Ouch. That ‘Free’ Annual Checkup Might Cost You. Here’s Why.

10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

When Kristy Uddin, 49, went in for her annual mammogram in Washington state last year, she assumed she would not incur a bill because the test is one of the many preventive measures guaranteed to be free to patients under the 2010 Affordable Care Act. The ACA’s provision made medical and economic sense, encouraging Americans to use screening tools that could nip medical problems in the bud and keep patients healthy.

So when a bill for $236 arrived, Uddin — an occupational therapist familiar with the health care industry’s workings — complained to her insurer and the hospital. She even requested an independent review.

“I’m like, ‘Tell me why am I getting this bill?’” Uddin recalled in an interview. The unsatisfying explanation: The mammogram itself was covered, per the ACA’s rules, but the fee for the equipment and the facility was not.

That answer was particularly galling, she said, because, a year earlier, her “free” mammogram at the same health system had generated a bill of about $1,000 for the radiologist’s reading. Though she fought that charge (and won), this time she threw in the towel and wrote the $236 check. But then she dashed off a submission to the KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” project:

“I was really mad — it’s ridiculous,” she later recalled. “This is not how the law is supposed to work.”

The ACA’s designers might have assumed that they had spelled out with sufficient clarity that millions of Americans would no longer have to pay for certain types of preventive care, including mammograms, colonoscopies, and recommended vaccines, in addition to doctor visits to screen for disease. But the law’s authors didn’t reckon with America’s ever-creative medical billing juggernaut.

Over the past several years, the medical industry has eroded the ACA’s guarantees, finding ways to bill patients in gray zones of the law. Patients going in for preventive care, expecting that it will be fully covered by insurance, are being blindsided by bills, big and small.

The problem comes down to deciding exactly what components of a medical encounter are covered by the ACA guarantee. For example, when do conversations between doctor and patient during an annual visit for preventive services veer into the treatment sphere? What screenings are needed for a patient’s annual visit?

A healthy 30-year-old visiting a primary care provider might get a few basic blood tests, while a 50-year-old who is overweight would merit additional screening for Type 2 diabetes.

Making matters more confusing, the annual checkup itself is guaranteed to be “no cost” for women and people age 65 and older, but the guarantee doesn’t apply for men in the 18-64 age range — though many preventive services that require a medical visit (such as checks of blood pressure or cholesterol and screens for substance abuse) are covered.

No wonder what’s covered under the umbrella of prevention can look very different to medical providers (trying to be thorough) and billers (intent on squeezing more dollars out of every medical encounter) than it does to insurers (who profit from narrower definitions).

For patients, the gray zone has become a billing minefield. Here are a few more examples, gleaned from the Bill of the Month project in just the past six months:

Peter Opaskar, 46, of Texas, went to his primary care doctor last year for his preventive care visit — as he’d done before, at no cost. This time, his insurer paid $130.81 for the visit, but he also received a perplexing bill for $111.81. Opaskar learned that he had incurred the additional charge because when his doctor asked if he had any health concerns, he mentioned that he was having digestive problems but had already made an appointment with his gastroenterologist. So, the office explained, his visit was billed as both a preventive physical and a consultation. “Next year,” Opasker said in an interview, if he’s asked about health concerns, “I’ll say ‘no,’ even if I have a gunshot wound.”

Kevin Lin, a technology specialist in Virginia in his 30s, went to a new primary care provider to take advantage of the preventive care benefit when he got insurance; he had no physical complaints. He said he was assured at check-in that he wouldn’t be charged. His insurer paid $174 for the checkup, but he was billed an additional $132.29 for a “new patient visit.” He said he has made many calls to fight the bill, so far with no luck.

Finally, there’s Yoori Lee, 46, of Minnesota, herself a colorectal surgeon, who was shocked when her first screening colonoscopy yielded a bill for $450 for a biopsy of a polyp — a bill she knew was illegal. Federal regulations issued in 2022 to clarify the matter are very clear that biopsies during screening colonoscopies are included in the no-cost promise. “I mean, the whole point of screening is to find things,” she said, stating, perhaps, the obvious.

Though these patient bills defy common sense, room for creative exploitation has been provided by the complex regulatory language surrounding the ACA. Consider this from Ellen Montz, deputy administrator and director of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, in an emailed response to queries and an interview request on this subject: “If a preventive service is not billed separately or is not tracked as individual encounter data separately from an office visit and the primary purpose of the office visit is not the delivery of the preventive item or service, then the plan issuer may impose cost sharing for the office visit.”

So, if the doctor decides that a patient’s mention of stomach pain does not fall under the umbrella of preventive care, then that aspect of the visit can be billed separately, and the patient must pay?

And then there’s this, also from Montz: “Whether a facility fee is permitted to be charged to a consumer would depend on whether the facility usage is an integral part of performing the mammogram or an integral part of any other preventive service that is required to be covered without cost sharing under federal law.”

But wait, how can you do a mammogram or colonoscopy without a facility?

Unfortunately, there is no federal enforcement mechanism to catch individual billing abuses. And agencies’ remedies are weak — simply directing insurers to reprocess claims or notifying patients they can resubmit them.

