IBJNews

IU Health, UnitedHealthcare reach end to contract dispute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana University Health announced a deal with UnitedHealthcare on Thursday morning, ending a contract dispute that had pushed IU Health doctors and hospitals out of the health insurance company’s discounted network Jan. 1.

The two-year agreement gives UnitedHealthcare discounted rates retroactive to Jan. 1. Such discounts, which insurers negotiate with hospital systems, reduce prices 30 percent or more.

“We thank our patients for their loyalty and patience,” Dr. John Kohne, chief medical officer of IU Health, said in a prepared statement. “While we are pleased to have reached an agreement with UnitedHealthcare, it’s unfortunate that our patients experienced any unnecessary stress or inconvenience.”

The dispute between Indianapolis-based IU Health and Minnesota-based UnitedHealthcare dates to 2012, when the sides could not agree on a new long-term contract. They instead extended their previous agreement by one year, to Dec. 31, 2013, but then could not come to terms before the end of the year.

Normally, that would have forced the 400,000 Hoosiers insured by UnitedHealthcare to pay full prices at IU Health facilities. However, IU Health decided not to charge its full prices—at least to the patients’ portion of its bills.

The contract negotiations were hung up on prices. UnitedHealthcare wanted to introduce a new system of tiers in its health insurance plan, which would have made its customers pay higher prices for IU Health services than for some other health care providers.

IU Health said it would agree to the tiers, but would not give UnitedHealthcare as large of discounts as it had before.

It was not clear Thursday how that issue was resolved in the new contract.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Inconvenience
    I am so upset about this. My children's pediatrician was out of network so I had to have them and all their records transferred to a doctor that was in network. Not only am I upset of having to transfer my kids from the doctor that knows them. But now I am responsible for paying the port fees for getting all records transferred and I did not want to have them transferred but I had to so they would be in network. Now IU is back in network and I have to get all their records transferred back.....so there's another fee!!! So ridiculous!!! I was not even aware that we would even be charged for this. I believe someone needs to do something for all the inconvenience.
  • Full Price
    No all comments here are accurate but may be a moot point. Advantage Plans were considered out of network during impasse . I have a United Healthcare Medicare supplement plan that never was an issue and would be covered by UHC.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT