THCB

Categories

Tag: Preventative Care

Brown and Toland weighs in on the $34.94 Labcorp test. (Part 6)

By MATTHEW HOLT

I know you all care, so I am giving a 6th update on the telenovela about my Labcorp bill for $34.95.

The very TL:DR summary of where we are so far is that in May 2025 I had a lab test to go with the free preventative visit that the ACA guarantees, but I was charged for the lab tests and I was trying to find out why, because according to CMS I should not have been.

For those of you who have missed it so far the entire 5 part series is on The Health Care Blog (1, 2, 3, 4 & 5). Feel free to back and read up.

When we left the scene on Sept 9, Blue Shield of California had finished their 30 day investigation and their rep read me the letter they sent me (that I couldn’t open due to their secure email not working). The letter told me that Brown & Toland Physicians, the IPA that manages my HMO, was going to investigate. Today I got a text from Blue Shield alerting me to a secure email and I got all excited, but it was nothing to do with this. And of course I should have heard from Brown and Toland in October or November.

So I decide to pick it all up again, and I called Brown & Toland Physicians or actually Altais which is the holding company that owns them and Blue Shield. I got through the phone tree and eventually got, “leave your number and get a call back” which actually happened not too long later.

The very nice rep tried to figure out my case and told me this:

On 8/14/2025 Mike at Blue Shield called Brown and Toland and asked for the original claim to be reviewed (1430201). I am pretty sure Mike is the nice man from the Executive Admin office at Blue Shield we met in part 2 (or was it part 3?).

On 8/29/2025 the benefits department at Brown and Toland finished their review and reported that the original lab test wasn’t coded as preventative lab services by One Medical, so that the co-pay of $34.95 was correct. ($34.95 was the total agreed payment for all the tests, charged at a total of $322.28. And as it was less than my $50 copay, LabCorp only charges the patient for the total, not the $50!)

Meanwhile, that 30 day Blue Shield investigation was still going on. It ended up with them asking Brown and Toland to investigate. Presumably as a direct result of that, on 9/9/2025 Kelly from Blue Shield called Brown and Toland and sent them the $34.94 claim asking them to review it. (Again, as it turns out, as they just had reviewed it on 8/29/2025).

“So what happened?” I asked today.

My rep told me that whomever at Brown and Toland spoke to Kelly on 9/9/2025 didn’t get or didn’t put in correctly the claim reference number, and so when they passed it on to the adjuster in the benefits department it couldn’t be worked on, and so nothing happened since then. So much for their 30 day investigation!

However my nice rep today told me the results of the 8/29/2025 benefits analysis which as previously mentioned was that when Labcorp got this claim submitted it was NOT coded as preventative. So the solution is that One Medical needs to change the diagnosis or CPT codes and resubmit the corrected order at Labcorp so that Labcorp can bill Brown and Toland for these as preventative services, and presumably get its $34.95 directly from them. As of now, that’s it.

I am of course girding my loins and preparing to ask One Medical to re-submit that lab claim with the preventative codes.

Meanwhile, I mentioned to my nice rep that I had two subsequent tests that I was not billed for. One was a Fit test in which One Medical sent me home with a kit to scoop my poop. That seems definitely to be preventative as it was to test for colon cancer. The other was a set of tests for low iron ordered during my preventative care visit because my iron levels looked a little low. My guess is that doesn’t fit the preventative category and I should have paid for that.

You may recall that iron test was billed at $0 and neither me nor the Labcorp rep who was working the case with me quite understood why.

Turns out Brown and Toland think that I should have paid a co-pay for both of those tests. The Fit test billed on 5/18/25 was $15.60 (1537124). By the way, Brown and Toland is getting a good deal as the cash price Labcorp charges consumers for that is about $90! The iron test was billed at $60.79.

You’ll recall my lab copay is $50, so Labcorp should have been charged me the lower of the copay or the actual total. Which is $15.60 for the Fit test and $50 for the iron test.

I got no charge for either.

By the way, I would like to show you the EOB from Blue Shield, but as they cancelled and reinstated my insurance last month, their online site has wiped all my EOBs!

So I agreed with the Brown and Toland rep when she suggested that they investigate the $15.60 bill for the Fit test to see if there should be a co pay, and I may hear from them in 30-45 business days.

And just to square the circle I will (probably) ask One Medical to resubmit the claim!

And yes this is all totally ridiculous and it all indicates why health care is so overly complex and why no consumer can figure out what is going on.

CODA: Meanwhile I was contacted by a journalist asking about ChatGPT being used to to sort out and protest medical bills. So I went down that rabbit hole a little too.

Matthew Holt is the founder and publisher of THCB

Labcorp, Blue Shield and my $34.95 co pay (part 5)

By MATTHEW HOLT

I have been on a quest to try to understand why I am being charged $34.95 by Labcorp for some lab tests that I think should be free under the ACA preventative care statutes, and for which my insurer Blue Shield of Californian has issued me an EOB with a $0 co-pay.

It’s been a microcosm of the chaos of American health care so far, If you want to catch up here’s part 1, part 2, part 3 and part 4

You may recall that I had paid a $50 co pay for the lab tests connected to my preventative annual wellness visit in 2024 (and I didn’t pay attention) but that when I got a $34.94 charge from Labcorp in 2025 and found that Blue Shield said my copay was $0, I decided to investigate.

I have had a lot of help from Rhea, a senior customer service rep at Labcorp who I think is having nearly as much fun with this as I am. She told me that the co-pay Labcorp tries to collect is the lower of $50 or whatever the total bill is. For the 5 tests I had, Labcorp’s agreed rate with Brown and Toland Physicians (the Blue Shield-owned IPA that contracts with their HMO, of which I am a member) was $34.94. So that is the answer as to that charge.

