Unauthorized lab work

[Bluto152]

Patients are not the best arbiters of what is medically "standard and necessary."

And don't get testy with the FA volunteers: you're ascribing motives as you imagine them, not as they exist.

Sorry, but when I get a response to a lengthy post of "pay your bills" it doesn't take much soul searching to "ascribe a motive". I understand that the advice is free and therefore there is no obligation to the OP's, but if you read the thread, would you not come to the conclusion that those replying think I'm either whining or stupid?

I don't know how I'm supposed to "be my own advocate" while simultaneously deferring all questions of what's best for my health to others. Seems like contradictory assertions.

Sorry, this is still bugging me. How is a full tox screen anything but a liability check for the practitioner? While I understand his concerns and might insist on the same thing were I in his position, the fact is as a patient with intimate knowledge of the substances that go into my body, it's completely unecessary. It's not a medical question at all and therefore there is no presumption of expertise that the doctor holds to which I should defer to. I likely have more experience on questions of liability than he does.

 

[Zigner]

Sorry, but when I get a response to a lengthy post of "pay your bills" it doesn't take much soul searching to "ascribe a motive". I understand that the advice is free and therefore there is no obligation to the OP's, but if you read the thread, would you not come to the conclusion that those replying think I'm either whining or stupid?

I don't know how I'm supposed to "be my own advocate" while simultaneously deferring all questions of what's best for my health to others. Seems like contradictory assertions.

Your first post left out any information on payment arrangements. You asked what your options were. I advised you to pay the bill. Your attitude then kicked in and you ran with it.

 

[Bluto152]

Your first post left out any information on payment arrangements. You asked what your options were. I advised you to pay the bill. Your attitude then kicked in and you ran with it.

I guess I thought it was obvious that I should avoid scenarios in which my credit would be impacted. Will not make that assumption again.

 

[Proserpina]

Pay the bill. Seek reimbursement afterwards if you feel it is appropriate. <-- very valid advice.

I acknowledge both sides of this. On the one hand, when a new provider comes on board, it is my habit to call the insurance company beforehand to verify whether or not I'm covered for A, B & C. That works for me. Unfortunately what often happens is that the patient will call the doc's office and ask, "Hey I have BippityBoppityBoo insurance... do you take that?" to which the answer will be "Yes" more often than not. While that's all very nice and good (and true) what the patient really needs to know is whether their particular insurance plan covers whatever it is. That's why s/he needs to call the insurance, not the provider.

On the other hand, unless the patient is familiar with how things work and don't work, it often just doesn't occur to them to verify things themselves.

OP, call again and get the person's number and contact info. Ask permission if necessary to record the call (and it's not really that you want to do that - it's just that when people are aware they might be recorded they tend to lie and/or deceive a whole helluva lot less).

Get something clarified because unfortunately our collective powers of clairvoyance are somewhat low and alas not covered by insurance.

 

[Silverplum]

Sorry, but when I get a response to a lengthy post of "pay your bills" it doesn't take much soul searching to "ascribe a motive". I understand that the advice is free and therefore there is no obligation to the OP's, but if you read the thread, would you not come to the conclusion that those replying think I'm either whining or stupid?

I don't know how I'm supposed to "be my own advocate" while simultaneously deferring all questions of what's best for my health to others. Seems like contradictory assertions.

Sorry, this is still bugging me. How is a full tox screen anything but a liability check for the practitioner? While I understand his concerns and might insist on the same thing were I in his position, the fact is as a patient with intimate knowledge of the substances that go into my body, it's completely unecessary. It's not a medical question at all and therefore there is no presumption of expertise that the doctor holds to which I should defer to. I likely have more experience on questions of liability than he does.

Again, the patient is not the arbiter of medical or pharmaceutical standards.

 

[Zigner]

The conceit you're bringing is in that I, as an adult, wouldn't know how credit scores work. I got that. I'm asking how I should approach getting said recourse against the doctor. Not looking for a lesson on fiscal responsibility.

I think THIS is where the trouble in this thread starts. The problem is that you assume that every adult who comes to this forum understands how credit scores work and understands the need to communicate with creditors, even while pursuing other available options. It's great that you do, but a lot don't. Your original post didn't mention anything about having made payment arrangements.

 

[Silverplum]

From the OP:

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? FL
And while I appreciate the "be your own advocate" advice, I'm not sure how one is supposed to "reasonably" navigate the Byzantine web of regulation, medicine, insurance and law that's been spun around us in order for us to determine what's even the right question to ask.

Your insurance card has a phone number on it for customer service. What you are supposed to do is call that number and verify that your insurance will cover the proposed test/surgery/Rx/whatever.

 

[Bluto152]

I believe I asked whether Florida laws required tox screens for those getting controlled substance prescriptions. Only one person even acknowledged that part of the OP with a general "Florida's gotten tough on it" statement. Whether or not the screenings are required by law is fundamental in answering whether I was originally misled. If nobody knows off-hand that's fine. You're not on the clock obviously. But it was almost entirely ignored despite it being probably the main reason I even posted here.

