#National Regulatory code for OTT | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

bbcbreakingnews · 3 years

Text

Looking at a new code for news channels: Javadekar

NEW DELHI: The government is examining ways to strengthen the regulatory mechanism for news media besides considering a new code of conduct for TV news channels, I&B minister Prakash Javadekar said on Monday. Addressing a webinar on the occasion of National Press Day, Javadekar made it clear that while the government did not want to interfere in news media, some regulatory issues were under his ministry’s consideration. “Freedom of press is being discussed again today and I said that the way press freedom is being attacked, that is not good… Press Council of India (PCI) is another mechanism of self-regulation. Though the head is appointed by the government, it has representatives of press owners, editors, journalists, photographers and parliamentarians. But people are demanding that the PCI should be given more powers. That is also being considered,” he said.

Times View

The Vice-President’s words are comforting. But the real picture on the ground is quite disturbing and depressing. In recent months, many journalists have been summarily detained or arrested by state governments. Journalist Walter Lippman once said, “A free press is …an organic necessity in a great society.” Every democracy must remember that.

Noting the absence of a Press Council-like body to regulate TV news even though he referred to the National Broadcasting Standards Authority as an institution where “anyone can complain to them and they even punish the erring channels”, Javadekar said, “But there are many channels that are not even members of that… and they have no restrictions… Such a system cannot exist…” He voiced similar concerns for digital and OTT platforms, which are governed neither by any PCI-like system, nor by any formal self-regulatory mechanism. The minister also said the I&B ministry was looking into ways to strengthen the TV ratings mechanism, adding that the government deliberately never interfered with BARC as advertisers and broadcasters were on the same page. “Now the time has come that we have to interfere… How to kill the possibility of manipulation, we have created a committee for it, and it will give a report soon on what is possible,” he said. In a written message, President Ram Nath Kovind lauded mediapersons as front-line corona warriors who played an important role in educating people and mitigating the impact of the pandemic. In a video-message, Vice-President M Venkaiah Naidu condemned attacks on press freedom and said any such move was detrimental to national interests. Naidu said, “Democracy cannot survive without a free and fearless press.” Naidu, however, added that the media must be fair, objective and accurate in its reporting.

The post Looking at a new code for news channels: Javadekar appeared first on BreakingNews.

source https://bbcbreakingnews.com/2020/11/17/looking-at-a-new-code-for-news-channels-javadekar/

0 notes

seawitchwadda · 7 years

Text

PLEASE READ AND REBLOG! I, and every other animal caretaking place (such as boarding kennels, pet retreats, and shelters) in South Carolina could use your help.

A bill is about to be proposed called the Animal Caretaker Bill 3069, and it is about to put not only my place of business, but also almost every other animal caretaking facility out of business. Here’s what one of my bosses has put together regarding info about it, as well as a template for an email/letter/phone call to send to your representative:

