Re: Linkia/Hanger Contracts May Cost Everyone
Eileen Levis
Description
Collection
Title:
Re: Linkia/Hanger Contracts May Cost Everyone
Creator:
Eileen Levis
Date:
9/20/2006
Text:
Daniel
I believe a key strategy in dealing with the Linkia situation is for any and all independents, if contacted by Linkia, REFUSE to join the network. Although there are hundreds of Hanger sites, the independents still do represent the majority. Linkia will not be able to provide the access to care as promised without the help of some independents, especially in rural areas. Also, it is VITAL that Parity legislation contain language that includes ANY WILLING PROVIDER. This is KEY. AND, do contact your legislators AND ACA. Advise your patients who have one of these insurers to not only contact their insurer to voice their dissatisfaction, but more importantly contact their EMPLOYER, many will be willing to investigate alternative insurance companies. It is time that everyone gets on a level playing field, Linkia who's strategy may be questionable, and CIGNA and GREATWEST, who view patient care as a bargaining chip. If the outcry is loud enough from every angle, we can prevail. Over the years, tbis industry has, to say the least. not been a unified group. THIS MUST CHANGE NOW!!! (Before it is too late)
Eileen Levis
President-Orthologix
---- Daniel Gottry < <Email Address Redacted> > wrote:
>
>
>
> Linkia/Hanger Contract with CIGNA and Others May Cost Everyone
>
> CIGNA, Great-West Healthcare and others are obviously motivated to enter exclusive contracts with Linkia because of both administrative ease and cost savings. The payment for these two benefits is made by the patients who lose options for care . and, as a result, in some cases quality of care.
>
> In the long run, it appears obvious to me that their will be costs paid in the future by the insurance providers that are not adequately being considered.
>
> Linkia/Hanger has indicated that they are in discussions with all of the large regional and national healthcare insurance companies. This should be a source of concern for all independent providers. If other companies follow the lead of CIGNA and Great-West, independents will find it increasingly difficult to maintain their businesses.
>
> The end result, contrary to the goal of the insurers, may be Linkia/Hangers ability to create a monopoly of O/P services, subsequently allowing them to control (increasing?) costs. The end goal seems to be for Linkia/Hanger to become a monopoly . but at what point are they one?
>
> It appears that significant players in the industry, such as ACA, may be fearful of dealing with this topic because of Hanger's advertising dollars. However, if they achieve the market share that they appear to desire, advertising will no longer be of significance to them as they will, for the most part, be the only game in town. If there is little or no competition, there is little or no need to advertise.
>
> In my case, the issue is becoming increasingly confusing. The provider list, prior to sending contract termination letters showed five providers, other than Hanger, as available options. It was interesting to find that, in CIGNA's letter in response to my questions as to providers available, they included one of these, in addition to Hanger . that being McCleve Orthotics & Prosthetics.
>
> I contacted McCleve to determine if they were either a Hanger facility (which they quickly responded no) or were a LINKIA contracted agency (to which they responded who)?
>
> My question is why one of the providers is still included as a CIGNA provider while all others have been eliminated?
>
> I have posed this question to both CIGNA and Linkia and have not yet received a response.
>
> In the contract termination letter, my provider was encouraged to contact Linkia to learn more about opportunities to become a part of that network, which we all know is a long road leading nowhere.
>
> This issue is one that impacts patients and hundreds of qualified, independent providers. I encourage both to be a part of bringing this situation to whose who could make a difference. Patients who feel they are being negatively impacted (including those who now have to drive 50-70 miles to see a prosthetist) should contact CIGNA or Great-West and express their concerns and frustrations.
>
> Providers are encouraged to contact their state's insurance board, their attorney general, and send communications about their concerns to the department of justice ( <Email Address Redacted> ).
>
> TO SEE ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS MENTIONED IN THIS COMMUNICATION, PLEASE VISIT WWW.GOTTRYS.COM/LEGGO/.
