Edward Petrosky's jaw surgery in March relieved his facial discomfort but left his daughter with pain in the posterior.
Marianne Krizmanich said repeated attempts to fully resolve disputed charges on her father's UPMC bill have failed. Meanwhile, a collection agency has begun dunning Petrosky, 86, of Irwin.
“The saga goes on and on,” said Krizmanich of Hampton, the controller of an industrial supply distribution company. “It's certainly very frustrating.”
The frustration began mounting the moment Petrosky's bill arrived. It reflected only the total amount for the services provided at UPMC Mercy.
“How crazy is that?” Krizmanich said. “I guess that's one way to hide any overbilling that might be occurring.”
It's difficult to fault Krizmanich for such cynicism. UPMC recently agreed to pay the federal government $2.5 million to settle part of a whistle-blower lawsuit alleging the hospital network overbilled government insurance programs for neurosurgical procedures.
After requesting and receiving an itemized bill, Krizmanich noticed a $163 charge for glaucoma drops Petrosky takes nightly before going to bed. Being that he had same-day surgery and was discharged about 6 p.m., Mercy didn't give him the drops that night.
Krizmanich also was confounded by a $50 charge for a “smoke-tobacco counsel.” Four months after the bill arrived, she still doesn't know what that is.
“The day before the surgery, a hospital representative called and asked if my father smoked. When I said yes, I was asked if he would need a patch to get through the day, and I said no,” she said. “Was that a smoke-tobacco counsel? I can't get a UPMC rep to confirm or provide an explanation.”
Krizmanich said she disputed the eye drops and smoke counsel charges and was told there was no need to pay the invoice until the dispute was resolved. Imagine her surprise when Petrosky received a collection agency notice last week demanding the bill be paid — minus the $163 charge for the drops Petrosky didn't receive.
“Bottom line is that UPMC says we received the smoke-tobacco counsel. We say we don't believe we did because no one can explain to us what a smoke-tobacco counsel is,” Krizmanich said. “Shouldn't we have the ability to appeal their decision? How can they place us for collection when they haven't given us notice as to the final outcome of the dispute and without issuing a revised invoice?”
Contacted Wednesday, a UPMC spokeswoman did not immediately address the issues Krizmanich raised but pledged to look into them.
Krizmanich said the protracted dispute has worn her down. She's prepared to pay the contested charge “to put an end to the time and aggravation put toward this nonsense.”
Feisty even at his advanced age, Petrosky isn't ready to raise the white flag.
“I want the $50 (off the bill),” he said. “This is a (expletive) rip-off.”
Eric Heyl is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at 412-320-7857 or eheyl@tribweb.com.