ATTENTION ANIMAL LOVERS: I need your help! There is proposed legislation that will skyrocket boarding, daycare and training costs and put many facilities out of business. It could ruin our animal care business as we know it in SC. Please help get the word out and CONTACT OUR REPS THIS WEEKEND. It goes to the committee on Tuesday! January 6th, 2016 Dear Animal Advocates, My name is [name redacted], the owner of Chucktown Charley, a boutique pet retreat in Charleston, SC and Well Mannered Dog. I am writing to you in regards to the bill that Representative Sottile is proposing to Article 3 to Chapter 69, Title 40, as to provide for the regulation of commercial kennel operators and certified animal caretakers. Several of the proposed items listed in the bill which are of MAJOR concern for our industry: The bill proposes that the regulatory board would be composed of 9 members; 6 are vets that operate a kennel or boarding facility from each district. The other 2 are listed as pet owners appointed by the public. (They didn’t even get the number of people for the board committee correct). Each member will receive a per diem pay for subsistence and mileage; which will affect tax payers. We propose that current daycare/boarding owners or a nationally renowned organization member be on the board who know and understand our businesses. The bill proposes that all hires must themselves pay for a temporary certificate to work until they take a certification examination. They won’t be eligible for examination unless they are bonded for no less than $10,000 by the facility. Child daycare centers do not even have rules and regulations this strict for new hires. No one would want to work in our industry, nor would the owners of the facilities be able to afford this much insurance per employee. The consequences stated for daycare and boarding owners are listed at $5000 in fines and/or a year in jail if they do not comply with the proposed rules and regulations. This consequence is excessive and should be reconsidered. As we all know, the need for rules and regulations are necessary for the health and safety of pets in a dog daycare and or boarding facility. The daycare and boarding industry has been evolving over the last 5 years with the assistance of nationally renowned organizations: The Dog Gurus who offer an off leash training course and continuing education resource for staff and pet owners, Professional Animal Care Certification Council formed to provide formal recognition that pet care providers, managers and owners possess a certain level of knowledge and skill set in their field, and the International Boarding & Pet Services Association who also provide continuing education and training for staff and owners. Chucktown Charley does take the time to properly train our staff. Not all daycare and boarding centers are failing in their standards of care. We strive for excellence in everything we do. Any group interactions at our facility are supervised by a trainer with 20 years of behavior experience. We are asking you to reach out to our local representatives to help STOP this bill. They need to be contacted as soon as possible as the bill goes to the agricultural committee on Tuesday. If you need us to email you the contacts and links, let us know your email or you can find online at sc.statehouse.gov. The Dog Gurus, the IBPSA and the PACCC have standards in place for our industry that can help South Carolina, without extra expenses to the state as well as putting an undo financial burden on the workforce and the facility owners. And let's be real, these costs will only extend to the animal owners and taxpayers. Thank you for time and attention to this matter. We hope that you will consider the impact the proposed bill will have on small businesses from the employees to the owners. Thank you, [name redacted]

Here’s a link to the proposal: http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess122_2017-2018/bills/3069.htm

So there’s the basic gist of it, here’s what you can do to help: email and call your representatives, especially Monday 1/9/2017, as the bill goes up on Tuesday 1/9/2017.

The committee members are:

Committee Office Information Phone: (803) 734-3022 Room Number: Blatt 411

David R. Hiott, Chairman V. Stephen "Steve" Moss, 1st V.C. William M. "Bill" Hixon, 2nd V.C. Chandra E. Dillard, Secy. Frank "Lucas" Atkinson Justin T. Bamberg James Mikell "Mike" Burns William M. "Bill" Chumley Christopher A. Corley Sylleste H. Davis Gregory D. "Greg" Duckworth Cally R. "Cal" Forrest Kevin Hardee Lee Hewitt Roger K. Kirby Richard "Rick" Martin Russell L. Ott Robert Q. Williams

And here’s the sample letter/email/script you can use:

Your Name Address City, S.C. Zip Code

[Insert Date]

The Honorable [Insert Representative’s Name] Post Office Box 11867 Columbia, S.C. 29211-1867

Dear Representative [Insert Last Name]:

My name is [Insert Your Name] and I reside at [Insert Your Address] in [Insert Your City], South Carolina. I have been a pet owner and animal lover for [insert number of years]

I am writing you regarding the bill 3069 proposing to article 3 to Chapter 69 Title 40, as to provide regulation of commercial operators and animal caretakers.I am very concerned what this bill will mean for [insert the animal care facility or pet sitter or trainer you currently use]. If they are even able to keep their business open and afford the new outrageous insurance and certifications, the prices they will need to charge their clients, to pay their employees and new expenses, will skyrocket making it difficult to afford [if your pet attends a facility or has an animal caretaker that you love be very specific in how you will be affected if this bill should pass]. The new requirements would also cause a hardship to those currently employed in this industry, some who have worked for decades lovingly caring for animals.

I appreciate your help and ask that you please send me a response letting me know you are looking into this and will grant an audience to the industry that this bill directly affects.

