Air Monty

Dear Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] If the billing department would have done their job efficiently and effectively, this matter would have been resolved a while ago and I wouldn't have numerous messages left on my answering machine from them Rude, inappropriate, and unprofessional messages I might add that lead me to call the local Police Department, allow them to listen to these messages, and have them contact the business to tell them to essentially "stop harassing me and my family." Since this IS a [redacted] health organization, I'm very surprised of this behavior that was taken with one of their clients And over a $co-insurance that they claimed was owed Again, I had explained to them numerous times that we had fulfilled our yearly out-of-pocket deductible and NO co-insurance was required Both I and my husband had told them I had called the claims division of the insurance on NUMEROUS occasions to verify this and they said they had sent an EOB to the company Must have fallen on deaf ears since the response letter claims they call upon the insurance companies all the time and claimed they had called my carrier on two separate occasions and I owed a co-insurance If that was a true statement, then they have been down this road before with a client and their insurance and they would have known how to properly proceed to make sure the client doesn't feel threatened and they would have their bill paid for by the insurance company in full, in which it was.Since this is part of a very tragic situation that involves residual effects from a car accident, I'd expect more professional behavior from a company like this I accept the business's response to part of the claim admitting I or my husband do not owe any funds As for the explanation, that's garbage Regards, [redacted]

Response to Revdex.com April 12, To: [redacted] ***, Dispute Resolution Specialist RE: ID [redacted] Dear Ms***: This letter is in response to the above complaint given to us by the Revdex.com in a letter dated March 31, We appreciate the comment in your letter that the Revdex.com is not passing judgment on our business or the merit of the complaint and that you are asking for our position and any resolution we can offerIt is the purpose of this letter to accomplish both of these goals One of our goals at NCFF is to provide a high level of professionalism and service to all of our clients We are a [redacted] health services firm and we are in constant contact with a wide variety of insurance companiesWe routinely call insurance companies to verify benefits and in fact this task comprises a major portion of our customary workdayI mention this to establish that we are quite experienced in this areaIt is our practice that when a client requests services we call the insurance company as a courtesy to our clients because we are experienced in navigating the bureaucratic maze that the client is oftentimes not and we therefore expedite the process for our mutual benefitHowever, we also encourage our clients to do the same so they are in the loop, as they say In the present case this is what we did: NCFF called the individual's insurance company and were told that the client had a $co-payAgain, this is a routine practice and we thought nothing of it However, the client called the same insurance company and was told something differentShe was told that there was no co-payWe again called the insurance company in an attempt to resolve the matter and were told that in fact there was a $co-paySince we were told this directly by the insurance company on two separate occasions we accepted this as fact and proceeded accordinglyAfter a couple of phone calls back and forth the client told us to call a different number at the insurance company which we did and were then told that the client's co-pay was zeroThis settled the matter for us and our position is that the matter is resolved, the client owes us $0, and we will not be contacting the client again I point out to the Revdex.com that it is not unusual for us to call the same insurance company at different times and get different representatives each of whom give us different answers to the same question regarding, for example, co-pays and/or deductiblesThis is highly frustrating, to say the least, and sometimes results in misunderstandings between our firm and a given clientThat is what happened in this caseIn my view, neither NCFF nor the client are to blame; instead, the insurance company was responsible for providing clarity and apparently their left hand didn't know what their right hand was doing resulting in the present confusion I further point out that Jeanne has been with us for many years and has often been praised by both clients and clinicians for her thoroughness and expertise in insurance mattersWhile I realize this is anecdotal information, I will defend her professionalism and manner in the way she performs her job functions Sincerely, Charles FM [redacted] Ph.D

Response to Revdex.com
April 12, 2016
To: [redacted], Dispute Resolution Specialist RE: ID [redacted]
Dear Ms. [redacted]:
This letter is in response to the above complaint given to us by the Revdex.com in a letter dated March 31, 2016. We appreciate the comment in your letter that the Revdex.com is not passing judgment...

