Facing sky-high medical bills? Your hospital may have overcharged you
After Blake Pfeifer, a veteran plumber in Colorado Springs, Colorado, underwent emergency stomach surgery at a nearby nonprofit hospital in 2022, he struggled to understand the bills flooding in for his weeklong stay.
The initial charge for the procedure at the University of Colorado Health Memorial Hospital Central was $104,000, his records show. Because Pfeifer had no insurance and would be paying out of pocket, he was quoted a discounted price of $58,124.
He said he called the hospital to get clarity on the bills but got nowhere. He began paying some of them and was pursued by a collection agency on others. Then he sought the help of a patient advocacy group.
'I've always paid my bills,' Pfeifer, 63, said. 'I wanted a little better explanation.'
The group he worked with, Patient Rights Advocate.org, found that some of his charges were far higher than the amounts UCHealth reported under a federal price transparency rule that went into effect in 2021. And that wasn't the only notable finding: Only 25% of Pfeifer's charges showed up on the hospital's required price list and therefore could not be compared at all.
Pfeifer's experience is not uncommon, according to patient advocates, public interest lawyers and Medicare data.
The burden of medical debt, a problem faced by 100 million Americans, has pushed many to delay medical care and even file for bankruptcy, research shows. Making these obligations even more ruinous, patient advocates say, is that many may be based on inaccurate health care bills. These discrepancies occur even as hospitals must list prices for care on their websites.
The price transparency rule, initiated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, requires facilities to 'establish, update, and make public a list of all standard charges for all items and services.' Implemented under the first Trump administration, it aims to help consumers shop for care and compare prices before they go to the hospital.
Now, four years after the rule went into effect, hospital billing seems 'intentionally complex,' said Cynthia Fisher, founder of Patient Rights Advocate.org.
'Hospitals and insurance companies alike have even hired many middle-player firms to be able to maximize their margins and profits at every single patient encounter,' she added. 'Sometimes what we're finding is the charges like Blake's that are billed are far beyond even the highest rate that they have within their hospital pricing file.'
It adds up to an increasingly costly health care experience for Americans. A West Health-Gallup survey published April 2 found that 35% of respondents said they could not access high-quality, affordable health care — a new high since 2021.
UCHealth is a nonprofit hospital system with 14 hospitals in Colorado, southern Wyoming and western Nebraska. In its financial filings, UCHealth says its discount program for self-pay patients like Pfeifer 'reduces uninsured patients' liabilities to a level more equivalent of insured patients.'
Some of Pfeifer's records conflict with this description.
Pfeifer received 10 common blood tests, known as a metabolic panel, and was billed $104 for each. By comparison, UCHealth's public price data shows it charged insured patients between $6.52 and $52.89 for each test in 2022.
In another case, Pfeifer was charged $99 for a blood culture to measure bacteria, the records show, while UCHealth's pricing data listed a range of charges for insured patients of between $8 and $61. For a phosphate level blood test, Pfeifer was billed $30, while insured patients at UCHealth were charged between $3.72 and $22.02.
Under Colorado law, violations of hospital price transparency requirements are a deceptive trade practice.
Dan Weaver, a UCHealth spokesman, said in a statement that the health system 'does everything possible to share prices and estimates with our patients, encourage insurance coverage, assist patients in applying for Medicaid and other programs that may offer coverage.'
Regarding Pfeifer's case, Weaver said he could not comment because the hospital had received notice from a lawyer representing Pfeifer that he may file a claim against it. He said the hospital disputes what is in the lawyer's notice, but he declined to specify what exactly it disputes.
Weaver pointed to the state of Colorado's 2024 report stating that UCHealth hospitals 'are fully compliant with transparency requirements.' For 2022, when Pfeifer received care at UCHealth, the document showed the hospital providing his care received a 'fair' transparency rating by the state, above 'poor' but below 'good.'
Weaver added that CMS, which determines hospital compliance with transparency requirements, 'has not cited UCHealth or our hospitals for noncompliance.'
Enforcement actions are exceedingly rare. CMS' website lists monetary penalties against only 27 hospitals in the four years since the requirements began. (There are 6,000 hospitals nationwide, according to the American Hospital Association.)
