Sundance Medical Associates

Sundance Medical in Gilbert, AZ terminated my whole family from services after ½ years for making my first complaint about my dissatisfaction with customer service because “you disagreed with our policy.”
My family and I have been patients for over 1/years Dr*** *** of Sundance Medical in Gilbert, AZ ###-###-####, refused to call with the lab results sent 11-25- I had to call back on 12-16-14, per dismissive M.A*** ***, no one reviewed my results, I called back on 12-17-and learned the doctor did not have time to give me the resultsIt’s now a month later and no one has calledThe staff is extremely rude and it has been over a month and I still have not received a call explaining my results I'm still experiencing pain and am now waiting to see a specialist I wrote a letter to complain and was terminated as a patient as well as my whole family without addressing my complaints via a grammatically incoherent letter, for "disagreeing with our policy." My wife never complained even though she experienced the same treatment, she was terminated as a patient because she was my wifeFront office manager *** *** is very rude and abrupt I had to call multiple times for the results of my lab after waiting more than two weeks with no response *** said “it was your responsibility to call the doctor to get my lab results.”
Dr*** *** of Sundance Medical ###-###-#### is always in a rush during appointments and does not take the time to listen to issues that you thought of while in the exam roomHe told me to “make it quick.” The last time I met with himI have been a patient for ½ years and have never complained about anything including the rude treatment I have received from the front office Until recently, I have only needed basic physicals and I am not very demanding so I did not make it an issueHowever, this time the lack of care and level of rudeness was so atrocious that I had to complain via a politely written letter which Sundance did not appreciate and subsequently terminated my whole family as a patients after ½ yearsAgain, this was the first time in ½ years that I complained about my service or lack thereofMy Dermatologist, Dentist and other specialists provide very courteous professional service with prompt follow up and customer service surveys but not Sundance MedicalThey are too busy to read lab results, call patients and address complaintsI called in August requesting paper work for the lab and was told “the doctor already gave that to you.” In an abrupt tone by *** the Office ManagerIf you call the office, your medical condition will be discussed out loud in front of patients in the lobby including your name in violation of *** I have heard many people’s medical results discussed while waiting to see the physician

This letter is submitted in response to the most recent complaint submitted to the Arizona Revdex.com by our former customer/patient:  [redacted].  Having read and reviewed this complaint thoroughly, we are compelled to report to the Revdex.com that there...

