There was a story on the BBC website regarding the safe use of mobile phones when driving.
Apparently, there are still those who hold the phone to their ears. There are those who read emails and text too. It’s all to do, or so it’s claimed, with the concept of working over and above that which is normally required.
Maybe I’m the exception to the rule as I have a wonderful and 100% safe way of using a phone whilst driving.
It all goes back to a Friday afternoon on the M25 last year when I was happily talking away on my Bluetooth kit to a friend of mine. And totally failed to realise I’d just driven past the junction for the M40. Since then I’ve had the phone switched off. No more beeps as an email arrives and no more distractions.
But I hear you say, I could possibly miss an important call? Yes, I could. For at least two hours i.e. in between motorway service stations anyway. Will the world end in those 2 hours? Doubtful.
Modern technology is great. You can be in constant communication with anyone, anywhere in the world. I have clients who email me at obscure times of the day. As consultant surgeons, they don’t exactly work 9-5 hours. I email them at odd times too. But seldom does an email require an immediate response either from them or to them. Of course, it requires a response at some point but it does not require a knee-jerk reaction. Most likely the best thing to do is not respond immediately anyway. Much better to understand the issue and then give a measured and fully considered response for the client’s benefit. Much better for my clients and much better for my business.
My clients are the single most important thing in my business. They require total commitment and a consistently high level of service. Just the same as any business.
Yet this concept of working over and above normal requirements to satisfy a client persists. I’m not against working really long hours. I’m absolutely not against providing an extremely high level of service. I do it. My clients provide an incredibly high level of care to their patients i.e. they do it too.
What I am against is this notion that working really long hours and answering the phone or emails proves dedication to a task. I suggest in reality, long hours may prove counterproductive sometimes or in the case of using a phone/answering emails etc whilst driving proves there is always an accident just waiting to happen or a motorway junction to miss.
Read more →
I was literally 70% through billing for a client’s clinic lists from last Friday. Eight separate patients and a mixture of initial and follow up consultations.
All was going well until I noticed the details of one of the patients on the clinic list were incomplete. The only solution was to speak to the patient’s insurance company. I need accurate data to bill effectively and efficiently. So I called the insurance company but like many when you call them you join a queue and have to wait.
So far I’ve been on hold for 16 mins.
Yet this problem could have been so easily avoided if the correct details had been taken down and checked. The problem was the policy number had not been recorded, as it should be.
Just got through and it transpires the date of birth is also wrong. The patient was born a year earlier than stated on the clinic list.
Three observations really:
The insurance company may well clear and pay the invoice even if the details are incomplete and/or incorrect, there again they may not.
If the details had been checked originally before the clinic list had been produced, none of this would have been necessary and the invoice would have been processed for payment much quicker.
Finally, if your med-sec is handling your billing, whilst he/she is on the phone for 20 mins to an insurance company she’s not actually talking to patients and booking them in or typing your letters. Indeed patients can’t call her because she’s on the phone sorting out issues such as the above.
So it’s taken around 20 mins to sort this one single issue and that is what can take up so much time!
How many times have I said most clearly: INVOICE RIGHT = GET PAID RIGHT??
Read more →
One MHM client provides expert reports for actions that are publicly funded i.e. invoices are passed to the Legal Services Commission.
Consider there are FOUR parties to an action, all of whom are publicly funded. The first item to establish is how much is chargeable and at what rate together with what is NOT chargeable. Earlier this year (for example) the hourly rate was reduced so actions commenced before a change date becomes chargeable at one rate, those after at a lower rate. For the purposes of this example, assume the current rate is £125 per hour. So, the expert took:
4 hours to read the report 3 hours to dictate it 1 hour to proof read and amend if necessary.
Therefore it took a total of 8 hours – 8 hours @ £125 per hour = £1,000.
But there are FOUR parties to the action and therefore four completely separate invoices need to be raised for £250 each. It is not advisable to send one invoice to the lead party for two reasons: (1) you are expecting them to collect your money for you (2) you are relinquishing control of who precisely owes you your money and what’s happening with it.
That said, your invoice MUST show the number of hours for EACH separate item i.e. reading, writing etc. If an invoice just stating £250 is raised it WILL be rejected.
Consider the issue of a Court Appearance.