A December 2024 report from the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General found that nearly 40% of the 100 hospitals it studied were not complying with the price transparency requirements.
Colorado law allows patients to sue a hospital bringing a debt collection proceeding against them when they believe the facilities have violated price transparency requirements. Steve Woodrow, a Democratic member of the Colorado House of Representatives and a lawyer at the firm Edelson in Denver, represents Pfeifer.
'What happened to Mr. Pfeifer unfortunately repeats itself and plays out across the country thousands of times every year,' Woodrow told NBC News in an interview. 'We now have a situation where people are afraid to get medical care because of the financial ramifications.'
Last November, the Justice Department alleged that UCHealth had overbilled Medicare and TRICARE, the health insurer for U.S. service members and their families. Between November 2017 and March 31, 2021, the government alleged, providers at UCHealth hospitals submitted inflated Medicare and TRICARE claims for 'frequent monitoring of vital signs' among patients in the emergency department.
UCHealth agreed to pay $23 million to settle the allegations without an admission of liability.
Weaver, the UCHealth spokesperson, said the hospital system settled to prevent a lengthy and costly legal dispute.
'UCHealth firmly denies these allegations,' he added, 'and maintains that its billing practices align with the guidelines set forth by the American College of Emergency Physicians.'
While UCHealth is a nonprofit, it has generated rising revenues and earnings recently. Net patient revenues at UCHealth, its securities filings show, totaled $8 billion in fiscal 2024, 17% higher than the previous year. Operating income was $523 million, an increase of 58% over 2023.
UCHealth's charges for care are higher than most other nonprofits', Medicare data shows. In fiscal 2022, the most recent figures available, UCHealth charged patients 6.6 times the hospital system's costs for care. That is far higher than the 4 times, on average, that U.S. nonprofit health systems charged for care that year, according to Ge Bai, a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Weaver, of UCHealth, said the hospital system's charges are competitive with others. 'Last year alone, UCHealth provided $1.3 billion in total community benefits including about $570 million in uncompensated care,' his statement said.
It's problem enough for patients who are overcharged or billed incorrectly for health care. But when hospitals sue to receive payment for those bills, such lawsuits often result in default judgments, legal experts say, issued to patients who don't appear in court or respond. Default judgments can have dire consequences, including wage garnishments.
UCHealth has sued thousands of patients using third parties or debt collection middlemen in recent years, a practice that is examined in new research by academics at the George Washington University Law School, Stanford University's Center for Clinical Research and Fisher's group.
The study, 'Hospitals Suing Patients: The Rise of Stealth Intermediaries,' found UCHealth and one debt collection firm brought 12,722 lawsuits against patients from 2019 to 2023. Legal records analyzed by the authors suggested 'many of the collection efforts were based on unsubstantiated and inaccurate billing records.'
The use of legal middlemen is a national trend and allows hospitals to hide their involvement, avoiding the bad publicity these lawsuits can bring, the research contends. Last year, Colorado lawmakers enacted legislation barring hospitals from suing patients under debt collectors' names, after an investigation into the practice by 9News, an NBC affiliate, and The Colorado Sun.
Barak Richman is the Alexander Hamilton professor of business law at George Washington Law School and a co-author of the study.
'What this research shows is people are being pulled into court where a power imbalance takes advantage of them,' he said. 'There needs to be a lot of deliberative thought into what to do about courts as it relates to medical debt.'
In a statement about the study, UCHealth's Weaver said those suits make up a 'tiny fraction of our patient care — in fact, more than 99.93% of all patient accounts are resolved without a lawsuit.'
He added: 'This study, based on older data, does not reflect the changes put in place in recent years to minimize billing errors, ensure patients are aware of our financial assistance options, and are well informed of their medical bills.'
Damon Carson, a small-business owner in Longmont, Colorado, was sued by a collection company after he received an outpatient endoscopy at a UCHealth hospital in his town. The suit came while he was disputing the hospital's charges as excessive.
A self-pay patient along with his wife, Traci, Carson tried to be a savvy shopper before he went in for the procedure in 2021. He asked for price estimates from several providers, and the nearby UCHealth facility provided one totaling $1,448, according to a court document. Carson paid upfront.
