BBB Accredited Business sinceAdditional Locations
BBB Business Reviews may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes.
Request a Quote
A BBB Accredited Business since
BBB has determined that Baptist Hospitals of Southeast Texas meets BBB accreditation standards, which include a commitment to make a good faith effort to resolve any consumer complaints. BBB Accredited Businesses pay a fee for accreditation review/monitoring and for support of BBB services to the public.
Reason for Rating
BBB rating is based on 13 factors. Get the details about the factors considered.
Factors that raised the rating for Baptist Hospitals of Southeast Texas include:
- Length of time business has been operating
- Complaint volume filed with BBB for business of this size
- Response to 3 complaint(s) filed against business
- Resolution of complaint(s) filed against business
Customer Complaints Summary Read complaint details
|Complaint Type||Total Closed Complaints|
|Problems with Product/Service||2|
|Total Closed Complaints||3|
Customer Reviews Summary Read customer reviews
|Customer Experience||Total Customer Reviews|
|Total Customer Reviews||0|
Licensing, Bonding or Registration
These agencies may include:
Texas Department of Health Services
110 West 49th Street, Austin TX 78756
Phone Number: (800) 228-1570
Business ManagementMary Poole, Corporate Communication Adrian Olvera, MD David Parmer, President/CEO Shari Pratt, Administrative Asstistant/PR/Marketing Alicia Satre, Mary's Asst April Seymour, Human Resource Manager
Hospitals General Medical and Surgical Hospitals (NAICS: 622110)
Alternate Business NamesBaptist Beaumont Hospital Baptist Hospitals of Southeast Texas School of Radiologic Technology Baptist School of Radiology
3080 College St
Beaumont, TX 77701 (409) 212-5000 (409) 212-5725 (409) 212-5002 (409) 212-7323 Directions
PO Box 1591
Beaumont, TX 77704
What is a BBB Business Review?
We offer free reviews on businesses that include background, licensing, consumer experience and other information such as governmental actions that is known to BBB. These reviews are provided for businesses that are BBB accredited and also for businesses that are not BBB accredited.
About BBB Business Review Content & Services:
Some Better Business Bureaus offer additional content & services in BBB Business Reviews.
The additional content & services are typically regional in nature or, in some cases, a new product or service that is being tested prior to a more general release.
Not all enhanced content & services are available at all Better Business Bureaus.
Types of Complaints Handled by BBB
BBB handles the following types of complaints between businesses and their customers so long as they are not, or have not been, litigated:
- Advertising or Sales
- Billing or Collection
- Problems with Products or Services
- Guarantee or Warranty
We do not handle workplace disputes, discrimination claims or claims about the quality of health or legal services.
BBB Complaint Process
Your complaint will be forwarded to the business within two business days. The business will be asked to respond within 14 days, and if a response is not received, a second request will be made. You will be notified of the business's response when we receive it (or notified that we received no response). Complaints are usually closed within 30 business days.
What is BBB Advertising Review?
BBB promotes truth in advertising by contacting advertisers whose claims conflict with the BBB Code of Advertising. These claims come to our attention from our internal review of advertising, consumer complaints and competitor challenges. BBB asks advertisers to prove their claims, change ads to make offers more clear to consumers, and remove misleading or deceptive statements.
What government actions does BBB report on?
BBB reports on known government actions that are relevant to the business's marketplace dealings with the public.
BBB Reporting Policy
As a matter of policy, BBB does not endorse any product, service or business.
BBB Business Reviews are provided solely to assist you in exercising your own best judgment. Information in this BBB Business Review is believed reliable but not guaranteed as to accuracy.
BBB Business Reviews generally cover a three-year reporting period. BBB Business Reviews are subject to change at any time.