In the absence of stronger enforcement or remedies, CMS could likely curtail these practices and give patients the tools to fight back by offering the sort of clarity the agency provided a few years ago regarding polyp biopsies — spelling out more clearly what comes under the rubric of preventive care, what can be billed, and what cannot.

The stories KFF Health News and NPR receive are likely just the tip of an iceberg. And while each bill might be relatively small compared with the stunning $10,000 hospital bills that have become all too familiar in the United States, the sorry consequences are manifold. Patients pay bills they do not owe, depriving them of cash they could use elsewhere. If they can’t pay, those bills might end up with debt-collection agencies and, ultimately, harm their credit score.

Perhaps most disturbing: These unexpected bills might discourage people from seeking preventive screenings that could be lifesaving, which is why the ACA deemed them “essential health benefits” that should be free.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

Don’t Forget…

Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

Recommended

  • Older people’s risk of abuse is rising. Can an ad campaign protect them?
  • Wondering how to spot the signs of postpartum depression?
    Understanding postpartum depression: symptoms, risk factors, treatment, and why it’s not just for birthing parents.

Learn to Age Gracefully

Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Most People Try The Wrong Way To Unshrimp Their Posture (Here’s How To Do It Better)

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Many people try to correct posture by pulling the shoulders back and tucking in the chin, but that doesn’t work. Happily, there is a way that does! Kinesiologist Kyle Waugh demonstrates:

    Defying gravity

    The trick is simple, and is about how maintaining good posture needs to be unconscious and natural, not forced. After all, who is maintaining singular focus for 16 waking hours a day?

    Instead, pay attention to how the body relates to gravity without excessive muscle tension, aligning the (oft-forgotten!) hips, and maintaining balance. The importance of hip position is really not to be underestimated, since in many ways the hips are a central axis of the body just as the spine is, and the spine itself sits in the hips.

    A lot of what holds the body in poor posture tends to be localized muscle tensions, so address those with stretches and relaxation exercises.

    For a few quick tests and exercises to try, enjoy:

    Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!

    Want to learn more?

    You might also like to read:

    6 Ways To Look After Your Back ← no video on this one, just 6 concepts that you can apply to your daily life

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Ice Cream vs Fruit Sorbet – Which is Healthier?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Our Verdict

    When comparing ice cream to fruit sorbet, we picked the ice cream.

    Why?

    Well, neither are great!

    But the deciding factor is simple: ice cream has more nutrients to go with its sugar.

    While “fruit is good” is a very reliable truism in and of itself, sorbet tends to be made with fruit juice (or at best, purée, which for these purposes is more or less the same) and sugar. The small vitamin content is nowhere near enough to make up for this. The fiber having been removed by juicing or puréeing, the fruit juice with added sugar is basically shooting glucose and fructose into your veins while doing little else.

    Fruit juice (even freshly-pressed) is nowhere near in the same league of healthiness as actual fruit!

    See also: Which Sugars Are Healthier, And Which Are Just The Same?

    Ice cream, meanwhile, is also not exactly a health food. But it has at least some minerals worth speaking of (mostly: calcium, potassium, phosphorus), and some fat that a) can be used b) helps slightly slow the absorption of the sugars.

    In short: please do not consider either of these things to be a health food. But if you’re going to choose one or the other (and are not lactose-intolerant), then ice cream has some small positives to go with its negatives.

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • To Nap Or Not To Nap; That Is The Question

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    It’s Q&A Day at 10almonds!

    Have a question or a request? We love to hear from you!

    In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!

    As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!

    So, no question/request too big or small

    ❝Is it good to nap in the afternoon, or better to get the famous 7 to 9 hours at night and leave it at that? I’m worried that daytime napping to make up for a shorter night’s sleep will just perpetuate and worsen it in the long run, is there a categorical answer here?❞

    Generally considered best is indeed the 7–9 hours at night (yes, including at older ages):

    Why You Probably Need More Sleep

    …and sleep efficiency does matter too:

    Why 7 Hours Sleep Is Not Enough

    …which in turn, is influenced by factors other than just length and depth:

    The 6 Dimensions Of Sleep (And Why They Matter)

    However! Knowing what is best in theory does not help at all if it’s unattainable in practice. So, if you’re not getting a good night’s sleep (and we’ll assume you’re already practising good sleep hygiene; fresh bedding, lights-off by a certain time, no alcohol or caffeine before bed, that kind of thing), then a first port-of-call may be sleep remedies:

    Safe Effective Sleep Aids For Seniors

    If even those don’t work, then napping is now likely your best back-up option. But, napping done incorrectly can indeed cause as many problems as it solves. There’s a difference between:

    • “I napped and now I have energy again” and you continue with your day
    • Darkness took me, and I strayed out of thought and time. Stars wheeled overhead, and every day was as long as the life age of the earth—but it was not the end.” and now you’re not sure whether it’s day or night, whose house you’re in, or whether you’ve been drugged.

    These two very common napping experiences are influenced by factors that we can control:

    How To Nap Like A Pro (No More “Sleep Hangovers”!)