 

[Silverplum]

I believe I asked whether Florida laws required tox screens for those getting controlled substance prescriptions. Only one person even acknowledged that part of the OP with a general "Florida's gotten tough on it" statement. Whether or not the screenings are required by law is fundamental in answering whether I was originally misled. If nobody knows off-hand that's fine. You're not on the clock obviously. But it was almost entirely ignored despite it being probably the main reason I even posted here.

Okay: Nobody knows.

 

[Bluto152]

From the OP:

Your insurance card has a phone number on it for customer service. What you are supposed to do is call that number and verify that your insurance will cover the proposed test/surgery/Rx/whatever.

I've already established that I didn't even know what test was being conducted. There's a phone number on my insurance card?!?!?? Holy crap!!!!!!

Sorry for wasting everyone's time (including my own) by posting here. Appreciate the attempts on helping me with the fundamentals of adulthood.

 

[Zigner]

I believe I asked whether Florida laws required tox screens for those getting controlled substance prescriptions.

Show me where you asked that:

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? FL
Seen a couple of similar threads here but my situation is slightly different. Under the care of my "in network" (HMO) doctor I was prescribed a controlled substance. Having just moved to Florida I had to find a new doctor obviously and was still under the COBRA coverage from my previous job. On the first appointment, I was told by the doctor's assistant that it was "Florida law" that I give a urine sample to verify that I was taking what I was prescribed (and presumably not selling it I guess). Being new to the state I did what I was told. I also naively thought that the urine samples were checked on site (assumed it was like a litmus test changes colors if it contains the looked for composition ... or something, I'm obviously not a doctor).

Well it's 4 months since I've seen that doctor being now on my new employer's plan which he wasn't in. But I just got a bill from the lab where he was apparently sending my urine samples to conduct complete toxicology screens. The lab was out of network (both new AND old). So it's over $2600.

Now, I have a couple of issues. 1) I have subsequently looked at Florida statutes and can't find anywhere a requirement to screen in this manner. In Title XLVI (Crimes) under Chapter 893 "Drug Abuse Prevention" it mentions a practitioner reporting requirement for some controlled substances database. But none of the required info resembles anything close to a tox screen result. Though I'm obviously not a lawyer either so might have missed it. 2) While my na�vet� on the nature of the urine testing might not be "reasonable" from some perspectives I'm not sure how I'm supposed to "be my own advocate" as has often strenuously been reinforced here in other threads if I have a false notion of the basic elements of the test/procedure (in this case that the sample was not being kept but rather sent off site). 3) regardless I am certain that it was presented to me as being a test JUST for what I was being prescribed. I've never heard of 80% of the long list of substances I was tested for and am now being charged for. 4) given that a tox screen is (I imagine) a common test, there would presumably be an easily accessible in-network lab that could perform it, no? At the very least a violation of the HMO contract if sent to an out of network lab when an im network was readily available.

All that being said, upon stumbling into the "tort" section of my statute review, how does conducting a test under what I believe to be under false pretenses, and certainly something I would never elect to do as it has nothing to do with treating me and is rather some sort of liability issue for others as far as I can tell, how does all of that not contradict the assumptions of both paragraphs a) and b) of 766.103 Florida Medical Consent Law 3.a.2 which requires knowledge and complicity from my reading. And if the circumstances contradict those paragraphs is that not grounds for malpractice?

Not really interested in taking this guy for all he's worth just to cover the bills of the test his staff lied to me about (from what I can tell) or else I would have refused to take it. What are my options, if any? And while I appreciate the "be your own advocate" advice, I'm not sure how one is supposed to "reasonably" navigate the Byzantine web of regulation, medicine, insurance and law that's been spun around us in order for us to determine what's even the right question to ask.

In fact, I now see that your two most obvious areas of inquiry are related to contract law and malpractice. You posted in the wrong forum if you had a question relating to administrative or criminal law.

 

[Bluto152]

Show me where you asked that:



In fact, I now see that your two most obvious areas of inquiry are related to contract law and malpractice. You posted in the wrong forum if you had a question relating to administrative or criminal law.

I see. So my query on malpractice is out of place in the "Medical and Health Care Malpractice" forum. Duly noted

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

My suggestion is you change doctors going forward if they require drug testing every appointment.

 

[Ohiogal]

I see. So my query on malpractice is out of place in the "Medical and Health Care Malpractice" forum. Duly noted

Your issue is you believe this is malpractice and it is not -- not in any way, shape or form.

 

[Zigner]

Obtuse: adj. annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.

It was only just explained to me that malpractice questions shouldn't be posted in the "malpractice" forum, so I think I should be excused for my ignorance. It seems to me a supercilious (look it up) response to insult someone when that is such a counterintuitive feature of this forum.

Look at my reply again - I wasn't referring to your malpractice query.