There may be hope for consumer directed high deductible plans afterall. Read the following article to learn more.

By Charlotte Huff, Workforce Week Magazine

High-deductible plans, with or without an attached savings account, may provide the best flexibility to meet the coverage limits—both minimum and maximum—inherent in the health reform legislation.

Before health care reform, benefits consultants worried that the insurance overhaul would sideline consumer-directed plans or perhaps jettison them altogether. Their latest sentiment: modest to substantial optimism.

As with any post-reform plan, large employers should carefully structure their consumer-directed options, typically a high-deductible policy paired with another account, such as a health savings account. Ideally, coverage would adhere to a middle ground, meeting the reform legislation’s minimum coverage requirements without becoming sufficiently generous to trigger the so-called “Cadillac,” or excise, tax, beginning in 2018.

But the myriad ways in which these high-deductible plans can be structured likely leave them well situated in the post-reform world, benefits consultants say. Along with the plans’ flexible design, they also cite other reform-related changes as being influential, such as the new limitations on another type of account, the flexible spending account.

“Frankly, these consumer-directed plans are pretty well-positioned,” says Michael Thompson, a principal in the health and welfare practice at PricewaterhouseCoopers. “I think what we’ll find is not a slowing of the process, but actually an acceleration of the process to consumer-directed and high-deductible plans in general.”

Before President Barack Obama signed health reform into law in March, consumer-directed plans were already gaining some traction among large employers, according to an annual survey conducted by the National Business Group on Health and Towers Watson. By 2011, 61 percent of employers intend to offer a consumer-directed plan; the option was provided by only 33 percent in 2006. Meanwhile, nearly half (46 percent) of those who offered a consumer-directed plan in 2010 reported enrollment of at least 20 percent.

As more employees signed up, the cost per employee declined, according to the same survey, which involved 507 employers each with at least 1,000 employees. Annual health costs per employee totaled $6,848 when at least half of the employer’s workforce enrolled in a consumer-directed plan, compared with $7,743 per employee when enrollment fell below 20 percent.

Employers are paying closer attention than ever before to those types of bottom-line statistics, says Alexander Domaszewicz, national health consumerism lead for Mercer. “None of the cost issues and very few of the quality and delivery issues have been meaningfully addressed in the reform legislation,” he says.

Cost pressures
As employers look ahead, one worry is the excise tax. Effective in 2018, a 40 percent tax will be applied to any of a health plan’s total value that exceeds the premium threshold—$10,200 for individual coverage or $27,500 for family coverage.

But Jay Savan, a senior consultant at Towers Watson, says other economic constraints just a few years off will be more influential than the excise tax in encouraging employers to consider a high-deductible plan.

Beginning in 2014, once the health insurance exchanges are established, employers will have an incentive to keep employees’ premium contributions below 9.5 percent of their adjusted gross income if workers earn less than 400 percent of the federal poverty level, Savan says. Otherwise, the employer will have to pay a penalty—typically $3,000 annually per such employee who receives coverage through a health exchange—for surpassing that premium ceiling.

That’s a relatively low bar, Savan says. For a family of four, 400 percent of the federal poverty level is $88,200 annually. If that penalty were in effect today, that employee couldn’t pay more than nearly $8,400 annually toward health coverage.

“The plans that are most likely to allow the employer to stay under that [premium] threshold are going to be high-deductible health plans,” Savan says. “Whether they are HSA-compatible or not, it’s going to be those plans, by virtue of simple mathematics.”

The average annually family health premium, as of 2009, reached nearly $13,400, according to an annual survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust. But the employee’s contribution averaged just $3,515.

For companies with lower-income employees, though, a relatively low premium can still exceed 9.5 percent of adjusted gross income, Savan says. Add in rising health costs and that likelihood increases, he says.

Establishing guardrails
In a sense, the new health reform law contains inherent guardrails that employers should pay attention to, Domaszewicz says. On the lower end, they should make sure that coverage isn’t classified as inadequate—defined as covering less than 60 percent of allowable costs. But as their plans’ total value increases, employers also need to stay sharp, he says.

“They can’t design them [the plans] too rich because they will eventually hit this excise tax,” he says. “They can’t design them too poor or too skinny because they are not going to meet this 60 percent requirement in terms of actuarial value.”