Additional Phone Numbers
- (409) 212-5725(Phone)
- (409) 212-5002(Phone)
- (409) 212-7323(Phone)
- (409) 833-0308(Phone)
- (409) 212-5955(Phone)
- (409) 654-5922(Phone)
- (409) 654-6136(Phone)
- (409) 833-1411(Phone)
- (409) 654-6145(Phone)
- (409) 835-3781(Phone)
- (409) 839-5938(Phone)
- (409) 212-5854 (Fax)
- (409) 212-5943 (Fax)
- (409) 212-5000 (Fax)
- (409) 654-6071 (Fax)
- (409) 654-5900 (Fax)
- (409) 654-5008 (Fax)
- (409) 654-6108 (Fax)
- (409) 654-5262 (Fax)
Complaint Trends - Last 3 Years
Customer Review Trends
BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating Overview
BBB Customer Reviews Rating represents the customers opinions of the business. The Customer Review Rating is based on the number of positive, neutral and negative customer reviews posted that are calculated to produce a score.
|Customer Review Experience||Value|
|Positive Review||5 points per review|
|Neutral Review||3 points per review|
|Negative Review||1 point per review|
BBB letter grades represent the BBB's opinion of the business. The BBB grade is based on BBB file information about the business. In some cases, a business' grade may be lowered if the BBB does not have sufficient information about the business despite BBB requests for that information from the business.
BBB Letter Grade Scale
Star Rating scale
BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating is not a guarantee of a business' reliability or performance, and BBB recommends that consumers consider a business' BBB Rating and Customer Review Rating in addition to all other available information about the business. If the BBB Rating is NR then only Customer Reviews are used for the Star Rating.
|10/2/2015||Problems with Product/Service|
Problems with Product/Service
Read Complaint Details
Complaint: Well, the hospital offered me a discount relative to charges for a date of service (3/18/2014). The original charge was $5,608.00; I was given an adjustment credit of $4,374.24, which left a balance of $1,233.76. I was given a 50% discount on that amount; I paid the resulting balance in full and obtained a receipt which reflected a zero balance. Subsequent to that, Baptist Hospital rescinded the agreement, when its attorneys became aware that it had discounted my bill and that I would be recovering a small settlement from a third-party insurance carrier. Baptist Hospital has allowed their attorneys to manipulate them. Whom (their attorneys) I will be bringing action against under Texas Penal Code 32.49, and Texas Government Code 51.903(a), respectively, for filing fraudulent documents, and for failing to release a hospital lien which has become invalid in the wake of the account in question being paid in full. Technically, my association with Baptist with respect to my treatment there, was contractual in nature. Thus, any resulting payment arrangements would be binding. Also, on 11/19/2014, hospital security was called on me for showing up at the hospital's business office to discuss the $4,989.12, it claims is owing. I wasn't rude with anyone there and did not comport myself in a threatening manner that would warrant security being called. I am hopeful that the BBB will call the hospital to account for its actions.
Desired Settlement: Would like for the hospital to be held accountable for its actions. As I am concerned that the systematic, unscrupulous actions of its attorneys will lead them to further unlawful behavior.
******* **** ***** presented to the Baptist Beaumont Hospital on March 18, 2014
The usual and customary charges for the medical care and treatment, nursing care, supplies and equipment provided to Mr. ***** by Baptist Beaumont Hospital on March 18, 2014 totaled $5,608.00.
Hospital personnel spoke with Mr. ***** regarding payment for the treatment rendered to him. Mr. ***** indicated that he was uninsured and had no third party, accident or group health insurance to pay for the services rendered to him by BHSET on March 18, 2014.
On April 8, 2014, BHSET filed a Notice of Hospital Lien in Jefferson County securing the hospital’s interest in being paid for the treatment provided to Mr. ***** out of the proceeds of any settlement or judgment paid by the individual who caused the accident in which he was injured on March 18, 2014.
BHSET relied on Mr. *****’ representations and granted him a substantial discount offered to uninsured patients who do not have the financial means to pay for the medical services rendered to them. Chief among the representations relied upon by BHSET was Mr. *****’ assertion that he did not have either health insurance or a third party claim against the individual who caused the accident in which he was injured on March 18, 2014. On November 11, 2014, Mr. ***** paid $618.88 to BHSET for the treatment rendered to him at Baptist Beaumont Hospital on March 18, 2014.
Two days later, on November 13, 2014, BHSET received credible information indicating that Mr. ***** had misrepresented material facts and withheld information regarding the existence of a third party claim against the individual who caused the accident in which he was injured on March 18, 2014. Specifically, BHSET learned that Mr. ***** had a pending claim with *********** Insurance related to the March 18, 2014 motor vehicle accident. Since Mr. ***** has a third party claim arising from his car accident on March 18, 2014, he does not qualify for BHSET’s uninsured discount program. Today, the outstanding balance for accident-related hospital services, medical care and treatment, nursing care, supplies and equipment provided to ******* **** ***** on March 18, 2014 is $4,989.12.
On April 1, 2014, ******* **** ***** presented to the Baptist Beaumont Hospital emergency room seeking continued treatment of the injuries he sustained in the car accident on March 18, 2014. As before, Mr. ***** was admitted to the hospital’s emergency department for the further diagnosis and treatment of his accident-related injuries. The usual and customary charges for the accident-related hospital services, medical care and treatment, nursing care, supplies and equipment provided to Mr. ***** by Baptist Beaumont Hospital on March 18, 2014 totaled $989.00.
The Texas Hospital Lien statute provides that, in order for the lien to attach, the patient “must be admitted to a hospital not later than 72 hours after the accident.” The statute also provides that “the lien extends to both the admitting hospital and a hospital to which the individual is transferred for treatment of the same injury.” It is our understanding that the only Texas court who has considered these provisions ruled that charges for subsequent admissions for treatment of accident-related injuries are also protected by the hospital lien so long as there was an initial admission within 72 hours of the accident. Since Mr. ***** was admitted to Baptist Beaumont Hospital on March 18, 2014, within 72 hours of the car accident, the lien filed in Jefferson County on April 8, 2014 extends to include the charges for treatment provided to Mr. ***** on April 1, 2014. The lien filed in Jefferson County on November 19, 2014 stating that the accident was on April 1, 2014 was filed by mistake and will be released.
The Release of Hospital Lien referenced in Mr. *****’ complaint relates to a lien filed in Jefferson County for an emergency room admission on October 30, 2013 following a motor vehicle accident on that date. The Release was filed after the hospital wrote off the debt.
It is my understanding that Texas Penal Code § 32.49 and Texas Government Code § 51.903(a) pertain to fraudulent liens. The hospital lien filed in Jefferson County by BHSET on April 8, 2014 is decidedly not a fraudulent lien. The lien filed in Jefferson County on November 19, 2014 stating that the accident was on April 1, 2014 is also not a fraudulent lien; rather, it was filed by mistake.
Mr. *****, by virtue of his third party claim against ************* insured, has adequate financial resources to fulfill his financial obligations to BHSET for the accident-related hospital services, medical care and treatment, nursing care, supplies and equipment provided to Mr. ***** by Baptist Beaumont Hospital on March 18, 2014 and again on April 1, 2014. It appears to BHSET that Mr. ***** is attempting to realize a financial windfall at the hospital’s expense by not providing factual information regarding his third party claim against ************* insured. Mr. *****’ BBB complaint seems calculated to force BHSET to file a Release of Hospital Lien pertaining to the March 18, 2014 accident so that *********** will pay settlement funds to him alone, without fairly compensating the hospital for the emergency healthcare services provided to him. BHSET only seeks reasonable reimbursement for medically necessary services rendered to Mr. *****.
**** ******** STREET
********, TEXAS *****
December 6, 2014
Dear Ms. *********:
I am in receipt of BHSET’s response to my complaint, wherein it makes several claims in support of its stance.
First and foremost, BHSET alleges that I misrepresented facts and/or withheld information during my initial visit at its facility on March 18, 2014. What must be understood is that, at that point and time, there had not been a claim filed and I had no knowledge of whether the other driver had any insurance. Thus, my inability to provide information that wasn’t available to me does not constitute withholding “…information regarding the existence of a third party claim…” as BHSET and its attorneys state. It was a bit early for a claim at that juncture.
Subsequent to that, I recall being contacted by someone from BHSET by phone inquiring about whether there was a third party carrier involved. By which time, a claim had in fact been filed; however, I advised the individual that I was driving and that the information wasn’t readily available.
