Urgent Care's way of doing business...

[Peaches]

I found this to be a very interesting article. I have only been to that office once since 2003, and only then because my employer sent me there...

http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/crime/police-called-in-medical-bill-dispute

[ladybutton]

Bad pr. Extreme over-reaction on part of office staff. Glad to see that compassion is alive and thriving in the highland lakes.

[JWebb]

My husband and I have had nothing but good experiences with this facility.

[hopeful200856]

I have had nothing but bad experiences there. I took my grandmother there and she was hurting and they made her wait forever. I would not recommend this place ever.

[Hacksaw]

The last time I went to this clinic was about 2 years ago and the reason I stop going is because they was sucking my insurance dry. I know for a FACT that the clinic was charging for service’s that I had not received. Only reason I caught this is I look over my bill and could not figure out all the codes they had charge me for. By the way I like Doctor Dickey just didn’t like his office staff charging my insurance company for things I did not receive.

[Caretaker]

I have had to use them on several occasions for family care emergency related things. Had some good and some bad experience with them.. One issue was very similar to what this man in the article had.. it was insurance related as well.Only difference was that I had to write and check to cover the part which was supposed to be paid for by insurance. Its a good thing I didnt leave before writing a check for the difference otherwise It could have been us that this happened to..

IMO the care center over reacted and should have taken a different route. The guy in the article owns the pawn shop on 281 and has always gave me great service and deals.. One would think that the care facility might have treated another buisness owner with the benefit of the doubt instead of instantly calling the PD. I can only imagine how many times they have done this.

[Peaches]

I've had more than one bad experience with this doctor. I stopped going to him after he performed a "lump-ectomy" in that office in 2003. I drove myself over there thinking I would be returning to work afterward. After he finished, I began to shake and cry. I didn't realize I was in shock as I walked out to my car and drove myself home. I didn't remember my 30+ minute trip home at all. I was a danger to myself and every body else on the road, but I didn't even realize it. He should have made sure I had someone there to drive me home before he let me leave his clinic.

I wouldn't think twice about going to a doctor and presenting my insurance as a form of payment if I used my insurance there in the past. Any one of us could have found ourselves in the same position. The best way to avoid this problem is to not use Marble Falls Minor Emergency Clinic. I'm Glad the Jarvis family shared this experience with the public.

BTW...Caretaker, I can't help but wonder if you paid for services for which your insurance company also paid...??? If there's a way to steal money, someone will figure it out!

[WolfDream]

I don't know how they can do what they're doing. It's not legal. According to the state Attorney General's Debt Collection page (https://www.oag.state.tx.us/consumer/debt_collection.shtml) on their website :

Harassment and Fraud are Prohibited

State law prohibits the use of harassment and abusive collection tactics. It is illegal for any debt collector to:

threaten violence or other criminal acts;
use profane or obscene language;
falsely accuse the consumer of fraud or other crimes;
threaten arrest of the consumer, or repossession or other seizure of property without proper court proceedings;
use the telephone to harass debtors by calling anonymously or making repeated or continuous calls;
make collect telephone calls without disclosing the true name of the caller before the charges are accepted.
The use of fraudulent or deceptive practices is also prohibited, including:

using a false name or identification;
misrepresenting the amount of the debt or its judicial status;
sending documents to a debtor that falsely appear to be from a court or other official agency;
failing to identify who holds the debt;
misrepresenting the nature of the services rendered by the collection agency or the collector;
falsely representing that the collector has information or something of value in order to discover information about the consumer.

-----

It does not seem to me that they have entered into the 'proper court proceedings' that would allow them the right to threaten arrest. They obviously are not familiar with state consumer protection laws. This activity should not be tolerated.

[Reapp]

Those would apply if this were a civil debt collection, this however is not and is actually a criminal offense:

Sec. 31.04. THEFT OF SERVICE. (a) A person commits theft of service if, with intent to avoid payment for service that he knows is provided only for compensation:
(1) he intentionally or knowingly secures performance of the service by deception, threat, or false token;
(2) having control over the disposition of services of another to which he is not entitled, he intentionally or knowingly diverts the other's services to his own benefit or to the benefit of another not entitled to them;
(3) having control of personal property under a written rental agreement, he holds the property beyond the expiration of the rental period without the effective consent of the owner of the property, thereby depriving the owner of the property of its use in further rentals; or
(4) he intentionally or knowingly secures the performance of the service by agreeing to provide compensation and, after the service is rendered, fails to make payment after receiving notice demanding payment.