But it still doesnt answer a couple more questions.

  1. Why was a subsequent lab test I had as a follow up also shown by Blue Shield as a $0 copay on the EOB?
  2. Why weren’t the lab tests I had considered preventative under the ACA and therefore also free?

Rhea’s guess for the first answer is that Labcorp receives a capitated amount for lab tests from Blue Shield or Brown and Toland, and that the second test was somehow covered under that. Maybe, but then why wasn’t the first one?

The second question takes me further down a rabbit hole. Rhea dug out the order from One Medical to Labcorp. You can see below that the CPT codes are on it (what the tests actually are) and also what the related diagnosis codes are.

I of course asked chatGPT what those diagnosis codes were and the answer is
E78.5 = Hyperlipidemia (i.e. high cholesterol)
R73.03 = PreDiabetes
E66.811 = Obesity class 1
M10.9 = Gout

As you might suspect as a pretty typical 60+ year old American, I fit the bill for all those diagnoses. The CPT codes for the tests I had are complete blood count, Metabolic Panel, Hemoglobin (A1C), Lipid Panel, and Uric Acid (which causes gout).

Presumably all of those, with the possible exception of the Gout/Uric Acid, could be seen to be preventative. After all the CMS web site explains that preventative screening is free for “Annual Wellness Visits and Physical Exams, for instance with a primary care doctor and Health Screenings for blood pressure, cholesterol, blood sugar for diabetes, and various cancer screenings such as colonoscopies and mammograms”.

So why is this not free to me? Rhea from Labcorp suggests that Blue Shield initially issued me a $0 copay EOB but later should have reprocessed that when it got the bill from Labcorp, and told me to pay the $39.94. She also found that in addition to CMS suggesting what should be called preventative, Blue Shield of CA has a very long document with what it thinks is preventative care. You can see and download it here.

I asked ChatGPT to read it for me and after a bit of looking around we (that’s me and ChatGPT) concluded that E78.5 is in the list of applicable ICD-10 diagnoses codes for Annual health appraisal visits, which are a (free) covered service. So my high cholesterol should be screened for free.

On the other hand there’s a whole section on Page 28 of the document discussing pre-diabetes education but it doesn’t explicitly say that an A1C test is covered under the annual wellness visit. And if you go way down, to page 116, there’s a table that suggests that last year a Blue Shield review removed several of the diabetes codes, including R73.03.

Now I am not going to pretend that I understand what the hell is going on in this document, and why (or whether) Blue Shield is able to change what CMS says it should do–if that is what in fact is happening. But it does seem weird.

And again, because there are no actual costs per test from Labcorp (there are charges per test but they are bundled and discounted on the bill), it’s impossible to tell what the contracted cost for each test was, and therefore whether I got some for free (as I think I should have) and what I was actually charged for.

Finally, I got very excited as Blue Shield sent me a message tonight which had an attachment which I think is a response to the grievance that was somehow filed for me by someone from their executive offices in part 2. But the attachment wasn’t properly formatted. So I don’t know what it says!

No less than I’d expect on this adventure.

But hopefully we are close to finding out who is charging whom for what and why!

UPDATE. I called Blue Shield’s grievance line and a nice customer service rep read me the letter that I couldn’t see online. Essentially Blue Shield has asked Brown and Toland to explain what happened. That grievance will take another 30 days! The rep wasn’t able to send it to me in my portal, but she could send me an email (It will be one of those secured ones that are super annoying to open). She told me it was sent while she was on the phone but 30 mins later, it’s not here!

Matthew Holt is the founder and publisher of THCB

The Breast Density Bill: A (Very) Dense Dilemma …

• 9

By ANUBHAV KAUL,  MD and JENNIFER BROKAW, MD

The passage of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and the reelection of President Obama was cause for real hope among those in pursuit of the Holy Grail in medicine: higher quality at lower cost. However, with the passage of what is called the Breast Density Bill in several states, the quality cost equation seems doomed on both ends.  The Affordable Care Act mandates coverage of screening mammograms, without co-pay or deductible, but the Breast Density Bill is destined to push utilization of “non-beneficial” imaging, ie imaging that does not clearly save lives, even further.

The new law, authored by Sen. Joe Simitian, was signed into law this past October in California.  Beginning April of next year, the bill requires facilities that perform mammograms to include a special notice, within the imaging report sent to patients, regarding the high density of breast tissue and the benefit of additional screening tests.   The notice will state the following; “Because your mammogram demonstrates that you have dense breast tissue, which could hide small abnormalities, you might benefit from supplementary screening tests, depending on your individual risk factors”.

The supporters of the bill make the ethical argument that women have the right to know about how dense breast tissue can obscure mammogram visualization, and should be offered additional test such as ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to alleviate the doubt.  To provide further support, the SOMO INSIGHT Breast Cancer Screening Study is a nationwide research effort to evaluate if automated breast ultrasound done together with routine screening mammogram is more accurate in detecting breast cancer in women with dense breast tissue.  The study is funded by U-Systems, Inc.; the Silicon Valley based company responsible for the sophisticated and expensive ultrasound technology used in this study.  Thus, one cannot deny the possibility of patient interest being confounded by financial interest.

The patient advocacy movement around breast cancer has been championed by several well-known non-profits, such as Susan B Komen, Are You Dense Inc. and even endorsement by the National Football League.  Yet, the confusion about screening is reflected in the variability of requirements for insurance coverage between states. For example, while Texas and Mississippi require screening mammograms to be covered for all women 35 and older, Utah has no coverage requirement and several other states do not require coverage until age 40.1 Awareness of breast cancer screening is necessary, and the complexities of picking up certain irregularities certainly deserve attention. However, the patient’s “right to know” should also include the right to know about “over-diagnosis”.
Continue reading…

assetto corsa mods