Peter Gulia Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 A friend visiting his physician was told (by the receptionist) that the physician does not participate in the insurance plan that covers the patient. The patient is ready to pay the physician's full fees (and to do so without seeking a reimbursement from the insurer), but the receptionist said that the Affordable Care Act prohibits the physician from accepting any cash payment from someone who is insured. Is that right? If there is a restriction, does it apply differently between those who are Medicare-covered and those who are younger? Peter Gulia PC Fiduciary Guidance Counsel Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 215-732-1552 Peter@FiduciaryGuidanceCounsel.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBurns Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 I have not seen or heard of this. I would have asked the receptionist to give me the exact cite. George D. Burns Cost Reduction Strategies Burns and Associates, Inc www.costreductionstrategies.com(under construction) www.employeebenefitsstrategies.com(under construction) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lvena Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 GBurns is correct, ACA does not restrict the use of cash. My best guess is; 1) it was an excuse to not accept the patient or 2) confusion on the part of the receptionist. With many providers going to cash only (concierge) it is possible that this was such a provider, who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Gulia Posted January 11, 2014 Author Share Posted January 11, 2014 GBurns and Ivena, thank you for your good help. Today, I learned some new facts. It seems that the receptionist might have been blaming all the ills of the world on the Affordable Care Act; rather, the described belief is that New Jersey insurance law restrains the patient's proposed arrangement. To me, it seems odd that an insurance contract regarding which the physician is NOT a recognized provider could restrain the conduct of the physician merely because the patient could choose to get his insurer to pay for the service if the patient were to choose a different physician. Even if everything described is dead wrong, isn't this more complexity than our society should ask a patient to face? Peter Gulia PC Fiduciary Guidance Counsel Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 215-732-1552 Peter@FiduciaryGuidanceCounsel.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masteff Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Couldn't find much useful but this document speaks to the Medicare aspect of your question (item 4 on page 7): http://www.healthlawyers.org/Events/Programs/Materials/Documents/PHYHHS11/rodriguez_including_appendix_a.pdf Kurt Vonnegut: 'To be is to do'-Socrates 'To do is to be'-Jean-Paul Sartre 'Do be do be do'-Frank Sinatra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Gulia Posted January 13, 2014 Author Share Posted January 13, 2014 masteff, thank you for the nice help. Concerning non-Medicare patients, one suspects that many of us will learn much more about how physicians arrange themselves from 100% third-person payment to 100% patient payment, and the complexity of configurations between those absolutes. Peter Gulia PC Fiduciary Guidance Counsel Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 215-732-1552 Peter@FiduciaryGuidanceCounsel.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now