'I had the procedure and everything was fine,' Carson told NBC News. 'Then the bills started rolling in.'
Additional charges of $4,742 drove the total cost for the procedure to around $6,200, a court document shows.
Carson said that when he questioned the bills, noting the far lower original estimate, the hospital told him the add-on costs reflected the removal of growths found inside him during surgery.
A UCHealth spokesman said the original estimate for Carson's care was accurate and that he was told there might be additional charges and signed an acknowledgement of that, which the hospital provided to NBC News. (Carson says he recalls no discussion of the potential for additional charges.)
When Carson refused to pay, he was sued by Collection Center Inc., a debt collection firm that has often filed lawsuits against patients on behalf of the hospital, the academic study shows. In 2023, Carson and the collection firm conducted a mediation, according to court documents. Carson wound up paying only one-third of the additional charges to settle the case.
'I was surprised they caved that fast,' Carson told NBC News. 'Traci and I could easily have paid the $4,000 and our lives gone on. But this was a principle thing.'
Fisher, the patient advocate, said the outcome of Carson's case is revealing. 'No one should ever pay that first bill,' she said. 'The onus of proof needs to be on the hospital and the insurance company to prove that they have not overcharged us.'
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Charlie Munger Turned $1,000 Into Over $1 Million — And Made His Unemployed Friend Rich Too: 'Trouble With That Story Is It Only Happened Once'
What do you get when you mix $1,000, an unemployed golf buddy, and Charlie Munger's brain? Apparently, a passive income stream that lasted decades. No hedge fund, no Wall Street pitch deck — just Munger, long before his Berkshire Hathaway days, spotting a scrappy oil royalty deal and turning it into one of the most quietly outrageous investments of his life. And the best part? He didn't go it alone — he brought his unemployed friend along for the million-dollar ride. Back in 1962, Munger was still practicing law in Los Angeles when he met Al Marshall, an out-of-work oil industry worker trying to buy mineral rights at auction. Don't Miss: Deloitte's fastest-growing software company partners with Amazon, Walmart & Target – Hasbro, MGM, and Skechers trust this AI marketing firm — Munger, seeing the flaws in Marshall's strategy but liking the bones of the deal, decided to go in with him. Each put up $1,000 and bought into oil royalties through what was then a legal tax shelter known as an AB trust, which was later outlawed. And the returns? Straight-up legendary. "Fifty years later we were getting $100,000 a year on that investment," Munger told the crowd at the 2016 Daily Journal shareholder meeting. "The trouble with that story is that it only happened once." He delivered it with a chuckle, but the message was clear: not every great investment is repeatable — which is exactly why you act when you spot one. Munger touched on the story again during his final Daily Journal meeting in 2023, a full-circle moment near the end of his career, where he once more emphasized the rarity of those life-changing opportunities. Trending: Maximize saving for your retirement and cut down on taxes: . The story is backed by Janet Lowe's 2000 biography "Damn Right!," where Marshall said, "We only put up $1,000 each, and we've each probably made a half a million out of it." He added, "I'm still getting $2,000 to $3,000 a month from that," confirming the checks were still rolling in decades later. That's right — from a $1,000 investment, Munger's family was still cashing royalty checks well into the 21st century. All from a single, overlooked opportunity. Of course, Munger never sugarcoated it. "The trick in life," he told that 2016 crowd, "is when you get the one, or two, or three [big opportunities] that your fair allotment for a life is — that you've got to do something about it." And if you're still grinding toward that first big win? He had advice for that, too: "The first $100,000 is a b*tch, but you gotta do it." Hard work. A sharp eye. A little luck. And when the rare opportunity does show up? Move fast — because even for Charlie Munger, it only happened once. Read Next: Here's what Americans think you need to be considered Shutterstock Up Next: Transform your trading with Benzinga Edge's one-of-a-kind market trade ideas and tools. Click now to access unique insights that can set you ahead in today's competitive market. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? APPLE (AAPL): Free Stock Analysis Report TESLA (TSLA): Free Stock Analysis Report This article Charlie Munger Turned $1,000 Into Over $1 Million — And Made His Unemployed Friend Rich Too: 'Trouble With That Story Is It Only Happened Once' originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.