is no more truth in these li1test accusations than was present in this fanner  patient's previous complaint(s).  Fortunately, defense of these allegations does not require disclosure of any infonnation  which could be construed as a breach of patient confidentiality.  As such we are happy to respond with the actual facts of this case.In the interest of being as brief as possible, we have limited our response to the points below which we feel best demonstrate the inaccuracies contained in the submitted complaint by [redacted].  They are provided in no particular order:I)    No one in our office "refused" and certified mail of any kind at any time.  Our office regularly receives important documents via certified mail, so it would be an unwise business practice to refuse delivery of any such letters/packages.a. If the Postal Service is unable to complete delivery of any certified mail, the notices they leave advising the recipient of the registered mail are anonymous (they do NOT include any information about the sender), so it is not practical to suspect anyone could refuse certified mail from one sender versus another. ·b. The included documentation does not demonstrate any indication of certified letter in question having been"refused".   Rather, the section to be completed upon delivery of his certified mail is entirely blank.  As willbe demonstrated, this is evidence of this letter never having been delivered.  Such a reality is far different than what has been alleged.2)    The dates [redacted] is claiming our office "refused" his letter are demonstrably inaccurate.  Aside from the fact that January lith was a Sunday (when the office was closed and the postal service does not operate) and January 24th was a Saturday (when the office is only open for a half-day and the only employee with access to our mailbox never works), simple investigation ofthis matter reveals these dates have absolutely no basis in fact.3)    Having obtained a copy of the Certified Letter in Question, we have obtained and reviewed the tracking history of this parcel and detennined  the actual truth is considerably different than what has been claimed.a. As can be clearly observed on the United States Postal Service Tracking for the Parcel in question, our postal carrier apparently "left notice" of the certified letter in question on only 2 occasions: January 9th and January16th.b. One can infer that delivery was likely attempted on both these occasions.  However, the timing of these attempts is important (12:48 PM and 12:36 PM respectively).  Our office closes Monday through Friday between the hours ofNoon and 1:00PM. This closure is intended to allow our staff a regular lunch period, and is not at all atypical in our industry.  We have been operating on this same schedule for more than 10 years, and our local postal carrier is well-aware of this closure.c. With respect to the notices reportedly left by the postal carrier, we regret being able to speak with any certainty to their fate.i.   Standard practice in our office upon receipt of notification of a certified parcel (which the postal carrier is not able to deliver for any reason) is to request a repeat delivmy or "Attempt Redelivery".!fa notice of this particular letter was received, it would have been handled as such.ii.   Often in our office complex, the Postal Service, UPS, and/or FedEx will elect to leave packages, mail, and notices with one of our neighboring businesses if they are unable to complete delivery. Generally speaking, these parcels eventually get to the intended recipient, but we will stipulate that notice of a certified letter could have been lost or misplaced in such an instance.iii.   Occasionally, notices of packages/letters are also taped/stuck to our front door. This too is usually effective, but there again exists the potential for loss.d. If one will forgive the foray into the boring details, the bottom line here appears to be that the USPSattempted delivery twice, and the office was closed on both occasions. That the letter in question was ultimately returned to the sender is regrettable, but this represents a failure in the delivery mechanism as opposed to any overt action as suggested in the complaint. As has been previously noted, we had no way of knowing who this letter was from and we really do prefer to receive all our mail.4)   A Certified Letter (with return receipt required) is an atypical way to request one's medical records in any case. In over I 0 years practicing Family Medicine in the same location, we cannot recall a single other instance where such a method was employed. Certainly, there is nothing specifically wrong with using this method (apart from the delivery complications outlined above). However, generally a signed request being faxed to the office is more than adequate. If there are concerns that a faxed request is received, a simple follow-up call for verification would be prudent. Often times, patients will elect to complete and submit their records request in person (to ensure it is received). If this particular customer/patient preferred not to deal with our office directly, his New Primary Care Physician would have been more than happy to submit (via fax) a request for him.This patient/customer has suggested that an acceptable settlement to his claim would be that we "send his records as requested". However, as the entirety of this complaint speaks to the fact that his Medical Records Request was not ever actually provided to our office, this request is legally and ethically impossible to grant (as a response to this grievance). A complaint to the Revdex.com does not meet the established requirements governing the release of confidential medical records.Our recommendation for disposition of this matter would be that [redacted] avail himself of any number of available avenues to see that our office actually does receive a properly formatted, signed request for his medical records and we will be more than happy to provide them to any provider he designates.Ultimately, there can be no resolution to this particular complaint within the realm of this fonnn.  In fact, how this issue concerns the Revdex.com is confusing to say the least. In this case, no money changed hands, no services were provided, and no billing is in dispute. In actuality, there has been no contact between the "customer" and our business at all for more than 60 days. As the evidence makes clear, the only issue here is that a certified letter was not received by its intended recipient. This outcome has come to pass simply due to a confluence of unfortunate circumstances, and not as a result of any overt action or malice on the part of anyone associated with our office. We have taken the time to investigate this matter and compose this response so that the actual facts might be known to anyone legitimately interested. When considered in the context of and along with this former patient's previous complaint to the Revdex.com, we remain confident that any reasonable person will recognize this campaign by a former customer/patient for what it actually represents.Respectfully,Sundance Medical Associates, PLLCEnc -  USPS Tracking Information & Original Certified Letter/Documentation•Addendum- 2/2l/20!5:Though not specifically related to this particular complaint, we are also pleased to report that this office has actively sought andjust recently obtained a properly formatted and signed request for this former customer/patient's medical records. Upon actually receiving this request, this office has forwarded the requested records to all designated parties. Additionally, this former customer/patient has been provided his own electronic copy of his complete medical record. This personal copy was prepared and mailed free of additional charges in hopes that this will allow this former customer/patient of ours to move-on from this issue. We also trust this notification will meet any requirements of the Arizona Revdex.com for resolution of this matter.