Thank you for your time and considering my request.

Sincerely,

(Your Name)

If you’ve gotten this far, thank you for taking the time to read and hopefully taking the time to act. I wish I’d known about this threat to my livelihood sooner, but here we are. Any reblogging and signal boosting you can do would be awesome, as I and many others would really, really love not to lose our place of business and our life’s passion.

I myself have just sent a letter to my representative, and I will be calling at some point tomorrow as well. Words would not be able to express how much I and others in my field would appreciate y’all doing the same.

#animal caretaker bill #dogs #south carolina #dog #cats #PLEASE REBLOG #personal bluh #I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO NOT LOSE THE BEST JOB OF MY LIFE AND MY PLACE OF RESIDENCE IN ONE FELL SWOOP #NOT TO MENTION ALL THE OTHER PLACES THAT WORK SO HARD TO TAKE CARE OF EVERYONE'S FUR BABIES #I'M LEGIT SCARED YOU GUYS #THIS IS ALL I'VE EVER WANTED TO DO IN MY LIFE AND WE DO SUCH GOOD THINGS #LIKE NOT SAYING OUR FIELD DOESN'T REQUIRE REFORM BUT NOT IN A WAY THAT WOULD CREATE A MONOPOLY FOR ALREADY RICH PEOPLE

27 notes · View notes

marymosley · 4 years

Text

Certification and Censorship in OTT platforms

“An entrepreneur searches for change, responds to the change and exploits opportunities. Innovation is a very specific tool of an entrepreneur hence an effective entrepreneur converts a source into a resource.”

-PETER DRUCKER

INTRODUCTION

An OTT or Over The Top media service is a direct streaming service, which basically delivers audio and video streaming content through the internet without subscribing to a traditional satellite services provider. There are three types of OTT – Communications, Video content, and Application ecosystem. Two broad categories of OTT services are communication and non-communication. Some of the most popular OTT video streaming video platforms include Hotstar, Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Hulu, Zee5, Voot etc. and audio streaming services include apple music, Spotify etc.

HISTORY AND GROWTH OF OTT IN INDIA

It is known to everyone that the primary source of entertainment in the Indian household was the Television. The entire family’s recreation was based on Television and which was restricted to either daily soaps, sports or news. But the scenario has changed to a very large extent and the digital content is growing in the country. In the last few months, there has been a paradigm shift in the OTT market resulting in changes in daily entertainment consumption pattern in India. The popularity of OTT platforms is not only restricted to urban areas but has become very popular in the rural areas as well.

The first dependent Indian OTT platform was Bigflix which was launched in 2008 by Reliance entertainment. In India, significant momentum was gained by OTT when Ditto TV and Sony Liv were launched in the Indian market around 2013. Hotstar, owned by Star India is the most subscribed to OTT platform in India, as of July 2020 with around 300 million active users and over 350 million downloads. The Indian OTT space is populated by many players. In 2018, the OTT was valued at ₹21.5B. The video OTT revenue in India was ₹2,019 Cr. in 2017. It is expected to reach ₹5,955 Cr. by 2022.[1] It is also reported that the Indian OTT market will soon outperform the global OTT market and will probably be ranked among the top 10 by 2022.

The factors that have helped in this growth and success of OTT platforms are pricing of these platforms and internet access to people, even staying in rural and remote areas. These factors have helped a lot in the popularity of the OTT platforms.

Although the negative repercussions going on because of the ongoing lock down amid the corona virus pandemic cannot be ignored but it has been a blessing in disguise for some. OTT platforms have benefited a lot from the current situation going on in India. There has been a surge of 80% in the subscriber bases of OTT platforms amid the lock down.[2]

REGULATIONS APPLICABLE ON OTT PLATFORMS

The rapid growth of OTT services has raised a number of national policy issues relating to regulatory imbalances and security concerns that need to be addressed. The regulatory imbalances need examination at various levels by the government. The OTT operators are adopting voluntary codes of self-regulation with respect to the content shown on their platforms. Code of best practices was signed by some of the famous OTT platforms in the country namely Hotstar, Netflix, ALT Balaji along with other in the year 2019. The major objective of this code is to empower consumers to make informed choices on age appropriate content and also protect the consumers’ interests in choosing and accessing the content they like as per their own time and convenience.

