Michael K Ban, DMD

In December 2015, I was referred to Dr. Ban for a root removal. After he examined me, he told me that when he removed it I’d be under anesthesia, so I’d need to bring someone with me to wait with me and drive me home. His staff then reviewed my insurance and gave me an estimate of $ 96, which I paid right then. A couple days later I went back and had the procedure done.
A couple weeks after that I received a bill in the mail for $ 200. I called to question the bill and was told that after the procedure when they ran my insurance, they found that the anesthesia wasn’t covered anymore– it had changed from when they gave me the estimate to after the procedure. They told me they appealed to my insurance on my behalf and were denied and that they felt so badly that they gave me a discount and could charged me the full amount of over $ 300. Lastly, they told me that since the $ 96 was just an estimate, there was nothing I could do other than fight my insurance and that if I didn’t pay them, they’d send my bill to collections.
I called my insurance company and was basically told that 1. for as long as the representative had worked there, they had never covered anesthesia for a root removal (only local anesthesia) unless it was absolutely medically necessary (which mine wasn’t), 2. it was common practice among all insurance companies to only cover local anesthesia for a root removal, and 3. the surgeon had not given me a discount– due to an agreement they signed with the insurance company, they were only allowed to bill me $ 200 for anything that was not covered.
I called Dr. Ban’s office back and was told that I had been given the choice of local or full anesthesia, and since I made my choice, I had to pay for it. I was not given a choice– nothing was discussed with me on the pros and cons of the anesthesia choice. I was also basically told that everything my insurance company had told me was a lie.
Dr. Ban and his staff can continue to stand behind the legality of what they did. Yes, I did sign that what they told me was an estimate and that I was responsible for the remainder. However, that does not excuse the morality of their actions. At best, they were negligent in providing me options and negligent in reviewing my insurance accurately to provide a realistic estimate. However, due to the lies they continue to state, it seems like this was not negligence but a purposeful deceitful act. Future customers do need to be made aware.