The number of hours at Court is also chargeable at £125 per hour. Time taken in traveling to Court is also chargeable but only at £40 per hour. Mileage is another area that causes confusion. MHM overcomes this easily. Take the postcode of the expert’s start point and the postcode of the destination and look them up on www.theaa.com or another route finder website. It doesn’t really matter which.
What is important is that the distance is based on a fixed source. This is infinitely better than just saying 90 miles for example. If the allowance per mile is, say, 40 pence, then 40 times 90 = £36.00.
Hopefully, the above gives and an indication of how to tackle how to invoice for a publicly funded report.
However… Do not consider instead of stating 4 hours to read a report, put a claim in for 7 hours in order to increase your fee because the Legal Services Commission guys are seriously switched on. They know only too well, how long a “standard” report takes to prepare. There may well be nonetheless a perfectly genuine reason why the report took longer and therefore you should say so.
Read more →
Most consultants, and certainly when they first start a private practice consider how best they can set their fees.
In reality, however, it is not the consultant who sets his or her own fees.
It is the patient’s insurance company.
Fee setting should be viewed from two areas:
Insurance Company Fees
Self Funding Patients
Consultation fees, for example, will be agreed at the point of recognition by the medical insurance company.
Clearly, if you have 20 years post qualification experience and are one of the few consultants within your geographic area in a particular specialism, then you can command a higher fee.
In reality, most likely you not be in such a position. You will be offered consultation fees at a level set by the insurance company you are dealing with. In return, the insurance company will refer patients to you.
Surgical fees, if anything, are the easier one to deal with.
The insurance company with whom your patient is insured will always set surgical fees.
You may feel the fee is too low and therefore charge more.
Almost certainly your invoice WILL be rejected or at the very least shortfalled to the patient.
Keep sending invoices in for fees greater than that allowed by a particular insurance company and you run the risk of being de-recognized.
In the case of self-funders, however, there is nothing to stop you charging any fee you like.
Save of course if there are other consultants in your area then the fee levels they charge will influence that which you yourself charge.
Whether it is right or wrong for insurance companies to hold such power over the setting of surgical fees is for another article.
I have very firm views on it but at this point, the stark reality is that the insurance companies do hold such power.
Read more →
There are certain items that are mandatory when you call a patient’s insurance company. Such requirements are dictated by the Data Protection Act and, put simply, it’s highly unlikely without the right information you can make an enquiry regarding a patient.
In the ideal world, you will have:
The Policy Number Patients name Patient’s FULL address The POST CODE (don’t forget it) Patient’s Date of Birth Treatment date CCSD code
The pre-authorisation number is very useful too.
But what do you do if you don’t have the policy number? If you have the patients name, full address (inc the postcode!!) and date of birth you stand an extremely high chance of the insurance company telling you the policy number. Indeed often I’ve had to speak with an insurance company to obtain the policy number.
With the above to hand, it’s not an issue. Use the opportunity to confirm or obtain the pre-authorisation reference as well though.
On a parallel note, some insurance companies will only let you raise three queries per phone call with them. Some may, if they are not too busy, do more but generally speaking three is the limit.
This despite what many think, is important for if you have say 12 to do, it’s going to take time. Especially if you are on hold for 10/15 minutes BEFORE you get through to the insurance company.
So, the very best thing to do is to make sure the clinic list has absolutely everything you need in order to invoice correctly. That way, you won’t have to contact the insurance company first. Also of course, if there is an invoice query after you’ve billed the consultation/episode you will have all the data in front of you when you DO speak to the insurance company.
Without it, you will struggle.
Read more →
The normal item when I get asked to review a consultant’s invoicing process is the potential for weakness in the area of records on his/her part.
Sometimes, I’m presented with a carrier bag full of invoices, remittances, and receipts. My favourite though remains the cardboard box stuffed full of pieces of paper. That was the filing system. Close examination of the pieces of paper in the cardboard box suggested they were invoices. Many in fact did not have an invoice number on them. Indeed the majority did not actually have the word INVOICE printed on them either.
That can be a problem when I come to reconcile payments against such payments IF they’ve been paid at all. That is important because it’s difficult to contact an insurance company and discuss invoices for one individual patient if the invoice does not show a specific invoice number. In fact, the only way you can tell them apart is if the values are different and they are on different dates.
