Hello, I recently had a baby that came earlier than expected. The subsequent hospital stay and expenses have run up to $50, 000. We only had to pay a percentage because we have insurance, but we were not able to cover everything. After using our flex-spending and all available money, we still owe $2000. We have no way to pay this right now. My wife tried a little negotiating and they offered to knock of $300 if we paid them $350 a month until paid off. We can't afford that, having a baby is expensive enough! When my wife told them we couldn't afford that much a month, they wanted to transfer her to someone who was going to ask a lot of personal questions about how much we make, how much our mortgage is etc. Thankfully, she waited to talk to me. My mother is a disabled retired nurse. She has told me that I can send the hospital a "letter of intent to pay" the bill at whatever monthly amount I choose. She said that as long as I keep sending monthly money on time they will not send our account to collections. She has and is doing this for a few emergency surgeries she has had. Is this possible? Is it a good idea? Is there any more information I need to know? In the last few years, by the help of this board and others like it, I have made myself credit worthy. We are currently shopping for a new home and I would hate to bring the credit bureau nightmares back! I appreciate any advice you have to offer!
I may be off base here, but did you ask them what they were going to use this information for? I was talking to a friend the other day, and they had a very high preemie hospital bill, and a charitable organization picked up some of the tab. I hope the baby is well
In my opinion, it would seem you could negotiate away the $2,000.00 balance. If that is all you owe on a $50,000 bill, then the hospital should be able to write off that balance. Look at the total dollar picture, I don't know what you're paying with the flex account and savings, but if you didn't pay it, they would certainly lose more than the $2,000 balance in sending to a collection agency. I would negotiate to "forgive" the balance by paying off what you can now. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
What state are you in? Did you have "regular" insurance or an HMO? The remain balance after the insurance payment, was that your responsibility as a co-payment or deductible? Can you afford to make small monthly payments? Do you have assets that could be seized?
Your mother is right. Hospitals will work with you regarding the repayment of a bill. If you cannot financially accept their repayment terms they will steer you to a finance co. for repayment. Similar thing happened with me. Recently received a bill for almost $1400 from a hospital. They suggested certain terms which I could not afford. Advised them that I could only pay a certain amount. The hospital then contacted their outside collection source - which will bill me for the amount that I had originally mentioned to the hospital. Interest free.
If you're referring to my reply - no. Called up the outifit and they said the account will not show up on any CRA, unless I become delinquent. Of course this is a major hpspital here in Sacramento, Ca. Other hospitals/areas might be different.
I live in Kansas. We have PPO. The money owed is our deductible plus 30% up to the out of pocket maximum of $5,500 of which we used our flex spending to pay $3000 of.
I used an accord & satisfaction check conforming with UCC 3-311 on a hospital (your state will have enacted the UCC, but may not have updated to 3-311 ... it came out in '93 or so) ... paid 'em 700 or so when they were looking for over $2k IIRC. It worked. I sat back and waited 90 days, when they sent it to a collection agency I told the CA what I had done ... in the end the hospital called it a "courtesy discount". YMMV
I'm ignorant enough to not really understand 1/2 of what you are saying. If you could point me in the right direction, I'll figure it out. What is a UCC and how do I find what my state has? Also the bill isn't directly from a hospital. The bill we still need to pay is for the neonatal doctors for which we were billed seperately by pediatrix.
Uniform Commercial Code. Drafted on a national basis by a committee of lawyers. Enacted on a uniform basis (but with deviations) gradually, section-by-section by state legislators nationwide. It's somewhere in your state's code or statutes or laws ... with any luck, some portion of the numbering system is intact enough so that you can match it up. Use the Big G to search now that you know what I'm talking about.
I think what flacorps is advising is the use of a "restricted endorsement", where you would make the notation on the check that this is "payment in full to settle debt in entirety", or similar wording. You are in essence stating that this is the "best" you can do (as far as payment of debt), and you leave it up to the creditor to accept or decline the "offer". The tactical attraction here is the human element; most admin people will not notice the "endorsement" and process the check. Under the UCC code, the creditor MUST show declining of the offer by returning the check, or sending you a check for the amount (should they deposit the check) within 90 days (usually). IF they do not, then they give up all rights to collect on the debt, and have "agreed" to settle the debt by accepting your payment.
You also need to see if restrictive endorsements are allowed in your state. Some states do not allow these types of endorsements.
There can be two parallel bodies of law that affect the use of accord & satisfaction checks ... one is the pre-UCC body of law in the state that may be statutory or may simply be common-law case law where the subject has come up. The other may be the UCC and 3-311 or some prior form of it. The difference is that the UCC does not require any sort of meeting of the minds ... and the state case law or older statutes probably will require some sort of meeting of the minds ... if in the non-UCC situation a creditor can show the check just went to a bank's lockbox or something the result is unpredictable ... some states would allow the creditor to avoid the satisfaction, others would favor the debtor. That's why the UCC committee tried to make a national rule. If a debtor uses the check in a situation where either or both are applicable, the debtor should attempt to create a scenario where the maximum number of prerequisites to applicability have been fulfilled, unless the debtor is seeking tactical surprise. Tactical surprise is a two-edged sword however. While the UCC allows it, a given judge might not like it. Worked for me though.
P.S. - the official commentary to 3-311 really shouldn't be online (I think it's copyrighted to the American Law Institute), but it is ... I believe from Kansas or Nebraska or one of those big square states ... the Big G is invaluable here.
Hence a check (w/restrictive endorsement) should be mailed directly to the business office address, to avoid a possibility of a lock box arangement. In this day, an e-pay or electronic check would need to be avoided.
No, you mail it to the address that is contractually designated for an accord and satisfaction check if the creditor has done so in their contract. Otherwise, hit that lock box and stay quiet for 90 days (for maximum tactical surprise), unless your state's version of 3-311 has some verbiage that if the payment is handled electronically in whole or in part or without opportunity for human review or whatever that the accord & satisfaction doesn't work. I'm not sure if that language applies by virtue of some new, updated version of 3-311 that came out of the committee, or if it's a deviation from the '93 revision and commentary by some state or states ... but before you do anything ya gotta look it up for your own state.
Kansas Statutes - http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/getStatuteInfo.do UCC 3-311 from Kansas Statutes
Yeah, that's Kansas's version and it's similar to Florida's. Which is unsurprising, hence the "uniform" (which we all know uniform codes are not, due to the fact that there's always some legislator of lobbyists who thinks he's smarter than the committee). But the commentary runs pages and pages and has at least a couple of hypotheticals ... I think one was about a life insurance company trying to pull an a&s on a widow ... you get my drift.
