Home > Managing Debt > The $83,000 Finger: Insurance May Not Protect You From Large Medical Bills

Comments 2 Comments

Think you’re covered when it comes to your medical bills because you have good health insurance? Don’t be so sure. The “out-of-network” trap can leave you with costly medical debt that could, in turn, ruin your credit if you don’t pay it off quickly.

Just ask Julie Garrison from North Carolina, who shared the following story in response to my recent article about costly medical bill traps:

I went to the emergency room at a hospital that was listed as a PPO on my insurance and saw a Physician’s Assistant for a fairly uncomplicated procedure.  I found out AFTER I received my bill that I was treated by an off-network medical group.  If I had been on network, my bill would have been $66, but this off network provider is insisting that I should pay $367.  I would not have gone to this emergency room if I had known I would be charged off network fees!

Apparently I signed a statement where the possibility of off-network care was in the fine print. I feel that I should have been informed that the Physician’s Assistant was not providing care under the umbrella of the hospital. I have tried speaking with the hospital, the off network group, and my insurance company, to have these fees reduced, but have not been successful. At this point, I am expecting to hear from a collection agency in the future. Do you have any advice for me?

An All-Too-Common Issue

I consulted with Mark Rukavina, a health care expert with The Access Project, to find out how common this problem is. “This is an all-too-familiar story,” he said.  “Patient goes to an in-network hospital and is seen by an out-of-network provider; shocking bills follow.”

The extra charges Julie encountered are small potatoes compared to some that other patients have been charged. A recent report by the New York State Department of Financial Services, An Unwelcome Surprise: How New Yorkers Are Getting Stuck With Unexpected Medical Bills from Out of Network Providers, described a complaint it received in which a heart surgery patient “confirmed that the hospital and surgeon participated in his insurer’s network, meaning the consumer would only be responsible for a co-payment. Yet without (his) knowledge, an out-of-network surgeon assisted in the surgery. The consumer thus was responsible for paying a $7,516 bill from the out-of-network surgeon.”

In another, a consumer went to the emergency room at a hospital participating with his insurance to have his finger reattached after it was cut off in a table saw accident. According to the report, he “received an $83,000 bill from the non-participating plastic surgeon for reattaching his finger,” even though he went to an in-network ER.

The report details what it calls “unacceptable opaqueness in the health insurance market.” Among the problems noted:

  • It is very difficult, if not impossible, for patients to shop around and compare the out-of-pocket costs of many procedures.
  • There is often a lack of disclosure, including provider directories that may be out of date.
  • Fees for emergency care of often excessive, and some providers “appear to take advantage of the fact that emergency care must be delivered.”
  • In-network providers aren’t always available to provide the care patients need.
  • Some insurance companies have reduced coverage for out-of-network providers.

The report also points out that even consumers who shop around and are careful about trying to stay within network can be hit with unexpected bills. “In fact, surprise bills often occur when a consumer schedules health care services in advance.  Consumers with health insurance coverage for out-of-network services are not immune from this problem.”

Why Things Could Change Soon

As things currently stand, patients typically have fewer rights when it comes to challenging a $10,000 medical bill than a $100 credit card charge. Julie argues, “In any other business, this would be considered fraud!”

Julie asked me what I would do if I were in her shoes. I told her that I would probably pay the bill to avoid possible damage to my credit scores, and then complain to everyone I could think of: the Better Business Bureau, the hospital administration, my local newspaper, and my legislators in Washington. She’s decided to stand firm, though. “I am willing to pay $66 which is what I would have paid if the provider was on my network. I am willing to take the hit on my credit if I do not pay the $367. ”

Have you received unexpectedly high medical bills due to an out-of-network provider? Share your story below! 

Image: cliff1066, via Flickr

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team