The Hill
31 minutes ago
- The Hill
Business leaders are reshaping Washington and delivering for taxpayers
President Trump's historic comeback victory included a mandate from the American people to reform the federal government. The inefficiencies of our broken bureaucracy are all too apparent to everyday Americans, and it was a big reason why they hired a new administration that specifically ran on fixing the system. Americans know the problems our government faces today are urgent and require immediate action. They have watched as the federal bureaucracy has exploded in size and as their tax dollars are wasted on frivolous spending. All of us realize that maintaining our current course is no longer sustainable. We are trillions of dollars in debt, and steadily approaching a point of no return. As Americans cut costs and work tirelessly to balance their own budgets after four years of economic uncertainty, they are now rightly demanding that the federal government do the same. But like the old cliche about the definition of insanity, there is no reason to think that the same processes and personnel who have spent decades in government bureaucracies will be able to reform themselves without some outside help. The status quo won't shake up the status quo. We need an infusion of new ideas, personnel and leadership in our capital city. Specifically, we need to lean on one of America's great strengths and resources: our incredibly successful, world-leading private sector. American businesses are second to none. We need to tap into the insights, methods and expertise of our business leaders and technical experts to turn the government around. Thankfully, President Trump and his administration are doing just that. A number of the president's cabinet secretaries are Washington outsiders who bring heavyweight private sector resumes to their new roles. The same goes for key subcabinet posts. For example, President Trump's nominee to run the federal Office of Personnel Management is a venture capitalist and tech executive with a quarter century of high-stakes business leadership under his belt. The most notable place where the president has brought in fresh energy and ideas from the private sector is the Department of Government Efficiency. Everybody knows about its leader, the hugely successful and outspoken entrepreneur Elon Musk. But a wealth of other top tech talent is working away behind the scenes, helping to find new efficiencies, examples of waste to cut and opportunities to update and upgrade how our government works. The team includes the sharp, young engineers who have attracted political and press attention, but it also includes veteran executives and marquee leaders who have answered the call to serve. Tom Krause, CEO of Cloud Software Group, is helping reform the Treasury Department's ancient payment processes. Joe Gebbia, co-founder of Airbnb, is helping to digitize the tangled processes around federal retirements. All of us are lucky that such well-respected minds in business and management are helping refocus our government around stewarding funds wisely and getting results. This is a turnaround project like no other, and it needs all hands on deck. I had the privilege of serving on the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee during my tenure representing the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I saw firsthand the misuse of federal funds, the inefficiency of the bureaucracy and the blatant waste of taxpayer dollars. But making meaningful cuts in a smart, targeted way can be tricky business. We want to crack down on waste, fraud and overreach but preserve genuinely important programs that support hardworking families, encourage innovation in key fields like energy, national security and AI, and give taxpayers a strong return for their money. Separating the wheat from the chaff takes skilled analysis and strong, outcome-driven leadership. These are not virtues for which Washington is famous. Luckily, the business world has them in spades. Despite consternation from some in the media about bringing private-sector expertise into government, this is absolutely nothing new. High-profile businesspeople have served and advised presidential administrations of both parties, bringing their fresh perspectives to bear on problems that have stumped the permanent class inside Washington. President Obama brought General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt to lead an economic advisory board, along with entrusting the executive chairman of Alphabet, Eric Schmidt, to lead a major Pentagon innovation board. President Biden staffed his Council of Advisors on Science and Technology with a whole list of private sector leaders, including from tech giants Google, Microsoft and Nvidia. President Trump and DOGE are working to fix the broken systems our government relies on. They are absolutely right to call upon our country's deep well of human capital in the form of our top business leaders to do it. The American people have spoken, and they want significant and meaningful reform. A majority of Americans support DOGE's mission to increase accountability and enact long-lasting federal reforms. Already, thanks to DOGE's efforts, billions of dollars worth of savings have been found. But if we're actually going to redirect the slow-moving shipwreck of federal waste and budget deficits, these early efforts must only be the beginning. We need to keep drawing on outside perspectives and the business world's results-driven mindset to cut through the jungle of red tape and deliver meaningful results for Americans everywhere.


Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
An expensive Alzheimer's lifestyle plan offers false hope, experts say
Kerry Briggs was taking them all because a doctor had told her that with enough supplements and lifestyle modifications, her Alzheimer's symptoms could not only be slowed, but reversed. It is an idea that has become the focus of television specials, popular podcasts, and conferences; the sell behind mushroom supplements and self-help books. Advertisement But the suggestion that Alzheimer's can be reversed through lifestyle adjustments has outraged doctors and scientists in the medical establishment, who have repeatedly said that there is little to no proof for such a claim and expressed concern that the idea could harm a large group of vulnerable Americans. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up John Briggs had come across the idea after learning about Dale Bredesen, who had been performing a series of small and unconventional studies through which he claimed to have designed a set of guidelines to reverse Alzheimer's symptoms. 'Very, very few people should ever get this,' Bredesen told an audience in July, referring to cognitive decline. His company has made bracelets with the phrase 'Alzheimer's Is Now Optional' on them. His pitch has gained a following. Bredesen's 2017 book, 'The End of Alzheimer's,' has sold around 300,000 copies in the United States and became a New York Times bestseller. Advertisement A day's worth of supplements for Kerry Briggs, diagnosed with early-onset Alzheimer's. JAMIE KELTER DAVIS/NYT Many doctors encourage Alzheimer's patients to modify their diets and exercise regimens in hopes of slowing the disease's progress, said Dr. Bruce Miller, director of the Memory and Aging Center at the University of California San Francisco. 'The question, though, of reversal is very different.' 'It's one thing to say that you're reversing an illness because someone says they feel better and another to prove it,' Miller said. 'We don't have the proof.' Bredesen, 72, was once also a top neurologist at the University of California San Francisco, but he has not had an active medical license for much of the past three decades and doesn't see patients anymore. He became skeptical of the medical and pharmaceutical industries' approach to treating Alzheimer's and dedicated himself to an alternative method focused on food, supplements, lifestyle tweaks, and detoxification treatments. The central idea was that there was no 'silver bullet' -- no one pill or intervention -- that could cure Alzheimer's. Instead, Bredesen believed in firing a 'silver buckshot' (a reference to the sprayed pellets that come out of shotgun shells) by modifying 36 factors simultaneously. His strict protocol could be personalized after extensive lab testing but generally involved a low-carbohydrate diet, intermittent fasting, supplements and, at times, interventions such as hormone treatments and home mold remediation. For the Briggses, who live in North Barrington, Ill., the adjustments did not come cheap: $1,000 a month for supplements, $450 per hour for a specialty doctor and other costs, which altogether added up to $25,000 over eight months. Advertisement But Kerry Briggs wanted to do something to help find a treatment for the disease, and John Briggs wanted to help his wife. More than 7 million people in the United States -- roughly 11 percent of those 65 and older -- have Alzheimer's, the world's leading cause of dementia. Despite decades of research and the development of a few medications with modest benefits, a cure for the disease has remained elusive. The Alzheimer's Association, which helped fund Bredesen's earlier and more conventional research, sees his recent approach as insufficiently rigorous. His trials have suggested his protocol can improve cognition, but Maria Carrillo, the organization's chief science officer, said they 'fall short of what the research community' would consider convincing enough to suggest to patients, since they lack control groups and are small, with the number of participants ranging from 10 to 25. Others have expressed similar unease. In 2020, Dr. Joanna Hellmuth, then a neurologist at the University of California San Francisco, published an article in The Lancet Neurology pointing to a number of 'red flags' within Bredesen's studies, including 'the substantial potential for a placebo effect.' Dr. Jason Karlawish, co-director of Penn Memory Center at the University of Pennsylvania, said Bredesen's research and recommendations don't adhere to the standards of medicine. The Alzheimer Society of Canada has gone so far as to say Bredesen is offering 'false hope.' Bredesen maintains that the results of his program can be remarkable, though he acknowledges it's less successful for people with more noticeable symptoms: 'It amazes me how people fight back against