    If you still prefer to not risk napping but do need at least some kind of refreshment that’s actually a refreshment and not just taking stimulants, then you might consider this practice (from yoga nidra) that gives some of the same benefits of sleep, without actually sleeping:

    Non-Sleep Deep Rest: A Neurobiologist’s Insights

    Take care!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Older people’s risk of abuse is rising. Can an ad campaign protect them?
  • Fruit & Veg In The Fridge: Pros & Cons

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    It’s Q&A Day at 10almonds!

    Have a question or a request? We love to hear from you!

    In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!

    As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!

    So, no question/request too big or small

    ❝What effect does refrigeration have on the nutritional value of fruit and vegetables??❞

    It’s difficult to give a single definitive answer, because naturally there are a lot of different fruits and vegetables, and a lot of different climates. The answer may be different for tomatoes in Alaska vs bananas in Arizona!

    However, we can still generalize at least somewhat

    Refrigeration will generally slow down any degradation process, and in the case of fruit and vegetables, that can mean slowing down their “ripening” too, as applicable.

    However…

    Refrigeration will also impede helpful bioactivity too, and that includes quite a list of things.

    Here’s a good study that’s quite illustrative; we’d summarize the conclusions but the rather long title already does that nicely:

    Storage of Fruits and Vegetables in Refrigerator Increases their Phenolic Acids but Decreases the Total Phenolics, Anthocyanins and Vitamin C with Subsequent Loss of their Antioxidant Capacity

    So, this really is a case of “there are pros and cons, but probably more cons on balance”.

    In practical terms, a good take-away from this can be twofold:

    1. don’t keep fruit and veg in the fridge unless the ambient temperature really requires it
    2. if the ambient temperature does require it, it’s best to get the produce in fresh each day if that’s feasible, to minimize time spent in the fridge

    An extra thing not included there: often when it comes to the spoilage of fruit and veg, the problem is that it respires and oxidizes; reducing the temperature does lower the rate of those, but often a far better way is to remove the oxygen. So for example, if you get carried away and chop too many carrot batons for your hummus night, then putting them in a sealed container can go a long way to keeping them fresh.

    See also: How Does the Nutritional Value of Fruits and Vegetables Change Over Time?

    Enjoy!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Anchovies vs Sardines – Which is Healthier?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Our Verdict

    When comparing anchovies to sardines, we picked the sardines.

    Why?

    In terms of macros, sardines have slightly more protein and more than 2x the fat, but the fat profile is healthier than that of anchovies, meaning that the amount of saturated fat is the same, and sardines have more poly- and monounsaturated fats. Breaking it down further, sardines also have more omega-3. Unless you are for whatever reason especially keen to keep your total fat* intake down, sardines win here.

    *or calories, which in this case come almost entirely from the fat, and sardines are consequently nearly 2x higher in calories.

    When it comes to vitamins, sardines further distinguish themselves; anchovies have more of vitamins B2 and B3, while sardines have more of vitamins A, B1, B6, B12, B9, E, and K—in some cases, by quite large margins (especially the B12 and K, being 14x more and 26x more, respectively). A clear win for sardines.

    Minerals are closer to even; anchovies have more copper, iron, and zinc, while sardines have more calcium, manganese, phosphorus, and selenium. That’s already a slight win for sardines, before we take into account that sardines’ margins of difference are also much greater than anchovies’.

    In short, enjoy either in moderation if you are so inclined, but sardines win on overall nutritional density.

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    Farmed Fish vs Wild Caught: More Important Than You Might Think

    Take care!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Corn Chips vs Potato Chips: Which is Healthier?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Our Verdict

    When comparing corn chips to potato chips, we picked the corn chips.

    Why?

    First, let it be said, this was definitely a case of “lesser evil voting” as there was no healthy choice here. But as for which is relatively least unhealthy…

    Most of the macronutrient and micronutrient profile is quite similar. Both foods are high carb, moderately high fat, negligible protein, and contain some trace minerals and even some tiny amounts of vitamins. Both are unhealthily salty.

    Exact numbers will of course vary from one brand’s product to another, but you can see some indicative aggregate scores here in the USDA’s “FoodData Central” database:

    Corn Chips | Potato Chips

    The biggest health-related difference that doesn’t have something to balance it out is that the glycemic index of corn chips averages around 63, whereas the glycemic index of potato chips averages around 70 (that is worse).

    That’s enough to just about tip the scales in favor of corn chips.

    The decision thus having been made in favor of corn chips (and the next information not having been part of that decision), we’ll mention one circumstantial extra benefit to corn chips:

    Corn chips are usually eaten with some kind of dip (e.g. guacamole, sour cream, tomato salsa, etc) which can thus deliver actual nutrients. Potato chips meanwhile are generally eaten with no additional nutrients. So while we can’t claim the dip as being part of the nutritional make-up of the corn chips, we can say:

    If you’re going to have a habit of eating one or the other, then corn chips are probably the least unhealthy of the two.

    And yes, getting vegetables (e.g. in the dips) in ways that are not typically associated with “healthy eating” is still better than not getting vegetables at all!

    Check out: Level-Up Your Fiber Intake! (Without Difficulty Or Discomfort)

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: