A Kaulkin Ginsberg Publication
B-Line
11/21/2009

Collection Agency Sued for Allegedly Violating Charity Care Law

January 2, 2009
 

A medical collection agency in Washington is being sued by a local law firm over practices that the suit say run afoul of the state's charity care provisions.

Digg!
What's this?

A Washington healthcare collection agency is being sued by a law firm seeking class action status for allegedly violating the state’s charity care law.

In a lawsuit filed on December 8, Seattle-based Phillips Law Group claims that Audit & Adjustment Company, Inc., based in the Seattle suburb of Lynnwood, has systematically engaged in “the unfair, deceptive and misleading practice of telling patients that they owe the full charges shown on hospital billing statements, without informing them that they may be entitled to charity care that reduces the hospital debt or eliminates it entirely depending on a patient’s income level.”

Lead attorneys John Phillips and Matthew Geyman are seeking class action status for the lawsuit filed in King County Superior Court.  In addition to statutory damages on behalf of the plaintiffs for allegedly violating the state’s charity care law, Consumer Protection Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Phillips and Geyman want the agency to stop pursuing collections from charity care- eligible patients.

They are also asking the court to make the agency establish procedures to allow patients to qualify for charity care that it collects on behalf of Washington hospitals, and notify current and former patients the agency has collected from in the past four years that they may be eligible for charity care that may reduce their obligation.   

Under Washington statute RCW 70.170.060, individuals and families with annual incomes below 100 percent of the federal poverty level -- $10,400 for a single person and $42,400 for a family of four living in Washington -- are deemed charity care patients for the full amount of hospital charges, provided that they are not eligible for other public or private health coverage sponsorship. The law also requires various levels of discounts for patients whose annual incomes range from 100 percent to 300 percent of the federal poverty level.  The law entitles charity care-eligible patients who have paid all or portions of their hospital bills to a refund, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that Audit & Adjustment’s profits depend on how much money it gets from each hospital patient and that the agency has a built-in incentive not to allow patients to apply for and obtain charity care once the debt is in collection. It claims that the agency systematically told patients they were not charity care-eligible once their account was in collection.

David Fagan, the company’s collection manger, told insideARM that the company was unable to comment at this time.

Kaulkin Ginsberg Analyst Michael Klozotsky said if the company was found to have violated state statues, the legal and social precedent that follows the judgment could have serious implications for healthcare collection agencies in both Washington and across the country.

“The spirit of the (Washington) law -- that impoverished patients ought to have greater protection, or at least options, under the law -- has already been tarnished in the opinion of many when a hospital creditor and its collection agency partner paint poor patients into a corner.  Even if the lawsuit fails, the case is likely to generate negative publicity for healthcare providers and the accounts receivable management industry.”

CORNERSTONE SUPPORT, INC.

We are a true full-service compliance solution for state licensing, bonding and resident offices. Put Your Licensing & Renewals in Our Hands.

Find out more...

 

Get Hired - jobsInsideARM.comHiring? Post a job - jobsInsideARM.com

Comments

Comment from Anonymous on January 2, 2009 at 2:51PM EST

It appears to me that RCW 70.170.060 governs "hospital or its medical staff". How do collection agencies fall under this code? I was not aware that collection agencies were required to educate the general public on their rights to obtain medical treatment or qualify patients prior to accepting payment of such treatments. Even using the least sophisticated cosumer standard, I think this is a far reach...

Comment from TX Debt Atty on January 2, 2009 at 4:16PM EST

The title to this article is a little misleading . . . it appears that it is a consumer (or an individual, if you like) that is doing the suing, not the law firm.

Comment from me on January 7, 2009 at 10:48AM EST

This is from item number 6 from the law.

An initial determination of sponsorship status shall precede collection efforts directed at the patient.

seems pretty cut and dry to me, It's the hospitals job to determine the availability of charity care and the amount of the discount. Thus it should be their responsibility to properly notify the agency the amount they are owed.

Care to Comment?

(Please read our comments policy first.)

From:
Show my identity with comment

Leave this field empty
Interested in more stories like this?
Tell us what topics you're interested in and we'll keep you posted. Enter your email address below.
Youve Got Claims
Windebt
DCM Services
TransUnion
  • DAKCS
  • West Asset Management
  • CRS
  • B-Line
  • Interactive Data

Log In

Already registered? Log in here.





Forgot your password?

Register for FREE with insideARM

Create an account with insideARM and get access to our FREE newsletters and industry reports.








 

Check all | Uncheck all

Daily news and analysis
* Recommended *
Credit cards
Healthcare
Government/Municipal
Student loans
Mortgage
Auto finance
Collection agency operations
Collection technology
Debt purchasing
Recovery management
Hiring/Staffing
Job opportunities
Leave this field empty
 

You are already registered!

The email address you've entered is already in our database, meaning you've previously registered on insideARM.com.

All you have to do is log in using the form on the left.