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.
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.