This letter is submitted in response to the complaint submitted to the Arizona Revdex.com by our customer/patient: [redacted].  Having read and reviewed this complaint several times, I will admit to being somewhat unclear about all the concerns outlined by this...

customer/patient.  Nonetheless, we have investigated these issues thoroughly, and I am happy to provide the details as per our perspective.

1) This customer’s concerns regarding how his visit was billed are most confounding.  Discussion of this encounter with the office staff who assisted him on the day of his first visit has revealed that this patient did not actually present himself as a cash-paying patient at the time of his initial appointment.  This is supported by the fact that he was only charged $20 at the time of his initial appointment (for his insurance copay). Had this patient/customer indicated clearly that he planned to pay cash for his visit, he would have been charged at least $100 before even proceeding beyond the check-in stage of his visit.  This is one of our bedrock policies which has been implemented after years of service in this industry.  Historically, patients who are seen today, and who promise to pay later, do not end-up paying their bill in a timely fashion (if at all).  This sad fact/reality has required us to collect payment from cash paying patients/customers up-front (before they are seen).  As you will note, $100 does not often cover the entirety of the fees associated with an initial (new patient) visit to this office – particularly a complicated one.  However, this up-front fee does eliminate those patients/customers who are unable to pay or who do not plan to pay for their services at all.  Once a new patient has been seen, they are billed for the remaining balance (total fees for any of our physician visits depend on the level of complexity of the visit, and can not be fully calculated until the visit and all associated documentation is completed).  If, at that point, any patient/customer elects not to pay the remaining balance we have at least been compensated for the majority of our billed fees.  This practice of handling new patients who wish to pay cash for their services has no real bearing on this particular customer’s complaint, except to point-out that we have been handling cash-paying customers/patients this way for many years now.  All our office staff is familiar with this practice, and would not allow a new cash-paying patient to have been seen without first collecting the aforementioned $100 deposit.  The particular employee who helped this customer has been with us for many years, and is a trusted and valuable employee.  As such, I do not find it credible that this customer/patient actually advised her he was planning to pay cash for his initial visit.

Making the assumption that this patient/customer presented himself to the office as a patient with insurance in place (as supported by how his initial encounter was handled by office staff), we can then note that his insurance did in-fact deny his claim for his initial office visit.  Apparently, this patient’s insurance did not become active/effective until 7/1/14 – which would have been his responsibility to know.  Given his insurance company’s decision to deny his claim, it would appear that this customer/patient ultimately achieved his stated goal of not using his insurance for his initial visit.  The balance of the charges for his initial visit then became his responsibility (Office Visit Fees minus the $20 Copay paid at his appointment).  This patient was then billed for his outstanding balance as per the standard procedures of our billing department.

It is worthwhile to note that the statement received by this customer on 8/27/14 was, in fact, the second invoice provided to him for his outstanding balance.  He was provided an initial statement on 7/23/14.  At the time of his second statement, his balance was approaching 60 Days past due.  Additionally, all second statements from this office include a notice that a “$35 Late Fee May be Assessed if payment is not received within 10 Days”.  Despite this policy, this particular patient’s account has NOT been assessed any late payment fees to this point.  Generally, our billing staff will work with people who make a good faith effort to pay towards their balance.  This patient/customer did make a partial payment of $46 on 9/15/14.  His current balance with this office is $92.00 (Total Charges = $158.00 on 6/30/14 minus $20 paid at the initial visit and $46 paid on 9/15/14). 

Having outlined some of our billing practices in gross detail, and having provided details of this particular patient’s account, I must again express my confusion as to the actual nature of this customer’s written complaint.  He states he wanted to pay cash for his initial visit, but he left the office having paid only $20 – certainly, he could not have thought $20 would cover the entirely of his first visit?  Additionally, to date, this patient/customer has paid only 41% of the charges associated with his initial visit.  Having 59% of his balance unpaid more than 3 months after his initial visit does not suggest he was prepared to or planned to pay cash at his initial appointment.  His having provided insurance information for a policy that was not in effect at the time of his initial appointment actually allowed him to avoid paying the $100 minimum he would have typically been charged at the time of his first appointment.  As previously noted, I can assure anyone who is interested that he would have been charged this $100 fee at his initial appointment if it were clear he did not have (or want to use) his insurance as he states.  Out office staff is quite experienced, and has encountered nearly every possible permutation of issues that can occur surrounding health insurance policies.  The only logical explanation for the handling of this case is that this patient presented himself as a regular patient with insurance – and was treated accordingly.  When his insurance was determined not be in effect, we have followed our standard billing procedures as outlined above.  Try as I may, I fail to see how this patient/customer has been harmed or treated unfairly in any of this?

