Tenet to settle class-action lawsuits on pricing for uninsured patients
Patient Financial Services Weekly Advisor, March 18, 2005
Dallas-based Tenet Healthcare Corp. agreed to settle some class-action lawsuits over prices that uninsured and underinsured patients were charged at hospitals owned by the chain's subsidiaries, the Associated Press (AP) reported March 10.
Tenet said it established a $30 million reserve to cover costs of the settlement, which is subject to court approvals and not expected to become final for several months.
Class-action lawsuits are pending against Tenet hospitals in Alabama, California, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. If a nationwide settlement is approved by a California court, the cases will be subject to dismissal.
Tenet and its subsidiaries did not admit liability as part of the agreement.
Under the agreement, which would cover four years, Tenet said it would provide financial counseling to uninsured patients. It also pledged to treat uninsured patients fairly and respectfully and disclose estimated charges for anticipated treatments, AP reported.
Tenet said it would follow a uniform credit and collection policy, including a commitment not to pursue legal action for nonpayment of bills against unemployed patients or to place a lien on a patient's home.
The company also would provide uninsured patients discounted pricing at rates comparable to the hospital's current managed care rates.
Tenet said it would reimburse uninsured patients who received medically necessary services at any of its hospitals between June 15, 1999, and Dec. 31, 2004, who were paid more than a certain percentage of the hospital's gross charges.
Tenet also said it would make a $4 million contribution to a health care-related charity chosen by the plaintiffs' counsel.
To read Tenet's press release, click here.
Related Products
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- HIPAA Q&A: Answering service messages
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- News and briefs: Oklahoma Osteopathic Association against residency bill change
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- QA:Coding multiple initial infusions
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- Are your workforce members texting PHI?
- CMS issues IPPS proposed rule for FY 2013
- E-mailed
-
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Are your workforce members texting PHI?
- Don't let these sentinel events trigger falsely
- Arkansas woman convicted for HIPAA violation
- Reasons for inadequate fluid intake in the elderly
- Q&A tackles coding questions about injections and infusions
- Joint Commission Center announces handoff communication solutions
- Inside best practice: Reduce patient falls with a stoplight
- Identify modifiable risk factors to prevent patient falls
- Hospitalist-surgeon comanagement has no effect on outcomes
- Searched