The reform law’s move to cap FSA contributions at $2,500 annually, beginning in 2013, also may spur employees themselves to take a second look at health spending accounts, says Chantel Sheaks, a principal in Buck Consultants’ National Technical Resources Group. A parent who is facing a large bill for braces, for example, may decide to bypass the FSA and instead contribute a higher amount to an HSA-linked insurance plan, she says.

Another reform-related wrinkle, Thompson adds, is that contributions to savings accounts, including an FSA or HSA, will be counted toward the plan’s total value in determining whether it qualifies for the excise tax. “It’s only a matter of time before FSAs become less common with employers,” he says.

In the years ahead, employers may adopt other measures, such as limiting company or employee contributions to HSAs, to prevent hitting the excise tax threshold, Savan says. But the Towers Watson consultant, a longtime proponent of consumer-directed plans, remains bullish that their time has finally arrived.

By 2013, nearly all large employers will be offering the insurance option, Savan predicts. And more employees will buy in, doubling the current median enrollment of 15 percent to 30 percent or more, he says.

Is the current Medicare reimbursement method flawed?  It depends on your perspective, but one thing appears more and more apparent – the recent healthcare reform bill does not appear to be a solution to the problem.

BNET Today

Judging by the opposition of surgical societies and some state medical societies to the Senate healthcare-reform bill passed last December, many physicians — particularly highly paid specialists — are relieved now that it appears the legislation is on its deathbed. But they shouldn’t be too gleeful, because in the absence of reform, fewer and fewer patients will be able to afford their services.

Just ask Clyde Yancy, a cardiologist who heads the American Heart Association (AHA). Yancy cited a recent AHA survey of heart patients in explaining why he believes that reform of the system is still necessary. In the survey of 1100 adults who said they had heart disease, a stroke, or high blood pressure, 56 percent of the respondents — most of whom had insurance — said they’d had trouble paying for prescription drugs or medical care in the past few years.

In an op-ed piece about the survey in a trade publication, Yancy referred to the “collective sigh” of relief among physicians about the stalling of reform and suggested that it’s premature. “The need for the discussion has not gone away,” he said. “If anything, that need is highlighted by this survey.”

Of course, Yancy is walking a fine political line. He chose not to highlight the financial pain doctors will feel as insurance coverage shrinks, and instead focused on the problem of patients not receiving proper care because they can’t afford it. But his intended audience of heart doctors can certainly read between the lines, particularly since they’re already battling to preserve their incomes in light ofsome recent Medicare changes.

Last fall, Medicare announced changes in its reimbursement methodology that basically lowered payments to specialists while raising them for primary-care physicians. Cardiologists, among the hardest hit specialists, were slated to lose an average of eight percent in 2010 and more in the ensuing three years. The new fee schedule also slashed payments for nuclear scans by 40 percent and cut the fees for echocardiograms and other tests by about a third. In late December, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) sued HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to reverse the cuts scheduled to take effect Jan. 1. Two weeks later, a federal court in Miami dismissed the suit on jurisdictional grounds, but the ACC pledged to carry on the legal fight.

The cardiologists, of course, claim that the drop in Medicare payments for high-end imaging tests will drive some of them out of business and that they’ll have to cut back on the services for the poor. In actuality, though, heart doctors have steadily ramped up their use of tests and other services to maintain their incomes. A study released last fall by cardiology services provider MedAxiom found that visits to cardiologists had risen 12 percent in 2009 and that return visits had climbed 34 percent since 2000. Meanwhile, the number of echos that cardiologists performed jumped 15 percent in 2009 and 43 percent in the previous five years.

These numbers highlight the main issue: the more Medicare cuts back on reimbursement, the more tests, procedures and follow-up visits physicians do. And the more doctors do, the more Medicare cuts its fees. The only solution is to dump the fee-for-service payment system — a goal that some of the provisions in the healthcare reform legislation would move us toward. Having to live within a budget would upset cardiologists even more than the recent Medicare cuts. But it’s hard to see how their patients will be able to afford their services in the long run under any other reform plan.

Here are some interesting facts about who visits the ER from The New York Times. One interesting fact to take note of, people with private insurance visit the ER almost as much as people without insurance.

By RONI CARYN RABIN

Americans, insured and not, make ample use of hospital emergency rooms: One out of every five visited an E.R. at least once in 2007, the latest year for which the National Center for Health Statistics has data.

Among the uninsured, 7.4 percent made two or more visits to an E.R., but so did 5.1 percent of people with private insurance. Medicaid recipients were the heaviest users of E.R.’s, with 15.3 percent of them making two or more visits during the year.