on our business or the merit of the complaint and that you are asking for our position and any resolution we can offer. It is the purpose of this letter to accomplish both of these goals.
One of our goals at NCFF is to provide a high level of professionalism and service to all of our clients.
We are a [redacted] health services firm and we are in constant contact with a wide variety of insurance companies. We routinely call insurance companies to verify benefits and in fact this task comprises a major portion of our customary workday. I mention this to establish that we are quite experienced in this area. It is our practice that when a client requests services we call the insurance company as a courtesy to our clients because we are experienced in navigating the bureaucratic maze that the client is oftentimes not and we therefore expedite the process for our mutual benefit. However, we also encourage our clients to do the same so they are in the loop, as they say.
In the present case this is what we did: NCFF called the individual's insurance company and were told that the client had a $20 co-pay. Again, this is a routine practice and we thought nothing of it.
However, the client called the same insurance company and was told something different. She was told that there was no co-pay. We again called the insurance company in an attempt to resolve the matter and were told that in fact there was a $20 co-pay. Since we were told this directly by the insurance company on two separate occasions we accepted this as fact and proceeded accordingly. After a couple of phone calls back and forth the client told us to call a different number at the insurance company which we did and were then told that the client's co-pay was zero. This settled the matter for us and our position is that the matter is resolved, the client owes us $0, and we will not be contacting the client again.
I point out to the Revdex.com that it is not unusual for us to call the same insurance company at different times and get different representatives each of whom give us different answers to the same question regarding, for example, co-pays and/or deductibles. This is highly frustrating, to say the least, and sometimes results in misunderstandings between our firm and a given client. That is what happened in this case. In my view, neither NCFF nor the client are to blame; instead, the insurance company was responsible for providing clarity and apparently their left hand didn't know what their right hand was doing resulting in the present confusion.
I further point out that Jeanne has been with us for many years and has often been praised by both clients and clinicians for her thoroughness and expertise in insurance matters. While I realize this is anecdotal information, I will defend her professionalism and manner in the way she performs her job functions.
Sincerely,  Charles F. M[redacted] Ph.D.

Response to Revdex.com
April 12, 2016
To: [redacted], Dispute Resolution Specialist RE: ID [redacted]
Dear Ms. [redacted]:
This letter is in response to the above complaint given to us by the Revdex.com in a letter dated March 31, 2016. We appreciate the comment in your letter...

that the Revdex.com is not passing judgment on our business or the merit of the complaint and that you are asking for our position and any resolution we can offer. It is the purpose of this letter to accomplish both of these goals.
One of our goals at NCFF is to provide a high level of professionalism and service to all of our clients.
We are a [redacted] health services firm and we are in constant contact with a wide variety of insurance companies. We routinely call insurance companies to verify benefits and in fact this task comprises a major portion of our customary workday. I mention this to establish that we are quite experienced in this area. It is our practice that when a client requests services we call the insurance company as a courtesy to our clients because we are experienced in navigating the bureaucratic maze that the client is oftentimes not and we therefore expedite the process for our mutual benefit. However, we also encourage our clients to do the same so they are in the loop, as they say.
In the present case this is what we did: NCFF called the individual's insurance company and were told that the client had a $20 co-pay. Again, this is a routine practice and we thought nothing of it.
However, the client called the same insurance company and was told something different. She was told that there was no co-pay. We again called the insurance company in an attempt to resolve the matter and were told that in fact there was a $20 co-pay. Since we were told this directly by the insurance company on two separate occasions we accepted this as fact and proceeded accordingly. After a couple of phone calls back and forth the client told us to call a different number at the insurance company which we did and were then told that the client's co-pay was zero. This settled the matter for us and our position is that the matter is resolved, the client owes us $0, and we will not be contacting the client again.
I point out to the Revdex.com that it is not unusual for us to call the same insurance company at different times and get different representatives each of whom give us different answers to the same question regarding, for example, co-pays and/or deductibles. This is highly frustrating, to say the least, and sometimes results in misunderstandings between our firm and a given client. That is what happened in this case. In my view, neither NCFF nor the client are to blame; instead, the insurance company was responsible for providing clarity and apparently their left hand didn't know what their right hand was doing resulting in the present confusion.
I further point out that Jeanne has been with us for many years and has often been praised by both clients and clinicians for her thoroughness and expertise in insurance matters. While I realize this is anecdotal information, I will defend her professionalism and manner in the way she performs her job functions.
Sincerely,  Charles F. M[redacted] Ph.D.

Dear Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted].  If the billing department would have done their job efficiently and effectively, this matter would have been resolved a while ago and I wouldn't have numerous messages left on my answering machine from them.  Rude, inappropriate, and unprofessional messages I might add that lead me to call the local Police Department, allow them to listen to these messages, and have them contact the business to tell them to essentially "stop harassing me and my family."  Since this IS a [redacted] health organization, I'm very surprised of this behavior that was taken with one of their clients.  And over a $20 co-insurance that they claimed was owed.  Again, I had explained to them numerous times that we had fulfilled our yearly out-of-pocket deductible and NO co-insurance was required.  Both I and my husband had told them.  I had called the claims division of the insurance on NUMEROUS occasions to verify this and they said they had sent an EOB to the company.  Must have fallen on deaf ears since the response letter claims they call upon the insurance companies all the time and claimed they had called my carrier on two separate occasions and I owed a co-insurance.  If that was a true statement, then they have been down this road before with a client and their insurance and they would have known how to properly proceed to make sure the client doesn't feel threatened and they would have their bill paid for by the insurance company in full, in which it was.Since this is part of a very tragic situation that involves residual effects from a car accident, I'd expect more professional behavior from a company like this.  I accept the business's response to part of the claim admitting I  or my husband do not owe any funds.  As for the explanation, that's garbage.
Regards,
[redacted]