BHSET further alleges that the discount it extended to me was based upon material misrepresentations that I made to it. More specifically, in its response, it states “Chief among the misrepresentations relied upon by BHSET was Mr. *****’ assertion that he did not have either health insurance or a third party claim…” This raises a crucial question: when did the alleged misrepresentation happen? Was it on March 18, 2014? Or was it at a later time? If so, on what date(s)? In order for BHSET to prove credible or correct in its claims of misrepresentation it needs to provide concrete evidence.
At this point, BHSET and/or its attorneys are claiming that, had it not been for the alleged misrepresentations, it would not have granted the discount. Well, that claim in and of itself is a misrepresentation. In that BHSET was well aware that the third party carrier -- *********** Insurance Company – existed in the matter prior to the final payment I made, which resulted in receipt reflecting a zero balance. Here are the facts in that regard:
1) On 11/10/2014, *********** Insurance adjuster, ***** *****, in an attempt to ascertain whether the $5,608.00 initial balance had been discounted, called the financial office of BHSET. He spoke with someone by the name of *******. A discussion was had regarding the account. (Obviously, the adjuster identified himself); and
2) On 11/11/2014, while at the financial or business office of BHSET, preparing to make t payment, I was asked by ******* “Do you want to file this on your insurance or pay with cash?” This clearly establishes that BHSET had prior knowledge of the third party claim when it accepted the $618.88 (made in two payments -- $300.00 and 318.88 respectively) from me as a full and final payment. I had a witness there with me.
BHSET vicariously closed the deal through its employee, *******. The bottom-line here is that a legally binding agreement was entered into between myself and BHSET and was later rescinded by BHSET. This is the type of prohibited unconscionable action that is identified by consumer protection laws such as the DTPA and other such laws.
BHSET and its attorneys also callously stated that I am “… attempting to realize a windfall at the hospital’s expense…” This is far from the truth. I have a great deal of respect for hospitals and understand that they must be paid for the services that they render; however, an agreement is an agreement. Besides, there is nothing uncommon about hospital bills being negotiated down, especially when there are multiple providers involved as in my case. Attorneys do it for their clients all the time. Moreover, hospitals anticipate that discounts will be sought.
I honestly believe that BHSET per se, is a good and morally conscious system, and is truly concerned for the greater good of the citizens of the community it serves. And I understand that it has to have a mechanism in place for securing its money for services rendered. However, its attorneys are without question abusing the Texas Property Code. As demonstrated in the lien filed on 11/19/2014, which BHSET, (presumably) on the advice of its counsel, claims was a mistake. When you consider the fact that information about the account which was privy to the person who drew up the lien at the point it was actually composed, and the effort involved, how could a mistake escape his/her detection?
As a further indication that the lien filed on 11/19/2014 was not a mistake; I received a phone call from ***** ******* (attorney with the Lien Recovery Unit) on 11/17/2014 regarding the same (I have phone records showing an incoming call from his office to my phone). During which he attempted to use the lien in question as leverage. He indicated he would release the lien for the 3/18/2014 date of service if I paid the balance in connection with the 11/19/2014 lien. This clearly underscores the element of deception.
In sum, obviously, on the advice of its attorneys, BHSET avers that the lien in connection with the 3/18/2014 date of service isn’t fraudulent. To the contrary, the lien is indeed fraudulent in that there isn’t a debt involved. According to Parnell v. Adventist Health System West 35 Cal.4th 595 (2005), a lien cannot be valid without an underlying debt. The Court decidedly concluded: "Because Parnell no longer owes a debt to the hospital for its services, we conclude that the hospital may not assert a lien under the HLA against Parnellâ€™s recovery from the third party tortfeasor."
Although the above-cited case is from another jurisdiction, it is nonetheless relevant in this case:
Business and Commerce Code, 17.46 (c) (2),
In construing this subchapter the court shall not be prohibited from considering relevant and pertinent decisions of courts in other jurisdictions.
The fact that the status of the account associated with the lien has changed since the lien was filed, as evidenced by a receipt depicting a zero balance, the lien is thus invalid. And given that the individual with the authority to discharge the same has knowledge of the change in status and refuses to release the lien, he/she is guilty of unconscionable action as defined by Sec. 17.45 (5), Business and Commerce Code.