something that's actually helping,' Bredesen said. Advertisement He connected The New York Times with patients who said they had benefited from his recommendations. Sally Weinrich, 77, in South Carolina, said she used to forget her pocketbook or miss the school pickup window for her grandchildren, but now thinks more clearly. Darrin Kasteler, 55, in Utah, who had struggled to tie a necktie and to drive, said both had become easier. To Bredesen's supporters, the testimonials are evidence of promise. But what divides Bredesen from the medical establishment isn't his emphasis on lifestyle adjustments; it is the boldness of his claims, his unconventional and strict treatment plan, and the business he is building around both. It was one of Kerry Briggs' sisters, Jennifer Scheurer, who first noticed that something was off. In 2021, while visiting Scheurer in Oregon, Briggs repeated the same story a few times in one day, and had trouble finding words and playing board games. Scheurer also found Briggs standing in her kitchen, seemingly lost. This was particularly odd; Briggs was an architect, and she had designed the kitchen herself. Briggs underwent a series of tests, ending in a spinal tap, which showed evidence of Alzheimer's. She was 61. The news was devastating, but Briggs told her husband that she wanted to enroll in a clinical trial to help others. But none of the trials admitted her. She weighed too little, and her disease was already too advanced. Then a friend recommended 'The End of Alzheimer's.' John Briggs read that book and a follow-up, 'The First Survivors of Alzheimer's.' Excited, he reached out to Bredesen's company, Apollo Health, to see what could be done for his wife. Bredesen had developed a paid plan called 'Recode,' a portmanteau of the phrase 'reversal of cognitive decline,' and a training program for health practitioners like medical doctors, chiropractors and naturopaths to learn to implement it. On the Apollo Health website, Bredesen's program is advertised as the 'only clinically proven program to reverse cognitive decline in early stage Alzheimer's disease.' Advertisement In January 2024, John Briggs paid an $810 fee to join Apollo Health, which gave Kerry Briggs access to a personalized plan and matched her with Dr. Daniel LaPerriere, a doctor in Louisville, Colo. On LaPerriere's recommendation, the Briggses began to eat a modified keto diet that was low in sugar and rich in plants, lean protein, and healthy fats. The Briggses were not allowed most fruit -- no apples, bananas, peaches or grapes ('all these things that we love,' John Briggs said), though the couple made an exception for blueberries. To see if Kerry Briggs was in a metabolic state of ketosis, where fat is used for energy instead of carbohydrates, John Briggs experimented with pricking her finger twice each day to test her blood. In keeping with Bredesen's general guidelines, Kerry Briggs began working with a therapist to manage stress and tried the brain-training games the protocol recommended, though she struggled to play them. LaPerriere gave John Briggs the unconventional instruction to collect dust samples at home in order to determine whether 'toxic mold' was present (only trace amounts were) and ordered lab tests to see if Kerry Briggs was suffering from an inability to flush it from her organs (she wasn't). He also prescribed Briggs hormone-replacement therapy, in the hope of improving her cognition. Advertisement Briggs' primary-care physician raised concerns about the risks, John Briggs said, but she took the hormones anyway. Briggs understood that the protocol would be unlikely to restore Kerry Briggs to her former self. But he was determined to see it through for at least six months. By last September, though, John Briggs was struggling to notice many benefits. Kerry Briggs could no longer keep track of conversations with her therapist, who suggested they stop the sessions. The next month, John Briggs began touring memory-care facilities for his wife. In February, after about eight months, they quit the protocol altogether. Bredesen said that he rarely tells people not to try his program, even if the chance of helping is small, because of the possibility of improvement. But he considered Kerry Briggs' experience 'not representative' of the results he has achieved in trials and said in retrospect that 'you could kind of tell ahead of time' that she would not fare well. Bredesen has urged prospective patients to start his program preventively or early in the disease's progression. Helping patients already experiencing significant decline, like Briggs, is difficult, he and LaPerriere said. 'People are more incentivized to come in when they're farther along,' Bredesen said. 'And that's a real dilemma, which is why we're telling people, 'Please do not wait because we can do so much more.'' This article originally appeared in