Adults in fair or poor health were most likely to go to an E.R. More than a third of them visited an emergency room at least once during the year.

People younger than 65 who said the E.R. was their only health care facility were no more likely to have gone to an emergency room than others, and for those older than 65, there were more E.R. visits by people with a usual source of care than by those without one.

More than 25 percent of non-Hispanic blacks visited an E.R., compared with 20 percent of whites and about 18 percent of Hispanics. For people younger than 75, age made little difference.

In all age groups, about one in five people went to the E.R. But among those older than 75, one in four visited the E.R. at least once.

The uninsured were no more likely to make non-emergency visits to the E.R. than anyone else — about 10 percent of visits were for non-emergencies, whether the patients had private insurance, Medicaid coverage or no insurance.

Figuring out who visits emergency rooms, how often and for what reasons involves sorting out complex interactions among many factors — socioeconomic level, health status, age, health insurance, access to health care and others.

“Our job is to provide the best numbers to inform policy and practice,” said Amy B. Bernstein of the National Center for Health Statistics. “If people are concerned about the use of emergency rooms and how to make their use more efficient or effective, they should have accurate information about who is actually using them — and not who they think is using them.”

Will the new healthcare reform act be beneficial to patients at the cost of being harmful to business? The jury is still out, but onething is for certain, costs will continue to rise in the immediate future.

The Daily – 07/22/10

By Beth Fitzgerald

As the new federal healthcare reform law is phased in through 2014, employers will face increased costs to comply with new regulations and reporting requirements, even as their health insurance premiums continue to rise.

That was the view from Scott Rappoport, CEO of Benefit Sources & Solutions, in

Bound Brook, who presented a workshop on the new law Thursday morning sponsored by the Somerset County Business Partnership. The session was held at Financial Resources Federal Credit Union’s Bridgewater office.

Rappoport reviewed key provisions of the law, starting with the “grandfathering” of healthplans that were in effect when the new law was adopted by Congress on March 23.  Many employers can keep their old plans – but the restrictions are such that, in most cases, it will be too costly to try and hang on to an old plan, he said. “I really believe that in two years, it will be so ridiculously expensive to maintain a grandfathered plan that it won’t make any sense,” he said.

One positive aspect of the law is that it spells out the “essential benefits” – including preventive care – health plans must provide, he said, which addresses a need to “focus on wellness and chronic disease management, and getting and staying well.”

In 2010,employers with fewer than 25 workers averaging salaries of $50,000 or less who pay 50 percent of their health insurance premiums can get a tax credit of 35 percent of the employer’s premium contributions. But Rappoport said in New Jersey, a high-wage state, many small employers won’t qualify.

Yet New Jersey Citizen Action, a consumer advocacy group, this week released a report by Washington, D.C. – based Families USA that estimated more than 100,000 New Jersey businesses could be eligible for the tax credit this year.

Costs continue to rise even with the passage of landmark healthcare reform. Read the following article for an interesting take on outcomes of the new reform.

John Greyman

The passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Act of 2010 (PPACA), our new health care legislation, in March was hailed by its supporters as an historic event of the magnitude of Social Security and Medicare. But four months later, it remains controversial, with repeated polls showing three large groups of divisive opinion, including those who would work to repeal it and others who believe that it will make no difference. The Democrats have launched a $125 million PR campaign to defend the new law amidst growing signs that many Democrats facing re-election are failing to get political traction on the issue. (1)

We are being advised by many to “wait and see” how this complex new bill plays out over the next five to ten years, but we can already know what its outcomes will be. More than 30 years of health policy science, including documentation of the repeated failures of incremental changes built into the new law, together with well-entrenched trends in our market-based system, allow us to project its outcomes with confidence. For this legislation has been molded and crafted by the political power and money of corporate stakeholders in the medical-industrial complex.

Five previous posts in 2009 described the uneasy “alliance” of the five biggest players — the insurance industry, the drug industry, the hospital industry, business and organized medicine. They will do just fine with the new law at the expense of patients, families and Main Street.

Health care “reform” this time around was intended to address these four basic system problems: (1) containing health care costs, (2) making health care more affordable, (3) increasing access to care, and (4) improving the quality of care. This post introduces a series of five that will examine how well the PPACA will do on each of these four goals, followed by an overall assessment of the law. These posts will draw in part from my new book Hijacked: The Road to Single Payer in the Aftermath of Stolen Health Care Reform, soon to be released by Common Courage Press in both print and eBook format.