As a further effort to expose the acts complained of in this complaint, on 12/05/14, at my request, the County Clerk’s office has agreed to forward the issues set out in this complaint, along with supporting documents to the District Attorney’s Office. As prescribed by Texas Government Code 59.901.
Read Complaint Details
Complaint: Failure to respond to a requested account audit after multiple attempts. Failed to protect patient privacy resulting in a breach of patient privacy information. I am writing this complaint in regards to the billing department of Baptist Hospital Beaumont. On February 22, XXXX (XXXXXXX) and on June 7, XXXX (XXXXXXX) my wife had spinal injections performed at Baptist Beaumont. These procedures were the same type of injection and both were performed by Dr. ******. On June 17, 2013 I received a bill for the injection performed on June 7, 2013 and I noticed the bill was $3946 more than the procedure she had performed on February 22, 2013. After noticing this, I contacted the Business Services Department and spoke with ***** regarding this dramatic increase in price. ***** notified me she will mail an itemized statement for both procedures. Upon receiving and reviewing the itemized statements for both procedures I did not agree with the charges that were on these itemized statements. On July 25, 2013 I notified ***** and requested to have an audit on these accounts. ***** reported she will have the audit request form for both procedures in the mail by the end of the day. On August 1, 2013 I called ***** to verify the audit request forms had been mailed. ***** confirms they were mailed and can take up to 7-10 business days to arrive. On August 5, 2013 I received in the mail a letter for the procedure on June 17, 2013 and after opening and reviewing I noticed the top portion of this letter was a billing statement and payment request for the June 17th procedure. The lower portion of this statement stated that the audit process will begin once the attached audit request form is signed, dated, and returned to the Patient Account Representative. No audit form accompanied this letter. I again contacted the Business Services Department on August 5, 2013 and spoke with ****. I reported to **** of what I just received and that I have received none of the documents that I had requested on July 25, 2013. **** informed me that no audit form was ever mailed for the procedure on February 22, 2013. **** stated to me that she will re-send the appropriate documents requested for the procedures performed on February 22, 2013 and June 7, 2013. I received the audit request forms and itemized statements only 2 days after speaking with ****. After opening and reviewing the documents for the procedure performed on February 22, 2013 I noticed that directly attached to my demand bill was the demand bill for another individual exposing all of this individuals personal, financial, and medical health information. On August 8, 2013 both audit requests forms were signed, dated and mailed to the Patient acct. Representative as well as a letter regarding the above timeline and events. I left the other individuals demand bill attached just as it was when I received it. On September 18, 2013 I called the patient account representative to check on the status of the audit I requested. I was transferred to the audit nurse, ****. **** reported to me that she noticed a discrepancy in the type and amount of epidural trays used in the procedures and has been waiting on a return call from surgery to question this issue. I was told by **** that if I didn't hear back from her before the week was over to call her the following week. On September 26, 2013 I attempted to get in touch with **** but was unsuccessful. A voice message was left and I never received a return phone call. I am extremely dissatisfied with this experience and with Baptist Hospitals of Southeast Texas. The staff that I have been dealing with has been very unprofessional and careless. These issues not only affect me from fulfilling my financial responsibility but it also affects the privacy of the individual whose personal information was carelessly exposed. No individual should have their personal information breached due to another's mistake. This clearly violates HIPPA rules as well as the Joint Notice of Privacy Practices set forth by Baptist Hospitals of Southeast Texas. I am continuing to receive bills in the mail threatening to fwd my acct. to a bad debt agency.
Desired Settlement: The settlement I am seeking is: -disciplinary action and further training against the individuals who did not follow hospital and/or HIPPA rules -disciplinary action and further training for the individuals who lacked the responsibility to investigate and respond to my request for an account audit -notify the other individual that his Demand Bill was sent to an unauthorized person and his privacy was breached. -account balance write-off
Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2013/11/12) */ A letter was received from the consumer and responded to on 11/7/13 addressing their complaint. Based on the information provided by the consumer, the facility has conducted necessary audits and investigations. All remediations have been completed with a written follow up response to the consumer. Baptist Hospital sincerely thanks consumers who take the time to share concerns with us. It is through this feedback process that we are able to improve upon the care provided to all of our patients.