>
> ----------------
> Daniel Gottry
> <Email Address Redacted>
> 480-491-1020
>
>
>
>
I believe a key strategy in dealing with the Linkia situation is for any and all independents, if contacted by Linkia, REFUSE to join the network. Although there are hundreds of Hanger sites, the independents still do represent the majority. Linkia will not be able to provide the access to care as promised without the help of some independents, especially in rural areas. Also, it is VITAL that Parity legislation contain language that includes ANY WILLING PROVIDER. This is KEY. AND, do contact your legislators AND ACA. Advise your patients who have one of these insurers to not only contact their insurer to voice their dissatisfaction, but more importantly contact their EMPLOYER, many will be willing to investigate alternative insurance companies. It is time that everyone gets on a level playing field, Linkia who's strategy may be questionable, and CIGNA and GREATWEST, who view patient care as a bargaining chip. If the outcry is loud enough from every angle, we can prevail. Over the years, tbis industry has, to say the least. not been a unified group. THIS MUST CHANGE NOW!!! (Before it is too late)
Eileen Levis
President-Orthologix
---- Daniel Gottry < <Email Address Redacted> > wrote:
>
>
>
> Linkia/Hanger Contract with CIGNA and Others May Cost Everyone
>
> CIGNA, Great-West Healthcare and others are obviously motivated to enter exclusive contracts with Linkia because of both administrative ease and cost savings. The payment for these two benefits is made by the patients who lose options for care . and, as a result, in some cases quality of care.
>
> In the long run, it appears obvious to me that their will be costs paid in the future by the insurance providers that are not adequately being considered.
>
> Linkia/Hanger has indicated that they are in discussions with all of the large regional and national healthcare insurance companies. This should be a source of concern for all independent providers. If other companies follow the lead of CIGNA and Great-West, independents will find it increasingly difficult to maintain their businesses.
>
> The end result, contrary to the goal of the insurers, may be Linkia/Hangers ability to create a monopoly of O/P services, subsequently allowing them to control (increasing?) costs. The end goal seems to be for Linkia/Hanger to become a monopoly . but at what point are they one?
>
> It appears that significant players in the industry, such as ACA, may be fearful of dealing with this topic because of Hanger's advertising dollars. However, if they achieve the market share that they appear to desire, advertising will no longer be of significance to them as they will, for the most part, be the only game in town. If there is little or no competition, there is little or no need to advertise.
>
> In my case, the issue is becoming increasingly confusing. The provider list, prior to sending contract termination letters showed five providers, other than Hanger, as available options. It was interesting to find that, in CIGNA's letter in response to my questions as to providers available, they included one of these, in addition to Hanger . that being McCleve Orthotics & Prosthetics.
>
> I contacted McCleve to determine if they were either a Hanger facility (which they quickly responded no) or were a LINKIA contracted agency (to which they responded who)?
>
> My question is why one of the providers is still included as a CIGNA provider while all others have been eliminated?
>
> I have posed this question to both CIGNA and Linkia and have not yet received a response.
>
> In the contract termination letter, my provider was encouraged to contact Linkia to learn more about opportunities to become a part of that network, which we all know is a long road leading nowhere.
>
> This issue is one that impacts patients and hundreds of qualified, independent providers. I encourage both to be a part of bringing this situation to whose who could make a difference. Patients who feel they are being negatively impacted (including those who now have to drive 50-70 miles to see a prosthetist) should contact CIGNA or Great-West and express their concerns and frustrations.
>
> Providers are encouraged to contact their state's insurance board, their attorney general, and send communications about their concerns to the department of justice ( <Email Address Redacted> ).
>
> TO SEE ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS MENTIONED IN THIS COMMUNICATION, PLEASE VISIT WWW.GOTTRYS.COM/LEGGO/.
>
> ----------------
> Daniel Gottry
> <Email Address Redacted>
> 480-491-1020
>
>
>
>
Citation
Eileen Levis, “Re: Linkia/Hanger Contracts May Cost Everyone,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 2, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/227273.
