The explanation: “Because the instrument used in the cleaning process is considered a surgical instrument, the procedure is considered to be surgery.”
Related posts:
- A man sues a surgeon for removing his foreskin
- The dynamics between the surgeon and anesthesiologist in the operating room
- At what point do surgical innovations give diminishing returns?
- MRIs breed MRSA
- Is your surgeon good at video games?
- JoPa: "Slapping more duct tape on the problem"
- Glenn Beck and nicer doctors
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 4 comments }
The patient wants to quibble about whether this is a surgical procedure and warrants such a charge.
I wonder why this is not considered a hygiene issue and whey they would expect the insurer to pick up any part of the bill. There are pleanty of OTC fixes for ear wax. Unless the patient has one of a few rare skin disorders that seriously predispose the canal to becomming plugged with wax, it is just normal hygiene.
I seriously doubt the average person is aware this could be considered a surgical procedure and billed as such. It makes me wonder if the cost was even discussed ahead of time, or whether an OTC remedy was suggested first.
Yeah, yeah, I know, we consumers should all be more informed. But seriously, how would anyone even know to ask in this situation?
It smells of upcoding to me, frankly.
He’s taking the risk of perforating his eardrum, he should get paid.
This is one of those situations where I would just like to see how much it would cost someone, just walking around the street looking for takers, to get anyone to pick, squirt or suck out their earwax. How much would you have to offer anyone, never mind a physician?
$913, materials and time is a bargain, or at least a fair price.
Comments on this entry are closed.