It’s always best to have a unique reference number on an invoice i.e. an invoice number and a date. And don’t forget to print the word INVOICE on it. At least that way, you stand a chance of knowing which ones have or have not been paid.
Then the hard part starts as you begin to look at what is or is not on the invoice and get a feel for what was likely to be paid anyway and what was likely to be rejected due to total lack of detail. Normally this is followed by a request to see clinic lists and the process of obtaining the right data off the clinic list for submission to the insurance company.
There is also an additional cost to not keeping accurate records. When it comes to tax time, its going to take a lot longer – and thereby cost much more – for your accountant to do the necessary computations. At worse you could end up paying too much tax.
All because records aren’t kept correctly. Please keep accurate records if only because it means you stand a much higher chance of being paid!
Please email me if you want details of the bare minimum records you should be keeping for invoicing purposes.
Read more →
This issue came up during a meeting with a consultant surgeon recently regarding the relationship between benefits and fees. More specifically how fees are accounted for against a benefits package and the possible creation of a shortfall.
Consider the total benefits payable under a patient’s insurance policy. For example, the benefits payable may be £100. Obviously, it could be considerably more as will the possible fees mentioned below.
To continue, however, against such a benefits package fees are deducted as follows:
The patient attends for an initial consultation at a cost of £20. Therefore the £20 is paid out and the total benefits figure reduces to £80. Subsequently, the patient requires a surgical episode at a cost of £50. This too is paid out and the benefits accumulator, therefore, reduces to £30. But of course, the hospital tenders their account (say £20) as does the gasman (£15). The benefits accumulator, therefore, further reduces to ZERO. Thus the benefits package is equal to the fees charged.
If the initial consultation fee is £21, the surgical episode fee £51, the hospital account £21 and the gasman’s account £16 then the total fees total = £109 against a total available benefit package of £100.
Thus, if when the fees are calculated against the benefits accumulator they exceed the total available a shortfall will be created.
Read more →
Spent some time yesterday looking at the invoicing of a consultant surgeon.
I noticed that the invoices for initial consultations going out to one particular insurance company were being charged at exactly the same fee as for follow-up consultations i.e. £125 each.
Instea,d they should be £175 for initial and £125 for a follow-up.
So… £50 multiplied by the number of errors spotted so far over the first month I’ve checked (9) = £450!
The bad news is that this has been happening for, so far as I can tell at the moment, for at least the last four months.
Potentially, £1,800 worth!
Read more →
A couple of examples recently where consultants who have tried to base their fees on the best rate available. Take the consultant who realises that PMI company Num 1 pay £300 for a procedure whereas PMI company 2 pay £400. He decrees he will charge PMI Company 1 the PMI Company 2 rate.
Great idea. Right up to the point PMI company 1 receives the invoice for the higher amount. They will decline to pay that fee. Most likely they will shortfall it. But, replies the Consultant, no problem. The patient is ultimately liable for any shortfall. I know of one consultant who even puts on his website “we use PMI Company 2 rates to calculate our fees and therefore there may be a shortfall which you will have to pay”
Yes, the patient is liable for a shortfall BUT not when the consultant is fee assured he isn’t.
Most likely a letter addressed to the Consultant will arrive sooner or later from PMI Company 1 pointing out that such “inappropriate billing” is not acceptable; carry on doing it and recognition is at risk.
It’s incredibly similar to unbundling. Continue doing it over a number of months and for sure eyebrows will be raised. Even if there is no “fee assured” status PMI Company 1 will be well aware of regular and consistent charges that are in excess of their published fee schedule.
Notwithstanding the above, of course, consultants want the best possible fee for a procedure but attempting to obtain the same by “inappropriate billing” is not the smartest way to go about it.
Read more →
Another question asked at a recent presentation.
Insurance companies use medical coding to identify a medical procedure.
For example, an Orthopaedic surgeon understands what a Multiple arthroscopic operation is. But that is a lot to put on an invoice. Rather put the code W8500 on the invoice. That will specifically identify the episode.
Most codes can be located on the CCSD website: www.ccsd.org.uk
The Clinical Coding and Schedule Development Group (CCSD) consists of the five major healthcare insurers. Its purpose is to maintain a common standard of procedure codes. Consequently, CCSD publishes a Schedule of codes which reflect current medical practice.
