Discussion: View Thread

Good afternoon all,

This is on the issue of FH and the fact that I continue to see some disinformation being circulated in litigated matters that relying on databases, and specifically FH, is not appropriate. I have been pretty surprised to see some in our community attempt to discredit the use of FH (and other databases) purporting that FH provides only "insurance reimbursement" charges or that FH is not actually representative of "billed charges" or that its use is not valid or reliable or that it does not include charges for individuals without insurance. While many attorneys try and distort what we do and how we do it, to see professionals in the field doing so leaves me scratching my head. I am not sure if it is a conscious attempt to undermine the field of life care planning or specific experts or just confusion on the part of some life care planners...but regardless, these false statements really undermine our ability to prepare valid, reliable, transparent LCPs. While many life care planners prefer different databases and IARP supports the use of a variety of them, to put false information out into the public domain about databases in an attempt to essentially try and get a leg up on another expert has been incredibly disappointing. It has been well established that FH, liked Medical Fees, Context4, etc. provide BILLED, non-discounted, non-reimbursement fees for service.  Given published, peer reviewed papers, online forums, summits, conferences, etc., the majority of life care planners use databases, to include FH. I want to bring attention to the fact that there are professionals in our community who are providing false information related to the appropriateness of databases and their data collection. My concern is as a field, that we need to maintain integrity and be accurate in our representation of our field, our data sources, proper methodology, to name a few. I am not sure if others have encountered this, but the only way to stop disinformation is to be informed. If individuals have confusion on the databases, I suggest reading about them, doing a trial, discussing with other experts, but the disinformation is really damaging to our entire field. 

Good afternoon all,

This is on the issue of FH and the fact that I continue to see some disinformation being circulated in litigated matters that relying on databases, and specifically FH, is not appropriate. I have been pretty surprised to see some in our community attempt to discredit the use of FH (and other databases) purporting that FH provides only "insurance reimbursement" charges or that FH is not actually representative of "billed charges" or that its use is not valid or reliable or that it does not include charges for individuals without insurance. While many attorneys try and distort what we do and how we do it, to see professionals in the field doing so leaves me scratching my head. I am not sure if it is a conscious attempt to undermine the field of life care planning or specific experts or just confusion on the part of some life care planners...but regardless, these false statements really undermine our ability to prepare valid, reliable, transparent LCPs. While many life care planners prefer different databases and IARP supports the use of a variety of them, to put false information out into the public domain about databases in an attempt to essentially try and get a leg up on another expert has been incredibly disappointing. It has been well established that FH, liked Medical Fees, Context4, etc. provide BILLED, non-discounted, non-reimbursement fees for service.  Given published, peer reviewed papers, online forums, summits, conferences, etc., the majority of life care planners use databases, to include FH. I want to bring attention to the fact that there are professionals in our community who are providing false information related to the appropriateness of databases and their data collection. My concern is as a field, that we need to maintain integrity and be accurate in our representation of our field, our data sources, proper methodology, to name a few. I am not sure if others have encountered this, but the only way to stop disinformation is to be informed. If individuals have confusion on the databases, I suggest reading about them, doing a trial, discussing with other experts, but the disinformation is really damaging to our entire field. 

I have a couple of questions that maybe someone can clarify for me.

1. There is a faction of life care planners who claim that Context is the most widely used data base, not Fair Health.  They have canned language that goes in every report that used to report that Fair Health was used by Texas, the VA, etc., but now says Context.  Can someone please explain why the change? 
2. The court rulings against Fair Health, it is my understanding, were because the life care planner were using the Consumer site, not the paid version and they did not notify Fair Health that they were being challenged.  Fair Health continues to state that they will defend their data in court.  Given that the life care planners were not using Fair Health data appropriately, does that change anything?
3. How does California deal with the fact that Fair Health and Context data are sometimes very far off of each other?  So if one life care planner is using Context 80% and the amount is $1,000 and the other, Fair Health, says that it is $600, how does the court reconcile this discrepancy?  This happens often with HCPCS codes with sometimes huge differences.  Does the court then consider individual provider's charges to determine which is most likely?

These are real questions for me.

Lora White

Good afternoon all,

This is on the issue of FH and the fact that I continue to see some disinformation being circulated in litigated matters that relying on databases, and specifically FH, is not appropriate. I have been pretty surprised to see some in our community attempt to discredit the use of FH (and other databases) purporting that FH provides only "insurance reimbursement" charges or that FH is not actually representative of "billed charges" or that its use is not valid or reliable or that it does not include charges for individuals without insurance. While many attorneys try and distort what we do and how we do it, to see professionals in the field doing so leaves me scratching my head. I am not sure if it is a conscious attempt to undermine the field of life care planning or specific experts or just confusion on the part of some life care planners...but regardless, these false statements really undermine our ability to prepare valid, reliable, transparent LCPs. While many life care planners prefer different databases and IARP supports the use of a variety of them, to put false information out into the public domain about databases in an attempt to essentially try and get a leg up on another expert has been incredibly disappointing. It has been well established that FH, liked Medical Fees, Context4, etc. provide BILLED, non-discounted, non-reimbursement fees for service.  Given published, peer reviewed papers, online forums, summits, conferences, etc., the majority of life care planners use databases, to include FH. I want to bring attention to the fact that there are professionals in our community who are providing false information related to the appropriateness of databases and their data collection. My concern is as a field, that we need to maintain integrity and be accurate in our representation of our field, our data sources, proper methodology, to name a few. I am not sure if others have encountered this, but the only way to stop disinformation is to be informed. If individuals have confusion on the databases, I suggest reading about them, doing a trial, discussing with other experts, but the disinformation is really damaging to our entire field. 

