|
this would be a big problem. The only leverage that patients, hospitals and doctors have now when insurance companies don't pay their claims, is their state's insurance department. When a hospital in Boston has 30% of its ER visit claims denied as 'non-emergency' (a favorite insurance company scam, in particular with HMOs) by an insurance company in Idaho, I somehow suspect that they won't get any satisfaction from protesting to the insurance company or to the Idaho insurance department. At a hospital where I once worked, we had 40% ER claims rejection from one HMO in particular. NYS eventually passed a law that requires a 'prudent layperson' standard be used, not the ultimate diagnosis of the patient. i.e. a patient is experiencing bad chest pains which turn out to be gastritis, they can't deny the claim because it did not turn out to be a heart attack. They also passed a law requiring insurance companies to pay for inpatient post-mastectomy care, as opposed to treating the very traumatic surgery as an outpatient service.
It would also require hospitals to entire into fee contracts with 100's of insurance companies which realistically, is likely impossible. I don't even want to think about how it would complicate claims billing.
And the notion that this will greatly reduce the cost of health insurance is total bullshit. There's no way that an insurance company based in Toe Tapping, Idaho is going to charge a rate that does not reflect their estimated claims costs in the specific area where the insured lives. Someone in NYC will not be able to buy a policy for the same price as someone in Wyoming.
|