It is known to everyone that films in the country are required to follow certain certification rules and television programs’ broadcasters must adhere to the Program and Advertising code, on the other hand the producers of web series, films and other various content released only online or on digital platforms are free from the struggle of censorship or any code, which are subject to provisions of Information Technology Act, 2000 since a very long time. This was confirmed by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting when a query was filed under RTI Act, 2005 where it was confirmed that the Central Board of Film Certification has no control over online content but solely certifies movies for theatrical release.[3]

CONTENT BASED REGULATION

According to sections 67A, 67B, and 67C of IT Act provides a penalty and imprisonment for publishing or transmitting obscene material, sexually explicit material or material showing children in sexually explicit acts, in electronic form. The Central Government has the power to issue directions to block public access of any information, if found objectionable as per section 69A of the IT Act. It was also seen in 2015, when the Department of Telecommunications directed intermediaries to disable around 800 websites containing pornographic material, however it was later clarified that only websites having child pornographic content is to be disabled by the intermediaries and not the others. The framework and provisions under the Intermediary Guidelines which were laid by the Department of Electronics and Information Technology to observe the information hosted on any computer of intermediary is also applicable on OTT platforms, which qualifies as intermediaries under the IT Act.

Furthermore, the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are also applicable to the OTT platforms. For example, OTT platforms are subject to section 295A of the IPC which criminalizes deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.

Recently, there also have been suggestions to include online content explicitly within the ambit of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 to prohibit the indecent representation of women in various books, films, advertisements etc.

NEED TO REGULATE OTT PLATFORM

Until present time, it generally appears that online content is unbridled and the creators of the content are exercising their liberties to the fullest. However, it is not correct to conclude that the OTT platforms are free from censorship or absolutely unregulated just because there is no set of rules and guidelines to focus upon the manner of censorship or certification of the online content or certain rules highlighting the do’s and don’ts for the creators of online content.

A Consultation paper was published by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) on November 2018 to regulate framework for OTT platforms in the country. The Consultation paper mainly focussed on the analysis of the growth of OTT platforms, to keep a check on the relationship between TSP and OTT players and also to maintain a rigid framework to be followed to regulate OTT platforms. This Consultation paper was considered important because of imbalances between TSP and OTT service providers, especially when the use of OTT platforms took a surge and its popularity increased to a very great extent.

SOCIOLOGICAL FACTORS AFFECTING CONTENT REGULATION ON INTERNET MEDIUMS

The arrival of Web 2.0 has revolutionized India in many ways. The reception of information through the digital medium has expanded manifold in recent years. The Internet is seen as a new liberation force driving ideas, thoughts and content across border and societies. It has led to the emergence of new actors and allowed consumers to be charge of selecting the content they want to receive and view. The internet has revolutionized the means of communication and exchange of information. It has brought to the forefront a new medium of expression.

User-generated content has proliferated across online video portals. Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) and OTT services fundamentally changed the broadcasting sector. The Internet has brought about a new wave of content, providing consumers with the freedom to choose the time and space for the reception of the content. Video streaming services create a more engaging environment. But the shift from cable television to OTT services has forced regulators to think about the patterns of regulation that most fit this new form of broadcasting.

OTT services do not have one universally accepted definition. The Internet Telecommunication Union (ITU) defines OTT service as an “internet application that may substitute or supplement traditional telecommunication services, from voice calls and text messaging to video and broadcast services.” [4]The Indian communications regulator, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), also borrows the same definition as mentioned above.

The Indian government and other regulatory bodies have not tried to adjust policies to the change in technologies. The debate in India about digital content regulation has varied between calls for state censorship and self-regulation.[5] The dilemma that authorities have been faced with is whether to subject the OTT media platforms to broadcast or films policies or to include it in the larger internet regulation frameworks.

