Lol you’ve got to treat them like the cops.
“Mr. Mosdef, how are you doing today?”
“LAWYER!”
2 Likes
[ ] nickeling
[x] diming
https://twitter.com/OffbeatLook/status/1526623425837551617
Oh yeah, you’re completely fucked if this happens to you btw.
1 Like
y’all realize that the stuff about ‘I cried, they charged me X’ is 100% fake right? I thought this was already covered in this thread.
They also clearly had a full visit as well. This is 100% fake news bullshit.
*Talking about rare disease and limited to in-network care part, not the crying part.
Given the bullshit about ‘they charged her for crying’ I’m guessing the rarity of said disease is greatly exaggerated.
But yeah that can suck obviously.
I can see how it could have been reasonable on the first one, but seems like a huge stretch on the “mole removal”. I’m not saying that it definitely didn’t happen, but it seems sus.
The code is 96127 if you want to look up the code description.
I’m going to cry at my next checkup to see what happens.
My doctor is smoking hot. The last time I was there she said “my hands might be cold”. I told her they weren’t cold at all and she giggled and blushed a bit. I hope I don’t get charged for flirting. Is there a code for that?
https://twitter.com/mxmclain/status/1442950887383736321
Just noticed that the numbers in the first column don’t add up. That’s weird.
A penny seems to show up at 0.1 instead of .01 (guessing) - sick billing software they have there.
This seems pretty perverse. Teaching doctors how to increase billing by doing this extra screening - with just a throwaway line that " All patients can be at risk of having a mental illness, especially those who are experiencing ongoing medical problems." Seems like this company’s whole business is to teach doctors ways to be able to legally overbill with the least work possible (even if probably not really ethical).
Note the final part - “Screen your patients faster. Let Mentegram help you save time and start billing with CPT Code 96127 today!” It’s all about getting paid as much as possible for as little work as possible.
This is totally standard.
I’m on your side of this, but the other side is basically gonna say something along the lines of “We’re not encouraging docs to do unnecessary things. Instead we just want to help them get paid for the necessary things that they should be doing and in many cases are already doing. It is not reasonable for them to provide these services for free”.
Of course the bad actors can take that very same advice and use it to essentially commit fraud (i.e., do unnecessary stuff, yet provide justification [false, but hard to disprove] that it was necessary, and then bill for it correctly).
You would know better than me, but I’m having a hard time imaging the code that would lead to this error. It seems like a weird mistake to have made when building the software.
Sure - I get that these screenings can be valid, and I’m sure that is how doctors justify doing them, but it seems this company is completely ignoring the medical necessary part and just focusing on the getting paid part (and doctors are happy to go along).
The totally standard part is a big part of the problem, being a doctor seems like it has become more of a business than actually focusing on what is best for the patient (including considering the patient’s ability to pay). We saw this with the drug epidemic, where doctors were happy to push pills. Sure, those pills could be helpful, but doctors were heavily incentivized to over-prescribe, and all the evidence shows they were happy to do that to pad their billing.
What the company would probably tell you is that they are not “ignoring” the medical necessity part. That’s is up to the doc to determine. They are just reminding you that it often is necessary and they can help provide you with ways to substantiate that as quickly and easily as possible – for maximum efficiency, of course.
Screening people for mental health issues is considered best practice and done in every ER and most clinics
1 Like
Given the way it adds up to .06 cents - it’s a lot more likely to be a display format error in the column when given .01 imo.
You would never display 10 cents as 0.1 - either 0.10 or .10.
Well if suzzer is right, it’s
[x] pennying
1 Like
Well, for the mole removal one they only billed $11. Not that it makes it more justifiable.
Of course, you’re right. However, as you’re probably aware the $40 is kind of an imaginary number that is billed. It gets generally adjusted down because of insurance contracts. According to my brief search, the average amount that is received for this is about $5.
Unless you’re uninsured. Then you’re on the hook for the whole $40 or $11 or whatever random number they decide to put down. You can negotiate your way out of that, but most health care consumers don’t really know that is an option.
Yeah you don’t understand what’s happening here.
Nothing was said by a provider during the mole removal. They were screened for safety in triage by a nurse