I can also personally attest to having discussed aspects of this patient’s care with him during his appointment which involved his health insurance.  At no point did he advise me that he was not planning to use his insurance for the encounter in question or any of the resultant treatment(s).

2) The second identified issue in this patient’s written complain revolves around him having been provided “medical advice over the phone in regards to medication” by “non-clinical staff” upon his initial inquiry.  This is an incorrect assumption by the patient/customer.  When this patient/customer initially called this office to schedule his new patient appointment, his call was actually taken by one of our physicians.  In the normal course of determining what the nature of the requested appointment was to be, this physician noted a possible conflict between this patient’s stated wishes for his appointment and the medical policies of this office.  The physician quite correctly advised this patient/customer at that time that this office did not provide the specific services he stated he was seeking.  This patient/customer then proceeded to ask about alternate treatments this office may be able to provide (in place of the services he was advised we did not provide).  He was informed there are/were alternate treatments/options available, and that if we was open to considering a different treatment strategy, he could schedule a new patient appointment and discuss them in the office.  This patient elected to do exactly that.

The fact that this patient/customer did not realize he was speaking to a physician was of no consequence with respect to him scheduling his appointment.  However, the physician he did speak with was more than qualified to provide to him whatever information he was provided at the time of his initial call to this office. 

*It is again worth mentioning that our office staff is trained to identify patients who are seeking treatment(s) that are not actually provided by this office when scheduling initial appointments.  This is an important part of their scheduling duties and serves to ensure new patients do not schedule with this office under the assumption they are going to be provided a service that is not within our normal operating parameters.  Our staff has a solid understanding of what services this office does and does not provide.  It is very likely this patient/customer could and would have been provided the exact same information by another member of our staff had he spoken to one of them.  It just so happens his call was handled by a physician - rendering his concerns about having been provided clinical information by a non-clinical employee moot.

3) This customer has also expressed concerns about having been late to his work causing him to “lose pay and credibility” with his employer due to the time spent at his new patient appointment.  Review of this patient’s initial appointment reveals he was actually late in arriving at the office.  This patient did call the office to report he would be late.  During this call he expressed his desire to keep his appointment, and he was accommodated.  It does appear this patient’s appointment may have been switched with another patient’s appoint (who was actually here a bit early on this date) in order to allow him to arrive later than directed and still be seen.

Regardless of the issues with this patient’s arrival in the office on the date of his appointment, he was here to be seen as a new patient.  Confidentiality Laws do not permit me to disclose anything about the actual nature of the appointment.  However, I will note that this was not a simple or quick visit.  Internal tracking confirms I personally spent over 40 minutes working with this patient/customer and on his various concerns.  He was also seen on this date (initially) by a medical student who was working with me during this time. When considering these details, and allowing that new patients routinely require 30-45 minutes to complete all the required initial paperwork, 2 hours does not seem an unreasonable amount of time to allow for an appointment with a new physician.

Again, internal tracking of his appointment on 6/30/14 (performed by our computerized record system) reveals this patient was present in this office for just over 2 hours total.  When accounting for those agenda items outlined above, it is obvious that he could not have spent anywhere near 2 hours waiting to see the physician.  Rather, it would appear the vast majority of the time he was here was spent with various employees and staff (including myself) actually working on his case/care.  We make no apologies for the time it can take to provide the highest possible standard of care.  Given that I do recall this encounter in considerable detail, I am certain that a good deal of time and effort were invested in this patient’s care by numerous members of our staff.  Beyond this, I would argue this patient’s issues with the timing of his visit are best handled between himself and his employer.