Continued Unrestrained Drivers of Health Care Costs

These are some of the many reasons that we can already conclude that health care costs will continue to run out of control at rates far exceeding the costs of living and median household incomes.

• No price controls. Wall Street has already factored in rapid expansion of markets for drugs, medical devices and other services in a system of expanded access. There is also a long line forming of providers of information technology and administrative services that will exploit the complex implementation of this law.

• No bulk purchasing. The PPACA has prohibited the government from negotiating the prices of prescription drugs and retains a ban on importation of drugs from Canada and other countries.

• Lack of control over perverse incentives that drive increased volume of services. These in turn are driven by retention of fee-for-service (FFS) reimbursement that encourages physicians and other providers to offer more services than are medically appropriate or necessary.

• No effective mechanism to rein in marginal or ineffective technologies. Coverage policies for new drugs and medical devices are still lax and not subject to rigorous evidence-based criteria for either efficacy or cost-effectiveness.

Although the PPACA does call for a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, its role is already neutered by not having the power to mandate or even endorse coverage or reimbursement rules for any particular treatment. (2)

• The dominant business model of health care prevails, with many facilities and services remaining for-profit and investor-owned and with an ongoing trend for increasing consolidation within industries.

• The PPACA has grandfathered-in specialty hospitals, typically physician-owned facilities that focus on well-reimbursed procedures in such areas as cardiology and orthopedics, whereby physicians can “triple dip,” earning high incomes as providers, owners and investors.

• More preventive services will further fuel health care inflation. While the PPACA does provide new coverage for many preventive services, this will lead to increased costs due to additional diagnostic and treatment services engendered. (3)

• Private insurers can’t contain health care costs, even where they have dominant market power. A 2009 report by the Congressional Research Service, “The Market Structure of the Health Insurance Industry,” concludes that:

The exercise of market power by firms in concentrated markets generally leads to higher prices and reduced output — high premiums and limited access to health insurance — combined with high profits. (4)

• There are no controls over premium rate increases by insurers. Despite the outcry by government officials, annual premium rates are escalating at rates up to 56 percent (5), and there is no end in sight for continued exorbitant rate increases. Insurers will continue to game the system by extracting maximal profits and offering reduced coverage with actuarial values (the amounts insurers actually pay in coverage) as low as 60 or 70 percent.

• National health care spending will grow unabated despite the passage of
PPACA. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) projects that overall national health expenditures (NHE) will increase from its present 17 percent of GDP to 21 percent in 2019, a total of $4.470 billion. (6)

These well-documented trends leave no room to think that health care “reform” will have any chance to contain health care costs. Instead, health care inflation will be exacerbated by all the new incentives and inefficiencies in the new “system.” In our next post we will examine the impact of these trends on affordability of health care.

Buyer beware! Most people don’t realize just how much out-of-pocket spending a healthplan may cost them until they become seriously ill or are hospitalized. The below article sheds light on the out-of-pocket expenses many consumers face and what they should be aware of when choosing a healthplan.

By WALECIA KONRAD

If you’re like most people, you may think they are the same. But while it is true both terms refer to the portion of medical bills you pay out-of-pocket, these two types of cost-sharing are quite different.

A co-pay is a fixed amount that you pay each time you see a doctor or fill a prescription, usually around $10 or $20. Co-insurance is the percentage of the cost of doctor visits, hospitalizations and prescription drugs that you must pay under your insurance policy.

Let’s say your policy calls for 80/20 co-insurance. After you meet your deductible, you must pay 20 percent of your medical bills; the insurance company is responsible for the remaining 80 percent.

Many plans demand both co-pays and co-insurance. Co-insurance is especially common when it comes to hospital stays. Of all workers covered by an employer-sponsored group health plan, 51 percent must pay co-insurance for hospital admissions, according to the 2009 Kaiser Family Foundation survey of employer health benefits. The average payment is 18 percent of the total. And 53 percent of covered workers pay co-insurance for outpatient hospital visits, with an average charge of 19 percent.

Co-insurance is common in the individual insurance market. And as companies head into this fall’s open enrollment season, many are considering a switch from co-pay to co-insurance as a way to increase employee cost-sharing and contain rising health benefit expenses, said Tom Billet, director for health and group benefits at the consulting firm Towers Watson.

Because of the confusion involving co-pay and co-insurance, many patients don’t realize just how much it may cost them until they become seriously ill or are hospitalized, said Lynn Quincy, a senior policy analyst at Consumers Union. “Ten or 20 percent may not sound like much, but 20 percent of a $100,000 surgery is a lot of money,” she said.

