St. Louis Urological Surgeons

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me
Sincerely, *** ***
*** ***

We would like to reply to a complaint against StLouis Urological Surgeons submitted on 10/27/17, ID ***Complaint is doctor's office did not inform patient that after surgery his specimen would be sent to outside laboratory. Patient was only quoted his financial responsibility for the
surgery.Pathology lab did not know the patient was not aware of the cost. Specimen was processed and bill was sent to patients insurance. Insurance processed the claim and the pathology lab is in network so contractual amount was applied discounting the bill $41.14. The balnace was applied to deductible.Pathology lab (SLUS) then billed patient for the deductible. Procedure was complete and results were sent back to the doctor's office (SSM).Patient should request copy of pathology from the doctor's office.Complaint is against StLouis Urological Surgeons, Pathology, however they had no communication with patient. The path lab only processed the specimen they received

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:StLouis Urological Surgeons (SLUS) claims they never had contact with the customer. This is not true. I first called the phone number on the billing document on October 2, 2017. I spoke with an individual at this organization to inquire about the bill, reason for testing, and results of the test. The individual directed me to call the doctor's office for answers to these questions. I called the doctor's office and spoke with the office manager. I asked for the same information and requested proof of the test including test resultsThe manager could not answer any of these questions including test results, but promised to follafter discussing with Dr***. StLouis Urological Surgeons has not contacted me since October 2, until another bill was received almost a month later. At that point, a complaint was registered against StLouis Urological Surgeons at *** *** *** **., Saint Charles, MO. This address and organization title were located on the Billing Statement as well as internet searches for the organization. The business response insinuates the Pathology Lab (SLUS) and the doctor's office are two separate entities and that the Pathology Lab cannot be held responsible for the misinformation and subsequent lack of information provided by the doctor's office (claimed to be SSM). According to the billing statements and even the facsimile cover sheet used to respond to the complaint, these entities are interrelated and are capable of communicating with one another to resolve the complaint. Instead, it appears the business is attempting to deflect responsibility by only communicating the billing process from the point of view of the Pathology Lab instead of that from the SLUS organization as a whole. The complaint was directed to StLouis Urological Surgeons, whom the physician is associated with. In fact, it was this organization which lead me to Dr***, so it would only be reasonable to assume SLUS would be the appropriate contact to reach the parent organization for Dr***'s office.Please provide the proper contact information (including full organization title and address) so that a complaint can be lodged against the proper organization, if this has truly been directed towards the wrong organization. Additionally, the doctor's office has refused to provide test results or any other documentation substantiating the existence of a Laboratory test. I can not and will not pay a bill for a service which cannot be proven to have taken place. If this organization performed the test and is sending the bill, why can results not be communicated to me by either party?
Sincerely,
*** ***

The physician that performed the surgery works for two separate entities.  The surgery was performed at an SSM facility and was billed by SSM under a separate tax ID.  The pathology was sent to SLUS, separate entity and billed under a separate entity and billed under a separate tax ID.  We are sorry the other practice did not inform the patient of pathology.  I believe the problem is that his insurance applied the bill to deductible and he is responsible.The SSM office has been contacted and asked to mail the patient his pathology report.  To stay in good standings with the Revdex.com we are willing to discount this bill meaning the pathologist will not be paid for the service that was provided.  We will notify the insurance compay to reprocess this claim and patients deductibel of $108.86 will be reapplied.