RECENT ISSUES AND REGULATIONS ON OTT PLATFORMS

Recently, Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal asked the entertainment industry to self – regulate their programmes on OTT platforms as they portray India poorly.[6] His statement is significant, the reason being that the government’s proposal of an institutional self-regulatory model, just like conventional media, which was rejected by most of the OTT platforms.

The Information and Broadcasting (I&B) Ministry has just recently proposed bringing under its purview the contents being streamed on the several OTT platforms as said by a top official of the ministry.[7] It was said that the regulation regimes have developed a lot but popular platform like OTT is unregulated by such regime and also has no regulations over it. Since the usage of OTT platforms have witnessed a huge increase in their subscription amid the lock-down, therefore it important for them to be regulated under the regimes.

Apart from this, last year, Chief Minister of Bihar, Nitish Kumar, wrote a letter to the Prime Minister stating that the OTT platforms are responsible for the spike in violence and crimes against women and children, therefore the content should be censored. In his letter, he also suggested an amendment to the Cinematography Act of 1952 which does not clearly define “public exhibition” of films and whether certificate is needed for private browsing.[8]

CONCLUSION

The need of a proper framework of rules and regulations is very important for the OTT platforms at this time, keeping in mind the increasing popularity of these platforms. The display of obscene or sexual explicit material on these platforms might create a bad influence on the young minds, therefore regulation is necessary. With the surge in the subscription base of these platforms, other industry players and stake holders might have a clash with the OTT platforms and thus to keep that in check a proper and effective framework of rules and guidelines should be made for these platforms.

[1] https://www.startupstories.in/stories/the-rise-of-ott-platforms-in-india

[2] https://government.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/digital-india/ott-platforms-to-take-over-cinema-due-to-lockdown/74979023

[3] RTI application dated October 25, 2016, received online vide registration number MOIAB/R/2016/50541 and MIB’s response dated December 2, 2016.

[4] “ICT Regulation Toolkit,” available online at http://www.ictregulationtoolkit.org/toolkit/2.5.2 (accessed on 30 May 2019)

[5] Arjun Rajkhowa, “The Spectre of Censorship: Media Regulation, Political Anxiety and Public Contestations in India (2011–2013),” Media, Culture & Society 37 (6): 867–86, 2015, see more at https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0163443715584099

[6] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/policy/self-regulate-ott-platforms-piyush-goyal-to-industry/articleshow/76910852.cms

[7] https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/ib-ministry-wants-ott-platform-content-under-its-purview/article32019254.ece

[8] https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/nitish-kumar-asks-pm-to-censor-streaming-platforms-cites-vulgar-content-2249934

The post Certification and Censorship in OTT platforms appeared first on Legal Desire.

Certification and Censorship in OTT platforms published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/

0 notes

stephenmccull · 4 years

Text

COVID Catch-22: They Got A Big ER Bill Because Hospitals Couldn’t Test For Virus

Fresh off a Caribbean cruise in early March, John Campbell developed a cough and fever of 104 degrees. He went to his primary care physician and got a flu test, which came up negative.

Then things got strange. Campbell said the doctor then turned to him and said, “I’ve called the ER next door, and you need to go there. This is a matter of public health. They’re expecting you.”

Special Reports

Bill Of The Month

Feb 13

Bill of the Month is a crowdsourced investigation by Kaiser Health News and NPR that dissects and explains medical bills.

It was March 3, and no one had an inkling yet of just how bad the COVID-19 pandemic would become in the U.S.

At the JFK Medical Center near his home in Boynton Beach, Florida, staffers met him in protective gear, then ran a battery of tests — including bloodwork, a chest X-ray and an electrocardiogram — before sending him home. But because he had not traveled to China — a leading criterion at the time for coronavirus testing — Campbell was not swabbed for the virus.

A $2,777 bill for the emergency room visit came the next month.

Now Campbell, 52, is among those who say they were wrongly billed for the costs associated with seeking a COVID-19 diagnosis.

While most insurers have promised to cover the costs of testing and related services — and Congress passed legislation in mid-March enshrining that requirement — there’s a catch: The law requires the waiver of patient cost sharing only when a test is ordered or administered.

And therein lies the problem. In the early weeks of the pandemic and through mid-April in many places, testing was often limited to those with specific symptoms or situations, likely excluding thousands of people who had milder cases of the virus or had not traveled overseas.

“They do pay for the test, but I didn’t have the test,” said Campbell, who appealed the bill to his insurer, Florida Blue. More on how that turned out later.

Don't Miss A Story

Subscribe to KHN’s free Weekly Edition newsletter.

Please confirm your email address below:

“These loopholes exist,” said Wendell Potter, a former insurance industry executive who is now an industry critic. “We’re just relying on these companies to act in good faith.”

Exacerbating the problem: Many of these patients were directed to go to hospital emergency departments — the most expensive place to get care — which can result in huge bills for patients-deductible insurance.

More From Our Bill Of The Month Series

COVID-Like Cough Sent Him To ER — Where He Got A $3,278 Bill May 25

COVID Tests Are Free, Except When They’re Not Apr 29

Her Genetic Test Revealed A Microscopic Problem — And A Jumbo Price Tag Mar 31

Hormone Blocker Shocker: Drug Costs 8 Times More When Used For Kids Feb 24

Appendicitis Is Painful — Add A $41,212 Surgery Bill To The Misery Jan 29

Insurers say they fully cover costs when patients are tested for the coronavirus, but what happens with enrollees who sought a test — but were not given one — is less clear.

KHN asked nine national and regional insurers for specifics about how they are handling these situations.

Results were mixed. Three — UnitedHealthcare, Kaiser Permanente and Anthem — said they do some level of automatic review of potential COVID-related claims from earlier in the pandemic, while a fourth, Quartz, said it would investigate and waive cost sharing for suspected COVID patients if the member asks for a review. Humana said it is reviewing claims made in early March, but only those showing confirmed or suspected COVID. Florida Blue, similarly, said it is manually reviewing claims, but only those involving COVID tests or diagnoses. The remaining insurers pointed to other efforts, such as routine audits that look for all sorts of errors, along with efforts to train hospitals and doctors in the proper COVID billing codes to use to ensure patients aren’t incorrectly hit with cost sharing. Those were Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, CIGNA and the Health Care Services Corp., which operates Blues plans in Illinois, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas.

All nine said patients should reach out to them or appeal a claim if they suspect an error.

To be sure, it would be a complex effort for insurers to go back over claims from March and April, looking for patients that might qualify for a more generous interpretation of the cost waiver because they were unable to get a coronavirus test. And there’s nothing in the CARES Act passed by Congress — or subsequent guidance from regulatory agencies — about what to do in such situations.

Still, insurers could review claims, for example, by looking for patients who received chest X-rays, and diagnoses of pneumonia or high fever and cough, checking to see if any might qualify as suspected COVID cases, even if they were not given a diagnostic test, said Potter.

One thing was clear from the responses: Much of the burden falls on patients who think they’ve been wrongly billed to call that to the attention of the insurer and the hospital, urgent care center or doctor’s office where they were treated.

John Campbell developed a cough and fever of 104 degrees in early March, was directed to an ER and ultimately received a $2,777 bill for the visit. He is among those who say they were wrongly billed for the costs associated with seeking a COVID-19 diagnosis.(Courtesy of John Campbell)

Some states have broader mandates that could be read to require the waiver of cost sharing even if a COVID test was not ordered or administered, said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor and co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University.

But no matter where you live, she said, patients who get bills they think are incorrect should contest them. “I’ve heard a lot of comments that claims are not coded properly,” said Corlette. “Insurers and providers are on a learning curve. If you get a bill, ask for a review.”