Good afternoon all,

This is on the issue of FH and the fact that I continue to see some disinformation being circulated in litigated matters that relying on databases, and specifically FH, is not appropriate. I have been pretty surprised to see some in our community attempt to discredit the use of FH (and other databases) purporting that FH provides only "insurance reimbursement" charges or that FH is not actually representative of "billed charges" or that its use is not valid or reliable or that it does not include charges for individuals without insurance. While many attorneys try and distort what we do and how we do it, to see professionals in the field doing so leaves me scratching my head. I am not sure if it is a conscious attempt to undermine the field of life care planning or specific experts or just confusion on the part of some life care planners...but regardless, these false statements really undermine our ability to prepare valid, reliable, transparent LCPs. While many life care planners prefer different databases and IARP supports the use of a variety of them, to put false information out into the public domain about databases in an attempt to essentially try and get a leg up on another expert has been incredibly disappointing. It has been well established that FH, liked Medical Fees, Context4, etc. provide BILLED, non-discounted, non-reimbursement fees for service.  Given published, peer reviewed papers, online forums, summits, conferences, etc., the majority of life care planners use databases, to include FH. I want to bring attention to the fact that there are professionals in our community who are providing false information related to the appropriateness of databases and their data collection. My concern is as a field, that we need to maintain integrity and be accurate in our representation of our field, our data sources, proper methodology, to name a few. I am not sure if others have encountered this, but the only way to stop disinformation is to be informed. If individuals have confusion on the databases, I suggest reading about them, doing a trial, discussing with other experts, but the disinformation is really damaging to our entire field. 

Agree 100% Aubrey.  Databases are reliable because they collect CHARGE data from all payer sources and analyzes all those charges to provide a breakdown by percentile of what is charged in the community.  

Good afternoon all,

This is on the issue of FH and the fact that I continue to see some disinformation being circulated in litigated matters that relying on databases, and specifically FH, is not appropriate. I have been pretty surprised to see some in our community attempt to discredit the use of FH (and other databases) purporting that FH provides only "insurance reimbursement" charges or that FH is not actually representative of "billed charges" or that its use is not valid or reliable or that it does not include charges for individuals without insurance. While many attorneys try and distort what we do and how we do it, to see professionals in the field doing so leaves me scratching my head. I am not sure if it is a conscious attempt to undermine the field of life care planning or specific experts or just confusion on the part of some life care planners...but regardless, these false statements really undermine our ability to prepare valid, reliable, transparent LCPs. While many life care planners prefer different databases and IARP supports the use of a variety of them, to put false information out into the public domain about databases in an attempt to essentially try and get a leg up on another expert has been incredibly disappointing. It has been well established that FH, liked Medical Fees, Context4, etc. provide BILLED, non-discounted, non-reimbursement fees for service.  Given published, peer reviewed papers, online forums, summits, conferences, etc., the majority of life care planners use databases, to include FH. I want to bring attention to the fact that there are professionals in our community who are providing false information related to the appropriateness of databases and their data collection. My concern is as a field, that we need to maintain integrity and be accurate in our representation of our field, our data sources, proper methodology, to name a few. I am not sure if others have encountered this, but the only way to stop disinformation is to be informed. If individuals have confusion on the databases, I suggest reading about them, doing a trial, discussing with other experts, but the disinformation is really damaging to our entire field. 

Good afternoon all,

This is on the issue of FH and the fact that I continue to see some disinformation being circulated in litigated matters that relying on databases, and specifically FH, is not appropriate. I have been pretty surprised to see some in our community attempt to discredit the use of FH (and other databases) purporting that FH provides only "insurance reimbursement" charges or that FH is not actually representative of "billed charges" or that its use is not valid or reliable or that it does not include charges for individuals without insurance. While many attorneys try and distort what we do and how we do it, to see professionals in the field doing so leaves me scratching my head. I am not sure if it is a conscious attempt to undermine the field of life care planning or specific experts or just confusion on the part of some life care planners...but regardless, these false statements really undermine our ability to prepare valid, reliable, transparent LCPs. While many life care planners prefer different databases and IARP supports the use of a variety of them, to put false information out into the public domain about databases in an attempt to essentially try and get a leg up on another expert has been incredibly disappointing. It has been well established that FH, liked Medical Fees, Context4, etc. provide BILLED, non-discounted, non-reimbursement fees for service.  Given published, peer reviewed papers, online forums, summits, conferences, etc., the majority of life care planners use databases, to include FH. I want to bring attention to the fact that there are professionals in our community who are providing false information related to the appropriateness of databases and their data collection. My concern is as a field, that we need to maintain integrity and be accurate in our representation of our field, our data sources, proper methodology, to name a few. I am not sure if others have encountered this, but the only way to stop disinformation is to be informed. If individuals have confusion on the databases, I suggest reading about them, doing a trial, discussing with other experts, but the disinformation is really damaging to our entire field.