ILNews

Justices grill both sides in IU Health case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The five justices on the Indiana Supreme Court asked feisty questions of both sides in the case in which two Indiana University Health patients have argued that hospital “chargemaster” rates are unreasonable.

Much of the nearly 45 minutes of arguments and questioning on May 10 involved the justices and the lawyers for both parties trying unsuccessfully to apply various scenarios from the retail world of commerce to health care pricing.

Car dealerships, landscape crews and other retailers were invoked hypothetically to try to reason through why IU Health could claim that uninsured patients Abby Allen and Walter Moore had contractually agreed to pay any and all charges it assessed them – even without naming a price or referring to a price guide.

“Where in the world can a patient know what standard is going to be applied?” acting Chief Justice Brent Dickson asked Jon Laramore, the attorney representing IU Health.

But Laramore said in the world of health care, those models don’t really apply because hospitals constantly use profitable lines of service to support unprofitable ones, such as neonatal intensive care units. Also, hospitals face unfunded federal mandates, such as the requirement to stabilize all patients – regardless of their ability to pay – before transferring them to any other medical facility.

“Providers have to think of their prices in a different way [than retailers],” Laramore told the justices. He added, “It’s a complicated process.”

Meanwhile, Jerry Garau, the attorney representing Allen and Moore, had the difficult case of arguing how his clients had not breached their contracts with IU Health by failing to pay any of their bills. Allen was billed more than $15,600; Moore was billed $1,138.

The justices pressed him on how IU Health could name a price in its contracts with Allen and Moore – both of whom came to the IU Health North emergency room in Carmel – when it could not know in advance what treatment they would require or even their insurance status.

“What would you suggest that the hospital do when somebody checks in and they’re uninsured,” asked the court’s newest justice, Mark Massa. “Are they to give them the manual of every possible, conceivable operation or procedure that might befall them?”

Garau’s answer? IU Health’s billing of Allen and Moore was invalid because their contracts failed to disclose a price, but even more so because IU Health failed to assess a reasonable price.

“There had to be something in the contract that would allow a reasonable consumer to ascertain the price,” Garau said, adding later, “If the price isn’t going to be disclosed, there is an obligation that the price be reasonable.”

Laramore countered that IU Health charged Allen and Moore standard prices, based on IU Health’s “chargemaster” price list. They just were not given the discounts the hospital system has negotiated with health insurance companies.

The trouble is that hospitals have aggressively hiked those chargemaster rates over the past decade more as a negotiating tactic with health insurers than to reflect the true costs of providing care.

Therefore, Garau argued, Allen and Moore should be given the chance to have a jury compare their bills against the typical payments for the services they received, to determine if they were indeed reasonable.

“What a hospital charges to 90 percent of its patients is certainly relevant,” Garau said.

IU Health won the first round in this 2-year-old fight when a Marion Superior judge dismissed the patients’ lawsuit. But after the state appeals court reversed that decision in October, remanding the case, IU Health appealed to the state’s highest court.

If Allen’s and Moore’s case is allowed to go to trial, it will be significant because their attorneys have promised to seek class-action status on behalf of all uninsured IU Health patients back to the year 2000. And they have their eyes on the patients of other Indiana hospitals, too.

IU Health now gives a standard 40 percent discount off its chargemaster prices to uninsured patients, but the discount was 20 percent until last year.

IU Health’s 20 hospitals around the state provide a significant amount of unpaid care each year, noted its spokeswoman Lauren Cislak. In 2011, it cared for 50,000 patients who could not or did not pay their entire bills, which resulted in unpaid costs of nearly $200 million. IU Health also provided nearly $122 million in free care to low-income patients.

IU Health’s revenue in 2011 totaled more than $4 billion.

It is unclear when the Indiana Supreme Court will make a ruling in the case.•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT