Absolutely! </s> I work in EMS. Thankfully, our Medic One system is funded entirely by property taxes and we simply do not bill (at all) for any treatment or transport.
However, a few years ago United got a lot of grief over denying airlift transport claims from things like MVAs, or traumas in remote locations, stating that the "transport had not been pre-approved through the insurer".
Apparently in their mind, us paramedics (or maybe the chopper pilot) should have been calling in between stabilizing our patient...
"This is John, I'm a paramedic working on one of your patients who was hit by a truck. We would like to fly him to the hospital due to his extensive multisystem trauma but we need your approval. His name? Hang on, let me find his wallet. No, that's Smythe, S-M-Y-T-H-E, sorry, it's a bit loud with the jaws of life in the background... Yes, I can hold for a nurse consult..."
At these rate differences it starts seeming prudent to medical airlift to the right hospital...
Turns out the doctor that the hospital assigned to me did _not_ take my insurance.
I got billed the full amount, yelled very loudly at lots of people, and when I “resubmitted” the claim ended up paying like $50 out of pocket. I’m pretty sure that every item in the hospital is purchased by a separate company and that the Venn diagram of approved insurance companies never intersects.
My dad is a nurse and I grew up hearing how insurance was destroying health care. As a free market libertarian, I have no idea what to do about it. But next time I need stitches I think I’ll just opt for the super glue in my workshop...
You have a need that the customer (patient) needs to fill with a product (medical care).
The problem is, if the customer doesn't get the need fullfilled within the next 10 minutes they die of cardiac arrest. Or worse, the customer is already in cardiac arrest and requires resuscitation.
An unconsicous customer can't make market decisions.
So now we get to the next stage, a hospital revives/saves the patient but they are unconscious for a few days in the ICU.
The patient can hardly walk away while being non-responsive or later when drugged up on painkillers so they don't scream all the time.
By the time a patient can leave a hospital without dying the hospital has likely already spent 90% of the money that would be spent if the patient stayed for a few days more to recover.
But is it free market to bill the patient for actions taken while they were non-responsive or not even consented too (because they were non-responsive and/or dying)?
IMO the answer is simple; free markets don't exist. They are an ideal construct similar to how a bouncy ball should mathematically bounce forever but doesn't. And especially in healthcare there are too many interfering patterns for a free market to actually exist. In other markets, you could make a free market because people could pick and choose and compare and consent (ie, buying logs of wood for your fireplace). But dying people can't participate in the market to not die freely.
I also advice against superglue for wounds, the stuff can be toxic and/or nasty and will likely lead to an infection. There are some natural glues that your body produces to stitch wounds and you can obtain them in your supermarket, though they aren't clean enough that I would consider them fit for that use either.
As someone who used to be a free market libertarian: take is as a data point, and make appropriate conclusions. Such as: free market doesn't solve every problem. It doesn't mean that we should ditch it - it's still the least invasive way to allocate resources, so it's a reasonable default. But we shouldn't elevate it to dogma. When it works, great! When it doesn't, regulate it. And thus, we can have the best of both worlds.
Super glue aka “Dermabond” https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/874047-overview
So while dying of a heart attack he should have been negotiating with the ambulance driver, the paramedics, the nurses, each intern and doctor to make sure they are "in-network".
> St. David’s said it was now willing to accept $782.29 to resolve the $108,951 balance because Drew Calver qualifies for its “financial assistance discount.” I
You can pay $100k or just $700, whatever is cool with us. I guess, go to the media and try to shame everyone involved is your best hope? I can see if they did this to people buying luxury suites or yachts. Doing this to people who are dying of a heart attack is particularly disgusting. And it's not like anyone involved is going to be punished for this practice or learn a lesson. They'll turn around and do the same thing to the next patient.