Co-insurance payments can add up quickly for seriously ill patients. It’s not unusual, for example, for a cancer patient to need $40,000 worth of medicine in a given year.

“Co-insurance on that could be as much as $14,000, and that’s just for the drugs. That’s not even counting going to the doctor or the hospital yet,” said Stephen Finan, senior director of policy at the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network.

High co-insurance and other out-of-pocket costs, including insurance premiums, can sometimes discourage patients from receiving the treatment they need. One in three individuals under age 65 diagnosed with cancer has delayed needed health care in the last 12 months, according to a Cancer Action Network poll.

Looks like medical costs are expected to trend well above inflation for 2011. In addition, consumer out-of-pocket costs have increased as employers continue to shift the cost onto employees.

Medical costs are expected to increase by 9 percent in 2011, according to a report from PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Although the increase is down 0.05 percent from the 2010 growth rate, it still is expected to outpace the rate of inflation. For the first time, the majority of the American workforce is expected to have a health insurance deductible of at least $400 as more employers return to indemnity-style cost sharing by raising out-of-pocket limits, replacing co-payments with co-insurance and adding high-deductible health plans.

Hospital and physician costs, which make up 81 percent of premium costs, are the biggest inflators of the 2011 medical cost trend. Hospitals shifting costs from Medicare to private payers and employers is seen as the top reason for higher medical cost trends. In 2011, Medicare will reduce payment rates to hospitals for the first time after seven years of increases that almost matched or exceeded inflation increases. Some hospitals that benefitted from higher payments in 2008 and 2009 may be able to manage this type of cut by tapping their reserves, but many hospitals are likely to shift more costs to commercial payers during their negotiations, according to the report.

In addition, increasing consolidation among physician practices is expected to increase their bargaining power. Payers expect to see more negotiating power and higher prices in the short term, but efficiencies created by consolidation will moderate future rate hikes.

The report findings are based on a survey of more than 700 employers from 30 industries and interviews with health plan actuaries.

It appears that physicians are now charging ‘a la carte’ fees for services not traditionally covered by insurance or Medicare. The extra fees mean greater out-of-pocket costs for consumers. Read on to learn more.

By Alison Young • USA TODAY •

A growing number of doctors across the country are boosting revenue by asking patients to pay new fees for services they say insurance doesn’t cover, insurance and physicians’ groups say.

The extra payments include no-show fees of $30-$50 for missed appointments, widely varying charges for filling out health forms for school, work or athletic teams, and annual administrative fees of $35-$120 or more to simply be a patient in some practices, medical associations and doctors say.

“It’s not unlike the airlines,” said William Jessee, president of the Medical Group Management Association, which generally advises against extra fees that may anger patients or run afoul of insurance contracts. “They’ve gone from all-inclusive to a la carte. That’s what you’re seeing with physicians.”

Doctors who charge extra fees are in the minority, he said. Some have done it for years, but more are joining them because they say they need the fees to offset the rising costs of practicing medicine.

Allen Greenlee, an internist in Washington, sent a letter in March to 7,000 patients in his group practice asking for a voluntary $35 annual administrative fee for costs insurance didn’t cover. He said he got only two angry letters and dozens paid extra to help others. “I’m trying to stay solvent,” he said.

WellPoint, the nation’s largest insurer by membership, is receiving more inquiries from doctors seeking to charge annual administrative fees.

“We have seen some increase in that type of activity,” said John Syer, a vice president over provider contracting at WellPoint, which operates 14 Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans. “The vast majority do not engage in that,” Syer said, noting such fees may violate provider agreements if doctors charge for items insurers consider included in their payments.

Though no national data are available on how many practices charge extra fees, Jessee said primary care doctors face increased financial pressures as insurance reimbursement hasn’t kept pace with costs. The result has been a growing shortage of primary care physicians as medical students choose more lucrative specialty fields. Primary care is critical to the nation’s new health law, which will give 32 million uninsured Americans coverage.

Office visits are the main source of insurance payments to primary care doctors, yet physicians spend much of each day on activities they’re not directly compensated for, such as phone calls and prescription refills, a study in The New England Journal of Medicine in April found.

“A lot of doctors are trying all kinds of experimental things just to survive,” said Gary Seto, a doctor in South Pasadena, Calif., who charges an annual $120-per-family “non-covered benefits fee.”

