This message has been cross posted to the following Discussions: All Member Forum and Life Care Planning - IALCP .
-------------------------------------------
As a new life care planner I am getting a lot of questions about the Robinson v. Bates case in Ohio. This is a case where the supreme court of Ohio ruled that the discounted rate the medical provider accepted as payment is the acceptable reimbursement amount in a case. This is often referred to as the "Robinson number" or the "RVB" number. What does this mean for me as a Life Care Planner?
My response so far has been that this ruling is for past medical bills, not future and that my methodology and the typical standard. Reading the Journal of Life Care Planning article in 2012 from Ann Maniha states "reimbursable amount, can be as easy as adding an additional column to the life care plan charts". I have also been saying if the attorney requests it I can add this in another column if requested.
What are others responses to this question in Ohio. If you are not in Ohio, what do you think?
Robinson v Bates
------------------------------
Shanna Huber
Owner
shuber@ripplelifecareplanning.com
Dublin, OH United States
------------------------------