4) Finally, this patient/customer alleges that our Billing Staff (Maralyn) was “discourtesy and unprofessional” regarding his desire to argue his point about his not wanting to use his insurance at his initial visit.  Notwithstanding the issues with this patient’s assertion that he did not intend to use his insurance at his initial appointment (which have been covered at length in number 1 of this response), our current biller has been with this office for over a year.  During that time, we have yet to receive any other similar complaints about her being discourteous or unprofessional to anyone.  Given the difficult nature of her job, I find this to be a remarkable record in and of itself.  Given the obvious inconsistencies in this patient’s assertion that he did not want to use his insurance for his initial visit (which he ultimately did not anyway), it is very likely that our billing staff was not able to find merit in this patient’s position.  Since this patient’s insurance denied his claim, thus making him responsible for his charges (as per his stated wishes), there would be very little point in rehashing an issue that has no bearing on this patient’s current account with this office.

It is the single function of our billing department (Maralyn) to ensure this office is provided timely payment for services rendered.  In this case, there is no question that services were provided and this patient’s stated issues have no bearing on what he owes this office/business.  If anything, the confusion surrounding his insurance has allowed him to delay the payment(s) which very likely should have been collected earlier.  Though not always a pleasant subject to broach, [redacted] has a considerable track record of handling billing issues appropriately.  I have discussed this complaint with [redacted] and my office manager in detail, and I find no indication of any discourteous or unprofessional behavior on the part of our staff.

Investigation of this patient’s assertion that he was provided intimate details about his doctor’s visit without verifying his identity have also been found to be incorrect.  On the date in question, this patient/customer contacted this office.  He initially spoke to our office manager who obviously required him to identify himself when she answered the call.  Upon learning the nature of this patient’s call, it was transferred to [redacted] as per the patient’s request.  Upon picking-up the transferred call, my office manager (who sits 3 feet away from [redacted] in the office) vividly remembers [redacted] asking this patient to verify his name and DOB (which is required in order for her to access his account in our computer system).  [redacted] has confirmed this information as well.  This is her standard method by which she verifies identity, and is required in order for her to access records for any patient in this office.  I grant this patient that it might be possible for someone to call with his name and DOB and pretend to be him.  However, as you might intimate from the length of this response, this patient was already well known to both my office manager and [redacted] by the time of this most recent call, and I suspect they were both quite comfortable in their knowledge of who they  were speaking with.  Nonetheless, it appears proper office policy regarding verification of identity was adhered to.

This patient/customer has suggested that an acceptable settlement to his claim would a refund of what he has paid this office and that we write-off the balance still owed.  Effectively, this patient/customer is asking for a 100% refund of all fees associated with his visit to this office.  Having responded to as many points as I can identify in his complaint, I find no justification for such a request.  Bear in mind, the supposed crux of this patient’s initial issue is that he wanted to pay cash for his visit – which is ultimately exactly what he is being asked to do.  He says he did not want to use his insurance, and as it turns-out, he did not.  Although I do not find his position credible (I have clearly outlined how his case would have been handled differently had he actually indicated he wanted to pay cash for his initial visit), he has incurred absolutely no harm in this case.  As previously noted, the only consequence of our billing his insurance (only to have the claim denied) is that he has been allowed to delay significantly paying for his office visit.  The only other possibility here is that this patient wished to hide from his insurance company the nature of his visit to this office.  If this were proven to be true, I might more easily understand his frustration.  However, failure to disclose a medical condition to an insurer is unethical and represents a breach of contract between our office and the insurers we are contracted with. This is obviously not something we would willingly participate in.

Ultimately, I believe it is plainly obvious that this office has dedicated considerable time and resources to the care of this patient/customer.  Please bear in mind that a lengthy visit was conducted on 6/30/14 which included considerable dialogue, a comprehensive exam, and a specific treatment plan.  I see nothing in this complaint that would negate these services having been rendered in accordance with the standards of my profession.