Sue Braga of the Arizona chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics said she’s hearing of more practices charging for no-shows and health forms.

Susan Wheeler, 33, said her kids’ pediatrician near Atlanta recently started a $10-per-child form fee. “I don’t like it,” she said. “It’s part of their job.”

Medical Cost Advocate is in the news! Reporter Miranda Marquit from All Business News recently spoke with CEO Derek Fitteron about negotiating medical costs. Read on to learn about Medical Cost Advocate and what they are doing to help consumers who have large medical expenses. It’s great to know that there is a company working as an advocate on behalf of consumers to reduce healthcare costs.

Miranda Marquit

I recently saw an increase in my health insurance premium, and I will see it again quite soon, thanks to age-based premium increases. As a result, I am seriously thinking of a Health Savings Account and a high deductible plan. The ridiculousness of rising medical costs is really starting to be annoying — and increasingly moving toward unaffordable. Many people already experience the fact that health care in this country is unaffordable for them. So it was interesting to learn a little bit about a company that works to negotiate medical costs.

I recently spoke with Derek Fitteron, the CEO of Medical Cost Advocate, and he gave me some insight into what his company does to help consumers reduce their health care costs.

“Expectations were that health insurance premiums would go up six to eight percent,” Fitteron told me. “Instead, they are going up 10 to 12 percent. That means that employers are passing more costs on to employees, and consumers find that they have to pay more out of pocket. What we do is work to negotiate out of pocket expenses so that consumers pay less.”

The way it works, he explained, is that consumers can submit their out of pocket expenses, spent to meet a deductible or due to out of network treatment, and Medical Cost Advocate will attempt to negotiate a lower payment. Fitteron said that the company only charges if the fee is successfully renegotiated. “We take a percentage of what we accomplish. If the bill isn’t reduced, we get nothing.”

“We also help the uninsured,” Fitteron continued. “About 15 percent of the people we serve are not insured, and we can help them get a better rate, since they don’t have the advantage of a group rate through insurance.”

Fitteron also told me about a program that can help manage a family’s health care costs. “For 200 dollars a month, it is possible for us to track bills, review insurance and negotiate your costs. And this is for the whole family.”

Services offered by Medical Cost Advocate can be paid for using money from Flexible Spending Accounts or Health Savings Accounts. I haven’t used these services, but they seem intriguing. If I decided to go with a Health Savings Account, and have to pay out of pocket for more of my health care, it might be worth it to see if cost negotiation can save me a little more. I’m not sure that I would need the monthly service, but it might be worth it to check into the negotiation service offered.

As the government churns through health care reform, the media has realized that consumers can negotiate their health care with doctors and hospitals.  The article indicates that it is best to choose an advocate with a successful track record in health care cost reduction.  Medical Cost Advocate is a leader in health care cost reduction through expert negotiation.

New York Times

By WALECIA KONRAD

THESE days, dealing with medical bills and insurance claims makes April 15 look easy. The medical jargon and inscrutable coding on invoices and explanations of benefits are indecipherable for most lay people. Worse, seriously ill patients may simply be too sick or too broke to deal with the mountains of red tape. That can lead to unpaid medical debts and even bankruptcy.

It’s no wonder that a cottage industry has sprung up to fill this void. Known as medical billing advocates, these middlemen and women help patients deal with the paperwork and haggling often associated with medical costs.

In general, medical billing advocates help you find errors in your bills, negotiate with your insurer to appeal coverage denials, or negotiate lower fees with your medical care providers. Some advocates do all three tasks equally well. But others, because of their training or background, may specialize in one area or another.

Still others give the client the ammunition he or she needs to negotiate. That’s what happened to Susan Redstone, a freelance fashion stylist and author. When she broke her back in a horseback riding accident last summer, she held only a bare-bones insurance policy. So Ms. Redstone, who has since recovered, knew that she would be responsible for the bulk of her medical expenses.

Five months after the accident, just when she thought she had paid everything off, she got a bill for $16,000 from the helicopter ambulance service that ferried her from the remote location in Colorado where the accident occurred to a large medical facility 75 miles away. “I was completely taken by surprise to get this bill so long after the accident happened,” Ms. Redstone said. She consulted with Victoria Caras, a medical advocate in Aspen, Colo., who coached her on how best to approach the medical transportation company to lower her bill. With Ms. Caras’s advice, Ms. Redstone was able to negotiate a 25 percent discount in exchange for paying the bill in full. Read more »