However, be warned. Whilst the example above of W8500 will be recognized, CCSD does not publish a suggested fee. The rate payable for each code is up to the individual insurance companies. As a result, the surgeon has to check with each one.
A CCSD code is imperative IF a surgical episode is required. The patient will need to quote the code to his insurance company when pre-authorisation is being requested anyway.
Thus when an invoice is sent to the insurance company, the code should appear on the invoice. It will reconcile to that expected by the insurance company.
If alternatively, you do NOT use CCSD codes payment will be substantially delayed if made at all!
Read more →
I very recently wrote about this issue and have been asked if the increase was just a blip and possibly “one of those odd things”???
Therefore auditing the work of the same consultant surgeon I wrote about in mid-February:
Week commencing Monday, March 24th and ending Friday, March 28th he saw 18 patients. Total invoices sent to various insurance companies came to £2,200.
The insurance companies subsequently advised 21% or £460 would be subject to shortfall/excess. February the same number was 23% or £575.
Therefore the consultant is now required to collect £460 from the March patients with the balance of £1,740 being paid by the insurance companies.
Some consultation fees were declined completely. Others were only partially paid with the balance deemed “shortfall” or ‘excess” i.e. the £460 is due from the patient(s). If this week is taken as a norm and multiplied by 48 (assume the consultant has 4 weeks holiday each year) –
He will undertake just under £106,000 worth of outpatient consultations throughout 2014.
He will be left with around £22,000 worth of shortfall and excess fees to collect.
Even if we apply the same criteria as employed previously and assume only 50% of shortfalls/excess will remain unpaid. Whilst that’s still £11,000 even though it has dropped from the original Feb calculation which projected £13,000 it hasn’t moved that much.
Incidentally of the original £575 worth of excess/shortfalls for Feb only £50 remains unpaid.
But now is the time to start thinking about what is happening to your practice because £11,000 is one HUGE perspective more so as surgical fees continue to be reduced by the insurance companies.
Read more →
Just taking ONE client as an example.
Week ending Friday, February 14th: out of 15 consultations, 4 (four) came back with excess/shortfall deductions totaling £575. So for a total of £2,500 worth of revenue from outpatient consultations £575 or 23% came back short. Looking back to the same week in 2013, the number of shortfalls/excess were roughly half this.
The question as to why this is happening is not the concern. The concern is what are you going to do about it. If 23% continues the downside and potential loss to the consultant is significant. There is only one real way to resolve this issue. Phone them!
Sure you can write letters and even email but nothing gets a response like a ringing telephone. Most patients are unaware of the issue but some think this is an issue between them and their insurance company. In other words, the patient thinks they need to pay the insurance company. They think the consultant gets paid in full by the insurance company. There are variations on this but the crucial point for the consultant is not to establish why; its to ensure he recovers the shortfall/excess efficiently.
But if telephoning the patient is the most efficient way to tackle the issue, it does not automatically follow its the easiest. It has to be done professionally and with due diligence. The long-suffering med-sec really won’t have the time to do this as professional and caring as she undoubtedly is. I promise you faithfully, she won’t want to phone patients for money and will be thinking this is the least enjoyable part of her job.
There is an alternative though: do nothing. Some patients actually will pay but this assumes they a) are aware of the shortfall/excess and b) make it good straight away.
What if they don’t?
Assume it’s not £575 or 23% a week or £27.6k a year (£575 multiplied by 48 – not 52 weeks as you will have 4 weeks off a year). Assume instead its 10% for 24 weeks (i.e. roughly half of the current numbers) and allows for some patients paying without being contacted.
The potential losses for the consultant, in this case, reduce to £13,800 per annum. That’s a chunk of change in anybody’s book still.
What’s significant is that at a number of client meetings recently I’ve asked what the client considered the biggest threat to the practice during 2014. Most popular was a further reduction in private insurance fees. That may indeed turn out to be a big problem.
But at this point, empirical evidence suggests its potentially leaving the back door wide open so to speak and enduring £13,800 worth of potential losses right off the bottom line.
I’d be really interested to hear from anyone who is seeing an increase in shortfalls etc and their views on remedies.
Read more →