Lastly, as intimated in #2 of my response to this complaint, it is worth mentioning that the actual outcome of this patient’s appointment in this office was very possibly not what he would have liked.  Despite this patient’s having stated a willingness to explore alternative treatment options, he spent a large portion of his time here arguing for continuation of the treatment/services he had already been advised this office would not provide.  Confidentiality Laws do not allow me to share any details of this disagreement with the Revdex.com.  Suffice to say, this patient was not successful in his attempt to have me provide treatment/services that are against the policies of this office and against my own personal and professional judgment.  I suspect it is this difference of opinion which may better account for this patient’s desire to have all the costs associated with his recent visit waived.

My recommendations for resolution of this matter would be that Pt be required to make no further payments to this office.  We will write-off his remaining balance here, and he will agree to seek his care elsewhere.  This patient will not be provided any refunds of payments already made to this office given the considerable amount of time and effort already applied to his case.  It is important to note that I find no merit in any of this patient’s stated complaints as outlined in detail in this response.  However, I also have no inclination to be involved in any further discourse regarding what I see as a pointless debate.

With respect to any proposed “formal investigation of the HIPPA violation”, I am confident in the practices and procedures in place in this office which have served us well for the past 10+ years.  Further, our internal investigation of this complaint suggests no actual violation took place.  Should any appropriate regulatory body wish to investigate this matter further, I would welcome them and their efforts.

I would also ask that the Revdex.com take into consideration the difficulties associated with a physician (who is bound by the rules of laws of confidentiality) having to respond to the claims of a patient/customer who is not.  Suffice to say, there is more to this particular story, but I have elected to limit my response to only those things specifically mentioned by this patient/customer so as to avoid disclosing anything which actually could be considered confidential.  Such a response amounts to only part of the story to be sure.  Nonetheless, I have elected to provide this response out of respect for the Revdex.com, and so that our current and other possible future patients can see that we are responsive to concerns such as this.

I would be more than pleased to be provided a response from the Revdex.com regarding our defense of this patient’s complaint.  Given the evidence provided, and recognizing that I can legally provide no additional information, I would welcome the opinion of the Revdex.com regarding the best course of action in this case.

Respectfully, S.K. Sackett, D.O.

Sundance Medical in Gilbert, AZ terminated my whole family from services after 6 ½ years for making my first complaint about my dissatisfaction with customer service because “you disagreed with our policy.”
My family and I have been patients for over 6 1/2 years. Dr. [redacted] of Sundance Medical in Gilbert, AZ ###-###-####, refused to call with the lab results sent 11-25-2014. I had to call back on 12-16-14, per dismissive M.A. [redacted], no one reviewed my results, I called back on 12-17-14 and learned the doctor did not have time to give me the results. It’s now a month later and no one has called.
The staff is extremely rude and it has been over a month and I still have not received a call explaining my results. I'm still experiencing pain and am now waiting to see a specialist. I wrote a letter to complain and was terminated as a patient as well as my whole family without addressing my complaints via a grammatically incoherent letter, for "disagreeing with our policy." My wife never complained even though she experienced the same treatment, she was terminated as a patient because she was my wife.
Front office manager [redacted] is very rude and abrupt. I had to call multiple times for the results of my lab after waiting more than two weeks with no response. [redacted] said “it was your responsibility to call the doctor to get my lab results.”
Dr. [redacted] of Sundance Medical ###-###-#### is always in a rush during appointments and does not take the time to listen to issues that you thought of while in the exam room. He told me to “make it quick.” The last time I met with him.
I have been a patient for 6 ½ years and have never complained about anything including the rude treatment I have received from the front office. Until recently, I have only needed basic physicals and I am not very demanding so I did not make it an issue.
However, this time the lack of care and level of rudeness was so atrocious that I had to complain via a politely written letter which Sundance did not appreciate and subsequently terminated my whole family as a patients after 6 ½ years. Again, this was the first time in 6 ½ years that I complained about my service or lack thereof.
My Dermatologist, Dentist and other specialists provide very courteous professional service with prompt follow up and customer service surveys but not Sundance Medical.
They are too busy to read lab results, call patients and address complaints.
I called in August requesting paper work for the lab and was told “the doctor already gave that to you.” In an abrupt tone by [redacted] the Office Manager.
If you call the office, your medical condition will be discussed out loud in front of patients in the lobby including your name in violation of [redacted]. I have heard many people’s medical results discussed while waiting to see the physician.