Yves here. For those of you who follow KFF Health News, their “Bill of the Month” often features a howler of an abuse where the provider, typically a hospital, has not backed down on its dodgy charges. The KFF Health News bad press, or prospect thereof, pretty much always forces a climbdown by the biller.
It’s surprising to see KFF Health News here depict an obvious fraud in such anodyne terms. As the headline indicates, a patient was billed for two separate surgeries when only one took place. This was easily verifiable by the lack of two operating/surgical center dates and two anesthesia administrations.
The egregiousness of the fraud is indirectly confirmed by the fact that the patient, a graphic arts designer, prevailed in court despite representing herself pro se, which is usually ill advised. Interestingly, however, the district in which the case was heard has only two judges and hears both regular civil and small claims. as most readers likely know, small claims courts are to accommodate parties representing themselves, since the amount in dispute is typically too low to support the cost of hiring counsel.
The comparatively small amount at issue also raises the question of whether the grifting provider, Pacific Rim Outpatient Surgery Center, engaged in this abuse regularly. One annoying element of this case is it is not entirely clear whether the collection agency that pursued patient Jamie Holmes bought the debt from Pacific Rim Outpatient Surgery Center or its purchaser, PeaceHealth. The article suggest the disputed bill was transferred to PeaceHealth before being sold. It would be useful to know if Holmes also tried disputing the charges with PeaceHealth, or whether the debt was transferred and sold before she was aware of the change in corporate ownership. This is not a mere academic matter, since continuing to dun Holmes would implicate it in fraud too.
The reason for banging on about this case is it’s such an obvious grift that it ought to be possible to curb it with legislation or regulation. For instance, if a medical provider and anyone acting as their agent or successor persists in trying to collect on a duplicate charge, that they are liable for treble the cost of the bad charge plus attorney’s fees. Exposure of these abuses is good, but feasible reform proposals are even better.
By Tony Leys, KFF Health News rural editor/correspondent, who previously worked as a reporter and editor for the Des Moines Register. Originally published at KFF Health News
Jamie Holmes says a surgery center tried to make her pay for two operations after she underwent only one. She refused to buckle, even after a collection agency sued her last winter.
Holmes, who lives in northwestern Washington state, had surgery in 2019 to have her fallopian tubes tied, a permanent birth-control procedure that her insurance company agreed ahead of time to cover.
During the operation, while Holmes was under anesthesia, the surgeon noticed early signs of endometriosis, a common condition in which fibrous scar tissue grows around the uterus, Holmes said. She said the surgeon later told her he spent about 15 minutes cauterizing the troublesome tissue as a precaution. She recalls him saying he finished the whole operation within the 60 minutes that had been allotted for the tubal ligation procedure alone.
She said the doctor assured her the extra treatment for endometriosis would cost her little, if anything.
Then the bill came.
The Patient: Jamie Holmes, 38, of Lynden, Washington, who was insured by Premera Blue Cross at the time.
Medical Services: A tubal ligation operation, plus treatment of endometriosis found during the surgery.
Service Provider: Pacific Rim Outpatient Surgery Center of Bellingham, Washington, which has since been purchased, closed, and reopened under a new name.
Total Bill: $9,620. Insurance paid $1,262 to the in-network center. After adjusting for prices allowed under the insurer’s contract, the center billed Holmes $2,605. A collection agency later acquired the debt and sued her for $3,792.19, including interest and fees.
What Gives: The surgery center, which provided the facility and support staff for her operation, sent a bill suggesting that Holmes underwent two separate operations, one to have her tubes tied and one to treat endometriosis. It charged $4,810 for each.
Holmes said there were no such problems with the separate bills from the surgeon and anesthesiologist, which the insurer paid.
Holmes figured someone in the center’s billing department mistakenly thought she’d been on the operating table twice. She said she tried to explain it to the staff, to no avail.
She said it was as if she ordered a meal at a fast-food restaurant, was given extra fries, and then was charged for two whole meals. “I didn’t get the extra burger and drink and a toy,” she joked.
Her insurer, Premera Blue Cross, declined to pay for two operations, she said. The surgery center billed Holmes for much of the difference. She refused to pay.
Holmes said she understands the surgery center could have incurred additional costs for the approximately 15 minutes the surgeon spent cauterizing the spots of endometriosis. About $500 would have seemed like a fair charge to her. “I’m not opposed to paying for that,” she said. “I am opposed to paying for a whole bunch of things I didn’t receive.”
The physician-owned surgery center was later purchased and closed by PeaceHealth, a regional health system. But the debt was turned over to a collection agency, SB&C, which filed suit against Holmes in December 2023, seeking $3,792.19, including interest and fees.
The collection agency asked a judge to grant summary judgment, which could have allowed the company to garnish wages from Holmes’ job as a graphic artist and marketing specialist for real estate agents.
Holmes said she filed a written response, then showed up on Zoom and at the courthouse for two hearings, during which she explained her side, without bringing a lawyer. The judge ruled in February that the collection agency was not entitled to summary judgment, because the facts of the case were in dispute.
Representatives of the collection agency and the defunct surgery center declined to comment for this article.
Sabrina Corlette, co-director of Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms, said it was absurd for the surgery center to bill for two operations and then refuse to back down when the situation was explained. “It’s like a Kafka novel,” she said.
Corlette said surgery center staffers should be accustomed to such scenarios. “It is quite common, I would think, for a surgeon to look inside somebody and say, ‘Oh, there’s this other thing going on. I’m going to deal with it while I’ve got the patient on the operating table.’”
It wouldn’t have made medical or financial sense for the surgeon to make Holmes undergo a separate operation for the secondary issue, she said.
Corlette said that if the surgery center was still in business, she would advise the patient to file a complaint with state regulators.
The Resolution: So far, the collection agency has not pressed ahead with its lawsuit by seeking a trial after the judge’s ruling. Holmes said that if the agency continues to sue her over the debt, she might hire a lawyer and sue them back, seeking damages and attorney fees.
She could have arranged to pay off the amount in installments. But she’s standing on principle, she said.
“I just got stonewalled so badly. They treated me like an idiot,” she said. “If they’re going to be petty to me, I’m willing to be petty right back.”
The Takeaway: Don’t be afraid to fight a bogus medical bill, even if the dispute goes to court.
Debt collectors often seek summary judgment, which allows them to garnish wages or take other measures to seize money without going to the trouble of proving in a trial that they are entitled to payments. If the consumers being sued don’t show up to tell their side in court hearings, judges often grant summary judgment to the debt collectors.
However, if the facts of a case are in dispute — for example, because the defendant shows up and argues she owes for just one surgery, not two — the judge may deny summary judgment and send the case to trial. That forces the debt collector to choose: spend more time and money pursuing the debt or drop it.
“You know what? It pays to be stubborn in situations like this,” said Berneta Haynes, a senior attorney for the National Consumer Law Center who reviewed Holmes’ bill for KFF Health News.
Many people don’t go to such hearings, sometimes because they didn’t get enough notice, don’t read English, or don’t have time, she said.
“I think a lot of folks just cave” after they’re sued, Haynes said.
Emily Siner reported the audio story.
