${gotBlog.title}

It also should have been a public option and a woman’s right to choose to be respected in this bill. deem and pass, or rather the Slaughter rule, is an obvious sign that our system of government is almost irretrievably broken.

THANK YOU! This is long over due. I am just sorry we have to wait for 10 months until the law goes into effect.

I had several Physical Therapy appointments for a torn rotator cuff. Each time I had to sign that I was responsible to pay for any amount not covered by Medicare or my secondary insurance. Each time I asked how much I was agreeing to pay and no one would tell me. I checked with Medicare and they only allow a total of $1850 for Physical Therapy.
On one occasion when I asked how much my responsibility would be, I nicely added , " I want to be sure you are paid" The receptionist said , Don't worry we always get paid!"

They certainly know the cost of each session and the amount allowed by Medicare and my secondary insurance, but even the billing office would not tell me the amount I would be paying.

Now we need another law that says the Medical facility must send patients "One Combined bill" for services and note the amount each entity charges. Let the Medical facility split the costs among all involved. If you have an X-ray you get a bill for using the facility; another for the person who took the X-ray; another for the Radiologist who read the X-ray. And all are in the same building. This is how they nickel and dime us into poverty . It is worse if there are any medical supplies
involved.

Thanks again for the good job in getting this legislation into law

Your recourse is to make a complaint. The process is drawn out because the practitioner or the facility has a right to present his/their side of the story. I can't think of any matter involving violation of the law that's "automatic" except for matters like revocation of parole. Even then, I think there has to be some kind of hearing. We have sentencing guidelines that limit a judge's discretion, but those accused of serious crimes have the right to a trial. They have a right to present their side to a jury of peers.

I imagine that if/when you're accused of a violation of the law, your views on instant, "automatic" justice will be very different from what they are when you feel that you're the aggrieved party.

I used my revocation penalty as an example. I didn't recommend any particular penalty for violating this new law. The hearing officer can give a 1 cent fine to a violator if he decides to do so. It's perfectly legal.

I've never endorsed or condemned this bill. I cited my own past experiences in an effort to suggest that Sullivan and the rest of the Legislature MIGHT actually have accomplished something worthwhile in this case. I just don't know how this will improve things for people on a practical level. Generally speaking, medical decisions have to be made in a timely manner. What's your recourse if a provider/insurer is stalling and not giving you the cost data you want? It's not like a cop can arrest "Mr. Aurora" or "Mr. Froedert" and fine him on the spot. I imagine it's a relatively long drawn out process. Meanwhile, the patient still has to make a decision based partially on incomplete cost data.

Aurora uses Social Security Numbers for patient IDs. I raised a stink about it the moment I saw mine on a form. My complaint went all the way up to one of the VPs of Aurora. I was able to get mine not to show up on MY paperwork for everybody to see, but it's my understanding that my case is the exception to the rule. They don't seem to be particularly worried about violating 146.84(1)(bm). Maybe Aurora has changed this practice since I raised a stink about it a few years ago. I don't know.

If someone steals your ID (SSN #) because of carelessness/negligence at Aurora, Aurora will be fined less than $1000 plus reasonable actual attorney costs, right? Doesn't seem like much of a deterrant to me. The sanctions for violating this new Medical Transparency law seem equally hollow to me. It's a good idea in principle, but the practical implementation of it may be a totally different story. We'll see.

Now you're just making stuff up. It just confirms that you have no idea what you're talking about and that's why I'm on your case.

Here's an actual section of WI Administrative Code relating to physician licensing. This is from Chapter 146, which is where the law on posting fees will be located. This one pertains to violations of patient confidentiality and/or access. Willful violation carries penalties of up to $25,000. Negligence is considered less serious. This is offered as an example. If you peruse Chapter 146 in its entirety, you'll find more of the same.

146.84(1)(bm)
(bm) Any person, including the state or any political subdivision of the state, who negligently violates s. 146.82 or 146.83 shall be liable to any person injured as a result of the violation for actual damages to that person, exemplary damages of not more than $1,000 and costs and reasonable actual attorney fees.

Notice that the fine is discretionary, just like it would be for failure to post fees. This is pretty much how all of these kinds of statutes are written. Violation of confidentiality and/or access would be far more serious than failure to post fees, but even willful disclosure would not result in automatic revocation of a license. These statutes are written in such a way that they allow for discretion on the part of a hearing officer.

If you want to test the law by complaining about a provider, go for it.

Teeth: "Anybody who violates this law will be assessed a fine of exactly $500 for the first offense, exactly $3000 for the second offense, and immediate foreiture of their license to practice for any subsequent offense(s).

No Teeth: "Anybody who violates this law MIGHT be assessed a fine of SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 1 CENT AND $250 FOR EACH OCCURANCE, depending on whether the person responsible for assessing the fine is in a good mood or not. It's totally up to us at our own discretion if we decide to issue a fine and if so, how much that fine will be.".

That's my basis for saying that this new law appears to have 'no teeth'.

You answered the question, Tosaoutsider. Why are you getting on my case about this? There is very little incentive for anybody to follow this law if they don't want to follow it. In a weird way, I sort of hope that I'm in a position where I can test this in the future. As I said in my original post, I was unable to get the data I was looking for from my insurer or the provider. Now that I know this new law is the law of the land, that should make my task that much easier since the people who were stonewalling me in the past will now be afraid of the new penalties for NOT giving me the cost data I requested, right?

What's your basis for saying there's no "teeth" to the bill when you haven't read it. You said that you couldn't find information that was clearly addressed in the bill even when I told you where to look. This makes me wonder whether you know what's in any of the legislation that you rail against. It could explain why you keep demanding answers to questions that have already been answered.

I'm not blaming you for anything, tosaoutsider. It's clear that Senator Sullivan thinks this bill signed into law last week by Governor Doyle will change things for the better. I'm not so certain about that since there doesn't appear to be any 'teeth' to it. We'll see.

Maybe the problem is that a lot of you are concrete thinkers who become unhinged when forced to deal with ambiguity and who aren't used to reading legislation. Most legislation is vague. Legislation that Lea Vukmir sponsors is written pretty much the same way legislation sponsored bye Senator Sullivan is written. Vague.

Meanwhile, SOM, I gave you the section, paragraph and line in the bill that talks about fines. I really don't see how I could have been any more specific. It's there in black and white.

That was SB 418. Act 146, the final version of the two bills, reduces the penalty to $250. Look in 146.903, 5 a).

tosa, 'up to' begins at 'nothing'! So what enforces the law?

This is 'feel good' legislation. When they get serious, it'll begin to read 'serious' as in 'forfeiture of license to practice', etc.