Candice C. Ho, MD 11318 National Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90064

"Dr Ho is the absolute best doctor for our babies. She’s very attentive and the nicest. She’s an angel and we love her!"

"Dr. Ho is our angel sent from heaven. We love Dr. Ho. She has been our son's pediatrician since he was born, and he is 13 now. The level of care and attention she gives to her patients are unparalleled. She is the most genuine and knowledgeable doctor we have ever met. She knows that we will be moving with her if she ever decides to move to another state. We love Dr. Ho."

"Edited to add: I confirmed with the UCLA Office of Patient Experience that the billing department makes decisions about how to bill for a visit. The doctor does NOT decide what happened during a visit and how the visit should be billed. Original review: DO NOT go to Dr. Ho if you want clear and honest communication with your doctor or if you want the doctor to make decisions about what services patients should be billed for. We were told that a new patient visit for a flu shot would be covered by insurance at no charge to us - both Dr. Ho’s staff and our insurance company confirmed this prior to our appointment. But we were then charged almost $500 for a 45-60 minute sick visit. After a few months of asking Dr. Ho to change the coding on the visit from sick to routine, she finally requested a coding change from the billing department. The billing department refused. And now the doctor and her staff are refusing to communicate with us. It seems inconceivable that a billing department has more power than the doctor, but that’s what happens at this practice."

"I was seeing Dr Candice Ho for my son for 1 year. I had a very unpleasant experience with her. During my son’s first visit ( he was 9 months) Dr Ho performed vision spot test and diagnosed astigmatism. About 5 months later we received a bill of $285 for the particular test and we were totally unaware why we had to be responsible for it. I reached Dr Ho to find out and she said insurance declined the payment because of the diagnosis so she would change the diagnosis and reclaim to insurance. She assured us she would handle the situation. It went on through almost a year. Till then I was assuming it was really being handled well. But the charges went to collection and UCLA billing department didnt even inform about it. I then called insurance and found out insurance declined it because vision test are not covered by them but by VSP (obviously) and VSP wasnt covering it because vision test of under 1 year old are not at all covered by them and patient should be totally responsible for it. Its not like I am not capable enough to pay $285. But the thing is she could have informed us before the test or after test or even at the time when we got the bill. She was making up her own thing saying insurance is declining due to the diagnosis of my son."