Stefanie
Networker
I just resigned from my Coding Manager position due to a coding policy change that I didn't believe was ethical or legal. I actually didn't get the chance for any due diligence, policy changed, follow it or find another job....
The practice had over 5 specialties, OB/Gyn, Peds, IM, FP, URO, ENT, GI, which shared the same medical record. We had always followed the CPT guidelines about New Patient's, 3 years, same specialty or subspecialty of same group... We would code New Patients for each specialty listed above if the patient had NOT seen that specific specialty for over 3 years, even if they had seen a different specialty a week before... Policy was changed to redefine some specific specialties in the group to PCPs.. (IM, FP, Peds), policy dictated that if a patient had seen any one of these specialties in the past 3 years, the coding was to be established. I disagreed. There are mutliple scenario's that would make this a hot mess.
This policy was presented due to patient complaints of getting "charged" for a new patient visit when they were established patient's in the practice, assuming they were charged more money for a new ptaient charge. I tried to explain to adminstration that a New Patient code does not necessary mean a higher charge, due to DG on New vs. Est. Adminstration called a consulting firm who said it was okay to implement policy due to RAC and AMA having issue with New Patient vs. Established. I disagreed.
So my question is this.... what is your opinion. If you have documentation to support/or not, the policy I would absolutely love to have it.
Your input and expert advice is very much appreciated.
The practice had over 5 specialties, OB/Gyn, Peds, IM, FP, URO, ENT, GI, which shared the same medical record. We had always followed the CPT guidelines about New Patient's, 3 years, same specialty or subspecialty of same group... We would code New Patients for each specialty listed above if the patient had NOT seen that specific specialty for over 3 years, even if they had seen a different specialty a week before... Policy was changed to redefine some specific specialties in the group to PCPs.. (IM, FP, Peds), policy dictated that if a patient had seen any one of these specialties in the past 3 years, the coding was to be established. I disagreed. There are mutliple scenario's that would make this a hot mess.
This policy was presented due to patient complaints of getting "charged" for a new patient visit when they were established patient's in the practice, assuming they were charged more money for a new ptaient charge. I tried to explain to adminstration that a New Patient code does not necessary mean a higher charge, due to DG on New vs. Est. Adminstration called a consulting firm who said it was okay to implement policy due to RAC and AMA having issue with New Patient vs. Established. I disagreed.
So my question is this.... what is your opinion. If you have documentation to support/or not, the policy I would absolutely love to have it.
Your input and expert advice is very much appreciated.