<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>meanderium - Latest Comments in OOPS</title><link>http://symtym.disqus.com/</link><description>meandering</description><atom:link href="https://symtym.disqus.com/oops/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Jul 2005 03:51:00 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: OOPS</title><link>http://symtym.com/2005/06/oops/#comment-1889785</link><description>&lt;p&gt;This is a significant issue for physicians.  Insurance company "A" signs a contract with Hospital "X" as the network provider, at a reasonable rate.....then offers the physicians there an unacceptable contract.  So, the physicians don't sign, and when patients show up with emergencies, they are understandably frustrated.  The physician then spends 6-12 months trying to get paid, and the patient ends up often in collections.  Insurance companies need to make it clear that not all physicians at a "network" facility may be network providers.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Aggravated DocSurg</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 08 Jul 2005 03:51:00 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: OOPS</title><link>http://symtym.com/2005/06/oops/#comment-1889784</link><description>&lt;p&gt;And I thought this sort of thing only happened to me!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Gimpy Mumpy</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2005 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>