I think you just might be too stupid to understand. I will explain it and type real slow so you can follow along.
The point is that if someone is not paying for something themself, they would not worry about the price. Pretty simple concept but I guess it went over your head.
No, I was pretty clear on the difference between healthcare and other issues. You don't not seem to want to understand this diference.
Got any proof of that.... didn't think so.
Well, since you made the initial accusation, please provide proof of IT. I'll wait.
The courts are the check on the insurance companies, but you have no standing because they do not have a contract with you.
And I've already proven you wrong on this, so this point is irrelevant.
Why don't you have the government pass laws that your can confiscate the patient's car or house if they don't pay you. They are the one's that actually owe you.
And I've already proven you wrong on this, so this point is irrelevant.
Actually laws already exist that allow you to go after assets of those that have obligations to you (your patients) that they refuse to pay. You just don't want to trouble youself to use them.
And I've already proven you wrong on this, so this point is irrelevant.