SyndeoCare has seen a large amount of growth over the past year. Both internally and externally, successes of the company can be felt from Wisconsin to Texas. Our online presence is beginning to make ripples as we have been consistent on different platforms. Additionally, we have routinely been posting blogs to help with sharing our insights with others in our industry. We attended our first tradeshow over the past year and look forward to participating in more events similar to that one. SyndeoCare has gained new partnerships while always taking care to sustain our existing ones.
This year, big insurance has continued to use questionable ethics as they’ve rolled out new policies and continue to cut in-network deals. While insurance companies and their CEOs become wealthier, patients are directly discouraged from seeking care as they experience emergency medical symptoms. When they seek care, insured patients often suffer from crippling medical debt as a result of their treatment. To give you an idea of the effects of these practices this year, here are a handful of news articles:
Health insurance was designed to keep patients from being hit with medical debt, but the current state of insurance does not have patients in mind. In fact, many of the biggest insurers are actively going against a patient protection known as the prudent layperson standard. Recently, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas (BCBS TX) decided to move forward with a controversial new practice of charging patients for their visits if the final diagnosis isn’t reflective of an emergency situation. This article will provide background on the prudent layperson standard, will explore the current state of this patient protection.
As we discussed in our previous blog, freestanding emergency centers (FECs) are a convenient option for patients in need of quality emergency care. Unfortunately, insurance companies tend to be unsupportive of these facilities, and they work to actively deter patients from utilizing them when the need arises. In this article, we will discuss the misguided reasons health insurance companies are working so hard to keep patients away from FECs, learn how these actions harm patients, and present a possible solution to the problems created by insurance companies’ lack of support for these independent emergency care centers.
In recent years, the number of freestanding emergency centers (FECs) has grown as patients in the U.S. healthcare system have made a simple request: they want immediate access to emergency healthcare when the need arises. With shorter wait times than hospital emergency rooms (ERs), 24/7 access to care, and ER-trained physicians on staff at all times, FECs are specifically designed to meet this need. Despite high rates of patient satisfaction1, insurance companies are funding campaigns against FECs and penalizing patients who receive treatment from these facilities. They are even going so far as to contact patients directly to discourage them from seeking care from FECs. Why are they doing this, and is this negative image of FECs fair? To help you understand your options, this article will discuss the differences between emergency healthcare models and dispel some of the myths surrounding FECs.
The business of medicine in 2018 is more difficult and complex than ever before. Political trends and policy changes have left the state of health coverage in flux, directly affecting healthcare on all levels and creating wide-reaching uncertainty across all patient populations. In today’s healthcare world, managed care groups can change the rules of engagement, and health insurance carriers annually lock medical professionals into opaque agreements that make doctors reconsider their independence. With continued policy changes likely, you can expect a major reshaping of the ways both consumers and providers will be able to obtain and utilize insurance. This blog post explores a few strategies your practice can implement to ensure maintenance of clinic revenue and quality coverage for your patients.