{"id":262,"date":"2024-08-21T09:00:00","date_gmt":"2024-08-21T09:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/arielchannel.me\/?p=262"},"modified":"2024-09-02T15:33:42","modified_gmt":"2024-09-02T15:33:42","slug":"patient-underwent-one-surgery-but-was-billed-for-two-even-after-being-sued-she-refused-to-pay","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/arielchannel.me\/index.php\/2024\/08\/21\/patient-underwent-one-surgery-but-was-billed-for-two-even-after-being-sued-she-refused-to-pay\/","title":{"rendered":"Patient Underwent One Surgery but Was Billed for Two. Even After Being Sued, She Refused To Pay."},"content":{"rendered":"

Jamie Holmes says a surgery center tried to make her pay for two operations after she underwent only one. She refused to buckle, even after a collection agency sued her last winter.<\/p>\n

Holmes, who lives in northwestern Washington state, had surgery in 2019 to have her fallopian tubes tied, a permanent birth-control procedure that her insurance company agreed ahead of time to cover.<\/p>\n

During the operation, while Holmes was under anesthesia, the surgeon noticed early signs of endometriosis, a common condition in which fibrous scar tissue grows around the uterus, Holmes said. She said the surgeon later told her he spent about 15 minutes cauterizing the troublesome tissue as a precaution. She recalls him saying he finished the whole operation within the 60 minutes that had been allotted for the tubal ligation procedure alone.<\/p>\n

She said the doctor assured her the extra treatment for endometriosis would cost her little, if anything.<\/p>\n

Then the bill came.<\/p>\n

The Patient: <\/strong>Jamie Holmes, 38, of Lynden, Washington, who was insured by Premera Blue Cross at the time.<\/p>\n

Medical Services:<\/strong> A tubal ligation operation, plus treatment of endometriosis found during the surgery.<\/p>\n

Service Provider:<\/strong> Pacific Rim Outpatient Surgery Center of Bellingham, Washington, which has since been purchased, closed, and reopened under a new name.<\/p>\n

Total Bill:<\/strong> $9,620. Insurance paid $1,262 to the in-network center. After adjusting for prices allowed under the insurer\u2019s contract, the center billed Holmes $2,605. A collection agency later acquired the debt and sued her for $3,792.19, including interest and fees.<\/p>\n

What Gives:<\/strong> The surgery center, which provided the facility and support staff for her operation, sent a bill suggesting that Holmes underwent two separate operations, one to have her tubes tied and one to treat endometriosis. It charged $4,810 for each.<\/p>\n

Holmes said there were no such problems with the separate bills from the surgeon and anesthesiologist, which the insurer paid.<\/p>\n

Holmes figured someone in the center\u2019s billing department mistakenly thought she\u2019d been on the operating table twice. She said she tried to explain it to the staff, to no avail.<\/p>\n

She said it was as if she ordered a meal at a fast-food restaurant, was given extra fries, and then was charged for two whole meals. \u201cI didn\u2019t get the extra burger and drink and a toy,\u201d she joked.<\/p>\n

Her insurer, Premera Blue Cross, declined to pay for two operations, she said. The surgery center billed Holmes for much of the difference. She refused to pay.<\/p>\n

Holmes said she understands the surgery center could have incurred additional costs for the approximately 15 minutes the surgeon spent cauterizing the spots of endometriosis. About $500 would have seemed like a fair charge to her. \u201cI\u2019m not opposed to paying for that,\u201d she said. \u201cI am opposed to paying for a whole bunch of things I didn\u2019t receive.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The physician-owned surgery center was later purchased and closed by PeaceHealth, a regional health system. But the debt was turned over to a collection agency, SB&C, which filed suit against Holmes in December 2023, seeking $3,792.19, including interest and fees.<\/p>\n

The collection agency asked a judge to grant summary judgment, which could have allowed the company to garnish wages from Holmes\u2019 job as a graphic artist and marketing specialist for real estate agents.<\/p>\n

Holmes said she filed a written response, then showed up on Zoom and at the courthouse for two hearings, during which she explained her side, without bringing a lawyer. The judge ruled in February that the collection agency was not entitled to summary judgment, because the facts of the case were in dispute.<\/p>\n

\n\t\tMore From Bill Of The Month\t<\/h4>\n