Difference between revisions of "Forefront Dermatology Questionable Practice"
(→Agency discovery) |
(→FFD discovery) |
||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
:However, on April 16th, Mr. Sh. received two emails and one attachment. All of them ignored Mr. Sh.'s information and requests; they insisted on payments for the services that Mr. Sh. had never requested. | :However, on April 16th, Mr. Sh. received two emails and one attachment. All of them ignored Mr. Sh.'s information and requests; they insisted on payments for the services that Mr. Sh. had never requested. | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− |
Revision as of 22:45, 25 April 2021
The Forefront Dermatology Questionable Practice is an investigation of one practice of Forefront Dermatology, S.C. or Forefront Dermatology, which is also marketed as Forefront Dermatology and Affiliated Practices and forefrontdermatology.com (hereinafter, FFD), which appears to be harmful if not fraudulent.
This text draft has been published in order to investigate the issue. This text draft doesn't intend in any way to accuse FFD in anything, but rather inform. On February 27th, 2021, FFD was notified and offered to provide their perspective on the issue. The investigators for CNM Cyber interpret that silence as acceptance of the truthfulness of Mr. Sh.'s data; this silence may be interpreted as acceptance of their fraud.
Visit discovery
Initial report
- In early October of 2020, Mr. Sh. realized his need in medical services of a dermatologist. The need was not urgent. Mr. Sh. had a Cigna insurance and looked for a medical service provider whose services would be covered by his insurance. Mr. Sh. executed the Google search for "dermatologist cigna" and the result returned Zocdoc.com's "Best Cigna Dermatologists" near him. He clicked and this online medical appointment booking service offered Mr. Sh. to book an appointment with Dr. Rhett Kent, MD in Arlington, VA. Mr. Sh. called the Dr. Rhett Kent, MD's office and they confirmed that they accept the Mr. Sh.'s Cigna insurance as in-network medical. Dr. Rhett Kent, MD is listed at the FFD website as their affiliated doctor.
- When Mr. Sh. arrived in the office, he presented his insurance card. The office of Dr. Rhett Kent, MD confirmed again that they accept Mr. Sh.'s insurance as in-network medical and his co-pay would be around 5% of the bill. That was why Mr. Sh. agreed on accepting Dr. Rhett Kent, MD's services.
- However, in late 2020, Mr. Sh. received the Cigna notification that they cannot cover their portion of the bill. Mr. Sh. called Cigna and they said that they no longer worked with that doctor, at least, on those procedures. Then, Mr. Sh. called the office of Dr. Rhett Kent, MD. There, Mr. Sh. was explained that they used to work with Cigna, but no longer work.
- Surprisingly, Mr. Sh. received a mailing not from Dr. Rhett Kent, MD's office, but from FFD. Later, they also sent their "past-due" notice. Mr. Sh. guesses that the Dr. Rhett Kent, MD's office and/or FFD, at least, misled him and attracted him to the services that Mr. Sh. wasn't willing to accept if he knew the payment details. Mr. Sh. agreed to pay his promised share, not the whole bill.
First notification of FFD
- On February 27th, the mailings were sent to both Dr. Rhett Kent, MD and FFD. Both were notified about the report and offered to take actions to clear the issue. As of April 22nd, 2021, none of them had responded, so texts on this page were moved from Talk pages to main pages of this wiki.
Agency entrance
- In mid-March, Mr. Sh. received a mail from Americollect, inc. (hereinafter, Americollect). The mail indicated that Americollect is collecting the debt that Mr. Sh. allegedly owed to FFD. After about 3 days, Mr. Sh. received a phone call from someone acting for Americollect. Mr. Sh. explained that his alleged "debt" is disputed. The agent ensured Mr. Sh. that his information would be verified with FFD.
- However, on April 16th, Mr. Sh. received two emails and one attachment. All of them ignored Mr. Sh.'s information and requests; they insisted on payments for the services that Mr. Sh. had never requested.