I'm very far from a lawyer, but I've always been a bit confused how hospital bills are enforceable contracts given my rudimentary understanding of contract law. Turns out there are papers by smarter people with similar ideas:
> Thus, notwithstanding the type of contract created in a particular case, this article concludes that the proper application of contract law principles dictates that patients are usually required to pay no more than the reasonable market-based value of the health care they receive. The determination of reasonable value is based on the market value—the average actual reimbursement the hospital receives for the care in question—and not on the hospitals unilaterally-set list price or billed charge.
Has this been tested in court? I guess the main issue is that the people who receive the big bills are most likely to have the hardest time finding representation since poorer people are more likely to not have insurance. Really it should be illegal for hospitals to send any bill with crazy inflated prices that are negotiated down by all insurance policies.
> Thus, notwithstanding the type of contract created in a particular case, this article concludes that the proper application of contract law principles dictates that patients are usually required to pay no more than the reasonable market-based value of the health care they receive. The determination of reasonable value is based on the market value—the average actual reimbursement the hospital receives for the care in question—and not on the hospitals unilaterally-set list price or billed charge.
From the abstract in: https://ideas.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...
Has this been tested in court? I guess the main issue is that the people who receive the big bills are most likely to have the hardest time finding representation since poorer people are more likely to not have insurance. Really it should be illegal for hospitals to send any bill with crazy inflated prices that are negotiated down by all insurance policies.