Posted by nospam on November 5, 2006, 4:49 pm
The ER just billed me $1,423.35 to lance a boil. The ER was my only option as
my GP "does not treat boils".
Posted by Karen Newton on November 5, 2006, 5:01 pm
Yikes. It would have been free here.
On Nov 5, 7:49 pm, nos...@nospam.com wrote:
> The ER just billed me $1,423.35 to lance a boil. The ER was my only option as
> my GP "does not treat boils".
Posted by nospam on November 5, 2006, 5:09 pm
My insurance cut the bill in half and paid some of it but I still have to pay
over $300.00. That's just the bill for the ER too, the bill for the aftercare
will come later.
On 5 Nov 2006 17:01:56 -0800, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "Karen Newton"
>Yikes. It would have been free here.
>On Nov 5, 7:49 pm, nos...@nospam.com wrote:
>> The ER just billed me $1,423.35 to lance a boil. The ER was my only option as
>> my GP "does not lance boils".
Posted by cat on November 6, 2006, 12:01 pm
> Nope, it was quite severe. I suffered with it for a couple of weeks, it
> started
> to drain twice but never fully drained. After it was lanced and I had to
> have
> it packed 3 times (In my GP's office and I will be billed for that later)
> and I
> had to take anti-biotics. Larger boils often contain several pockets of
> pus
> that must be opened and drained. This was no pimple.
> Anyway back to the point $1,423.35 to lance a boil is obscene.
So instead of going to another doctor, getting a referral to a surgeon, or
driving to an urgent care center before the problem got so big that you
ended up in the ER, you sat on your purulent posterior, and now have the
nerve to whine.
The ER isn't a free public service. The employees have bills to pay, too.
Posted by Chloe on November 6, 2006, 6:26 pm
>> Nope, it was quite severe. I suffered with it for a couple of weeks, it
>> started
>> to drain twice but never fully drained. After it was lanced and I had to
>> have
>> it packed 3 times (In my GP's office and I will be billed for that later)
>> and I
>> had to take anti-biotics. Larger boils often contain several pockets of
>> pus
>> that must be opened and drained. This was no pimple.
>> Anyway back to the point $1,423.35 to lance a boil is obscene.
> So instead of going to another doctor, getting a referral to a surgeon, or
> driving to an urgent care center before the problem got so big that you
> ended up in the ER, you sat on your purulent posterior, and now have the
> nerve to whine.
> The ER isn't a free public service. The employees have bills to pay, too.
It's starting to take more and more savvy on the part of patients as to how
to manage our own care. I'm not sure I would personally have done any better
as far as judgment on how and when to get a boil treated--but it retrospect
it seems obvious that the ER is NOT the correct place. Certainly it's safe
to assume that treatment there would be considerably more costly than any
other option. You're paying for the expertise, staff and equipment needed to
treat acute and oftentimes life-threatening conditions. Kind of like going
to a 5-star gourmet restaurant when all you really want to eat is a fast
food cheeseburger, then being appalled that it cost 20 times as much.
XML site map
> my GP "does not treat boils".