Your only choice is to change your employer or decline your employer provided insurance if you wanted to join an network that's receptive of your tests.
Just because InsCo1 treats a lab test as experimental does not mean InsCo2 treats the same lab test as experimental.
In your last sentence though, you seem to assume publicly listing prices would lead to a lower bill
If you are uninsured and receive a medical bill, unless the price was agreed upon before the medical procedure, you can go to court to argue that the bill is not fair or reasonable. List prices are random numbers. Having access to the actual prices paid by insurance companies helps you make your case in court as to what a realistic price should be.
> Having access to the actual prices paid by insurance companies helps you make your case in court as to what a realistic price should be
That's not public information. Even if that was available, that's useless.
Realistic price does not matter at all unless we are talking millions of dollars. Being in network or not does.
Let me explain why:
Have you been to court on this matter? I am interested in what your experience was.
Here is mine: the judge was tired from the previous case and really did not care what I nor the ambulance provider thought.
To her we were just sqabbling over prices: The ambulance provider wanted way more ($6k vs $600) than I thought was reasonable and I felt I had been taken advantage of when I was most vulnerable and it was not a honest way to make a living and we should not encourage it.
The judge had no interest in how I felt: it was all a matter of how to get us out both quickly and have the next hearing.
The ambulance provider said their 2 mile trip to the ER was worth $6k because blah blah blah.
Then I presented.
I had printouts that showed that ambulance providers that were in network with my plan typically charged $550 for the same exact service with the same level of staff in the ambulance.
I was hopeful that showing this and that there was no in network ambulance providers within a reasonable distance where I was injured would help me.
Nope.
I also said it was pretty unethical for the ambulance provider to have a business plan where they would be out of network by design with all insurance companies as way to extract as much as they could from people in distress.
I was with Anthem Blue Cross - they are a pretty big company, no small fish.
This ambulance provider clearly puts it on their website and all paperwork that they explicitly don't work with insurance companies because they don't get paid a fair price.
The judge asked me if I had signed the paperwork that said I would bear all expenses before I got into the ambulance.
I said yes.
Then she asked how much money I made and what payment plan I would be able to afford.
Maybe if the ambulance charged me a million dollars, then I could try with the "bill is not fair or reasonable" story, but I had the feeling the ambulance could have charged me $10k and I would have had to pay it because I'm a highly compensated individual in the top 1% income bracket in the country so I deserve to pay more.
I now always carry blankets and bags in my car so I can cover myself if I am bleeding and get into a taxi or Uber/Lyft/etc, without getting blood on the seat, to the nearest hospital if I can.
Your only choice is to change your employer or decline your employer provided insurance if you wanted to join an network that's receptive of your tests.
Just because InsCo1 treats a lab test as experimental does not mean InsCo2 treats the same lab test as experimental.
In your last sentence though, you seem to assume publicly listing prices would lead to a lower bill
I wrote a response to this article here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20281150
Would love any input!