Scarce Tests, Rampant Virus

In some places, including the state of Indiana, the city of Los Angeles and St. Louis County, Missouri, a test is now offered to anyone who seeks one. Until recently, tests were scarce and essentially rationed, even though more comprehensive testing could have helped health officials battle the epidemic.

But even in the early weeks, when Campbell and many others sought a diagnosis, insurers nationwide were promising to cover the cost of testing and related services. That was good PR and good public health: Removing cost barriers to testing means more people will seek care and thus could prevent others from being infected. Currently, the majority of insurers offering job-based or Affordable Care Act insurance say they are fully waiving copays, deductibles and other fees for testing, as long as the claims are coded correctly. (The law does not require short-term plans to waive cost sharing.) Some insurers have even promised to fully cover the cost of treatment for COVID, including hospital care.

But getting stuck with a sizable bill has become commonplace. “I only went in because I was really sick and I thought I had it,” said Rayone Moyer, 63, of La Crosse, Wisconsin, who was extra concerned because she has diabetes. “I had a hard time breathing when I was doing stuff.”

On March 27, she went to Gundersen Lutheran Medical Center, which is in her Quartz insurance network, complaining of body aches and shortness of breath. Those symptoms could be COVID-related, but could also signal other conditions. While there, she was given an array of tests, including bloodwork, a chest X-ray and a CT scan.

She was billed in May: $2,421 by the hospital and more than $350 in doctor bills.

“My insurance applied the whole thing to my deductible,” she said. “Because they refused to test me, I’ve got to pay the bill. No one said, ‘Hey, we’ll give you $3,000 worth of tests instead of the $100 COVID test,’” she said.

Quartz spokesperson Christina Ott said patients with concerns like Moyer’s should call the insurance company’s customer service number and ask for an appeals specialist. The insurer, she wrote in response to KHN’s survey of insurers, will waive cost sharing for some members who sought a diagnosis.

“During the public health emergency, if the member presented with similar symptoms as COVID, but didn’t receive a COVID-19 test and received testing for other illnesses on an outpatient basis, then cost sharing would be waived,” she wrote.

Moyer said she has filed an appeal and was notified by the insurer of a review expected in mid-July. Back in Florida, Campbell filed an appeal of his bill with Florida Blue on April 22, but didn’t hear anything until the day after a KHN reporter called the insurer about his case in June.

Then, Campbell received phone calls from Florida Blue representatives. A supervisor apologized, saying the insurer should not have billed him and that 100% of his costs would be covered.

“Basically they said, ‘We’ve changed our minds,’” said Campbell. “Because I was there so early on, and the bill was coded incorrectly.”

COVID Catch-22: They Got A Big ER Bill Because Hospitals Couldn’t Test For Virus published first on https://smartdrinkingweb.weebly.com/

0 notes

dinafbrownil · 4 years

Text

COVID Catch-22: They Got A Big ER Bill Because Hospitals Couldn’t Test For Virus

Fresh off a Caribbean cruise in early March, John Campbell developed a cough and fever of 104 degrees. He went to his primary care physician and got a flu test, which came up negative.

Special Reports

Bill Of The Month

Feb 13

Bill of the Month is a crowdsourced investigation by Kaiser Health News and NPR that dissects and explains medical bills.

It was March 3, and no one had an inkling yet of just how bad the COVID-19 pandemic would become in the U.S.

A $2,777 bill for the emergency room visit came the next month.

Now Campbell, 52, is among those who say they were wrongly billed for the costs associated with seeking a COVID-19 diagnosis.

“They do pay for the test, but I didn’t have the test,” said Campbell, who appealed the bill to his insurer, Florida Blue. More on how that turned out later.

Don't Miss A Story

Subscribe to KHN’s free Weekly Edition newsletter.

Please confirm your email address below:

“These loopholes exist,” said Wendell Potter, a former insurance industry executive who is now an industry critic. “We’re just relying on these companies to act in good faith.”