Dr. Linda Davis-Reed

Review: At my first appointment with Dr. Linda Davis-Reed on October 8, 2014, she analysed the growth on my back and stated that the diagnosis of the single (1) skin sample she took would be $200.00 for its analysis. She took the sample and said she would advise me of its evaluation. In my second conversation (by telephone) with her she explained that the growth must be removedand an appointment was made for its removal - October 14, 2014. I returned on October 22, 2014 to have the stitches removed and paid for all of the services which were contracted for and provided to me, including the skin sample analysis she did.Shortly thereafter, I receive a bill from UCSF Dermatopathology Services (UCSF) stating that I owe them for three (3) "Microscopic Analysis, IV" (skin sample analysis) - totaling over $400.00. I advised them that I did not contract with them for any services and had paid Dr. Linda Davis-Reed for one (1) skin sample that was taken for analysis and to take the matter up with her.Then a company named PSA Billing sends me a revised bill in December for $280.00 - I emailed them on December 19, 2014, explaining that the bill had been paid to Dr. Linda Davis-Reed and to take the matter up with her.On March 26, 2015, UCSF sends me a revised invoice which shows a $200.00 charge for an analysis and a $60.00 ADJ-CHARITY/MIOAP (credit) and now claims a balance of $140.00.On March 30, 2015, a new company named SCA Collections sent a collection letter stating that "Your partial payment has been received and credited to your account" and they show a new balance of $280.00, after the supposed payment they received. I advised them, via an email, "Your statement is in error... I have made no such payment that you claim you've received and if any payment has been made, it would most likely have come from Dr. Linda Davis-Reeds office or a correction to the billing from UCSF Dermatopathology Service for the services they provide her."Dr Linda Davis-Reed is the responsible party for payment!Desired Settlement: That Dr. Linda Davis-Reed pay for the analysis that I paid her for.

Business

Response:

Dear Sirs:Mr. [redacted] was seen by me in my office as a new patient on 9/2/14. He had a worrisome appearing growth on his left upper back that was biopsied as well as a biopsy of a lesion on the ear. He had two other lesions for which I advised biopsy, but he declined and signed a refusal for treatment on those two lesions. Because he was private pay, I made arrangements with him giving him a 30% discount on my usual fees. There was never any suggestions that I would pay for his pathology charges in my billings to patients. The amount contracted with the patient was for my services along and Mr. [redacted] paid those fees in a timely manner. One of his biopsies proved to be a basal cell skin cancer which I subsequently removed and this specimen was also submitted to UCSF to examine margins to see if the entire tumor was removed, which is the standard of care. The total amount that I collected from Mr. [redacted] for his initial skin exam, biopsies, excision and follow-up was $835.00. His pathology fees for three specimens (the two biopsies, and the excision) was $800.00 from UCSF who offered him the same 30% discount that I had offered him. Clearly, I would not have offered to pay his pathology fees when cost of the pathology is virtually the same as the services I rendered.I aksed UCSF to consider dropping the path charges simply to end this discussion despite the fact that their charges are appropriate and they offered Mr. [redacted] a reduction in their fees in good consience.I am attaching Mr. [redacted] medical records as well as his charges for his visits. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.Sincerely yours,Linda Davis-Reed MD