I have my own opinions on the issue but this is not the appropriate place for them.

[Peaches]

Reapp...
You failed to mention there is much more to Sec. 31.04...as follows:

b) For purposes of this section, intent to avoid payment is presumed if:
(1) the actor absconded without paying for the service or expressly refused to pay for the service in circumstances where payment is ordinarily made immediately upon rendering of the service, as in hotels, campgrounds, recreational vehicle parks, restaurants, and comparable establishments;
(2) the actor failed to make payment under a service agreement within 10 days after receiving notice demanding payment;
(3) the actor returns property held under a rental agreement after the expiration of the rental agreement and fails to pay the applicable rental charge for the property within 10 days after the date on which the actor received notice demanding payment; or
(4) the actor failed to return the property held under a rental agreement:
(A) within five days after receiving notice demanding return, if the property is valued at less than $1,500; or
(B) within three days after receiving notice demanding return, if the property is valued at $1,500 or more.
(c) For purposes of Subsections (a)(4), (b)(2), and (b)(4), notice shall be notice in writing, sent by registered or certified mail with return receipt requested or by telegram with report of delivery requested, and addressed to the actor at his address shown on the rental agreement or service agreement.
(d) If written notice is given in accordance with Subsection (c), it is presumed that the notice was received no later than five days after it was sent.
(e) An offense under this section is:
(1) a Class C misdemeanor if the value of the service stolen is less than $20;
(2) a Class B misdemeanor if the value of the service stolen is $20 or more but less than $500;
(3) a Class A misdemeanor if the value of the service stolen is $500 or more but less than $1,500;
(4) a state jail felony if the value of the service stolen is $1,500 or more but less than $20,000;
(5) a felony of the third degree if the value of the service stolen is $20,000 or more but less than $100,000;
(6) a felony of the second degree if the value of the service stolen is $100,000 or more but less than $200,000; or
(7) a felony of the first degree if the value of the service stolen is $200,000 or more.
(f) Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, any police or other report of stolen vehicles by a political subdivision of this state shall include on the report any rental vehicles whose renters have been shown to such reporting agency to be in violation of Subsection (b)(2) and shall indicate that the renting agency has complied with the notice requirements demanding return as provided in this section.
(g) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the defendant secured the performance of the service by giving a post-dated check or similar sight order to the person performing the service; and
(2) the person performing the service or any other person presented the check or sight order for payment before the date on the check or sight order.

[Reapp]

I didn't "fail to mention" anything. The post by WolfDream referenced civil debt collection tactics that are illegal, I pointed out that a criminal case can be made whether folks agree with it or not.

If you notice the "OR" and not an "AND" in the sentence you highlighted:

(b) For purposes of this section, intent to avoid payment is presumed if:
(1) the actor absconded without paying for the service or expressly refused to pay for the service in circumstances where payment is ordinarily made immediately upon rendering of the service, as in hotels, campgrounds, recreational vehicle parks, restaurants, and comparable establishments;

[Peaches]

I didn't "fail to mention" anything. The post by WolfDream referenced civil debt collection tactics that are illegal, I pointed out that a criminal case can be made whether folks agree with it or not.

If you notice the "OR" and not an "AND" in the sentence you highlighted:

(b) For purposes of this section, intent to avoid payment is presumed if:
(1) the actor absconded without paying for the service or expressly refused to pay for the service in circumstances where payment is ordinarily made immediately upon rendering of the service, as in hotels, campgrounds, recreational vehicle parks, restaurants, and comparable establishments;

I would argue that this is an instance where payment isn't ordinarily made immediately upon rendering of service...because insurance is involved. My stance is that the doctor's office should have notified the patient's parent that there would be a charge larger than the normal $50 co-pay so that the patient's parent could have made an informed decision to seek medical attention elsewhere.

[KelliR]

Usually when I go to a clinic or the hospital or even my doctor's office, they ask for my insurance before ever seeing me or my kids. I would think that the clinic would have asked for proof of insurance. In this situation, the family did not intend to pay, they expected their insurance company to pay as it had done in the past. I think the clinic should have worked out a payment schedule with the family although I also think they should have been informed before hand that the clinic no longer accepted that insurance. If that was the case, then I'm sure the family would have gone to another clinic or hospital or doctor. I know I would have.