Free EMR Newsletter Want to receive the latest news on EMR, Meaningful Use, ARRA and Healthcare IT sent straight to your email? Join thousands of healthcare pros who subscribe to EMR and EHR for FREE!

Release of Information (ROI): What You Don’t Know Will Cost You

Posted on October 17, 2018 I Written By

The following is a guest blog post by Tarun Kabaria, Executive VP, Provider Operations Ciox.

In today’s evolving healthcare environment, the release of information (ROI) process is not a simple function. It involves up to 45 specific steps, each presenting its own complexities and compliance risks. Adding to those complications, HIPAA privacy and security rules under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’s (ARRA) HITECH provisions have elevated the importance of ROI and increased its costs.

Furthermore, the healthcare industry is influenced by a variety of factors that are pushing the limits of operating budgets, including rising volumes of requests from government auditors, the drive to meet Promoting Interoperability criteria for electronic health records (EHR) and rapid-fire advances in medical record technology. The “human” checks and balances that protected health information in the past are slowly disappearing as information moves rapidly from paper-based to fully electronic and online. The stakes continue to rise while the financial penalties for wrongful information disclosures grow.

As a result, many more healthcare facilities – large and small, urban and rural – are seeking cost-effective and efficient ways to manage this process. They are revisiting ROI options, evaluating costs and searching for new, more effective solutions.

As the growing demand for ROI continues to impact our evolving healthcare industry, hospitals are experiencing many repercussions. They are legally required to release medical records and often receive hundreds to thousands of requests a day. At the same time, hospitals must ensure that patient privacy, security and confidentiality are protected. It is a delicate balance that requires the proper management of each request along with the knowledge and expertise of a highly skilled ROI specialist.

According to the Association of Health Information Outsourcing Services (AHIOS), nearly 80% of hospitals nationwide have outsourced their ROI function to alleviate the administrative burden of fulfilling medical requests. Of the hospitals that outsourced, an estimated 40% have done so with at least one vendor-supplied ROI consultant. Significant costs can be incurred when retaining legal counsel and a fully staffed HIM department in addition to paying for the technology necessary to manage high volumes of requests, meet time constraints and comply with privacy demands. However, failure to do so can result in lost revenue due to fines for wrongful disclosures and technical denials from payers and recovery contractors.

Although EHRs have made ROI processing faster, there is also a greater risk for information breach. Many of the human checks and balances inherent within the ROI process have been removed. Furthermore, records are now available to many more people, and much more easily. The advantages of ubiquitous access need to be weighed against the risk for security breaches.

For these reasons, many organizations are choosing to partner with an ROI services company that offers extensive industry experience and understanding of the new laws and rules as well as the new risks. Additionally, by outsourcing ROI to a proven, secure service provider, healthcare executives relieve themselves of rising costs and administrative burdens while also reducing their risk of penalties and fines.

For those who have chosen either a full or shared outsourcing approach, the benefits are clear, with convincing evidence of significant cost savings as well as return on investment. There are three approaches to consider when looking to outsource ROI:

On-site Service

The selected ROI vendor sends a customer service representative to the healthcare organization’s office to perform all aspects of medical record release, including capturing, processing, and conducting QA of the record before sending to its distribution center.

Partner Service

The healthcare organization’s staff uses the vendor’s technology to capture, process and QA the medical record. Then, the record is sent to the vendor’s distribution center.

Remote Service

The vendor’s customer service representatives access the healthcare organization’s EHR through secure technology to capture, process and QA the medical record from the vendor’s centralized facility. Then, records are sent to the vendor’s distribution center.

These three options provide the flexibility to select the approach that aligns best with an organization’s capacity, staffing resources and expertise. An ROI service partner can manage everything from reducing immediate backlog, handling specific tasks for the ROI process or coordinating the entire process.

Achieving efficient and effective ROI services is possible. It simply requires careful consideration and evaluation of costs and resources available to comply with new regulations to determine which path is the best one for your organization.

About Ciox
Ciox, a health technology company and proud sponsor of Healthcare Scene, is dedicated to significantly improving U.S. health outcomes by transforming clinical data into actionable insights. Combined with an unmatched network offering ubiquitous access to healthcare data, Ciox’s expertise, relationships, technology and scale allow for the extraction of insights from structured and unstructured clinical data to create value for healthcare stakeholders. Through its HealthSource technology platform, which includes solutions for data acquisition, release of information, clinical coding, data abstraction, and analytics, Ciox helps clients securely and consistently solve the last mile challenges in clinical interoperability. Ciox improves data management and sharing by modernizing workflows and increasing the accuracy and flow of information, while providing transparency across the healthcare ecosystem and helping clients manage disparate medical records. Learn more at www.ciox.com

Medical Practice Use Of Automated Claims Options Growing Slowly

Posted on June 25, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

A new study by a healthcare industry group has concluded that medical and dental practices are processing claims manually rather than going for full automation, a trend which is robbing the industry of very high levels of potential savings. While many physicians and dentists are using web portals to process claims, in most cases they haven’t reached the ”set it and forget it” level, a trend which could undercut possible savings.

The group, CAQH, tracks health plan and healthcare provider adoption of electronically-based administrative transactions for medical and dental practices. CAQH’s research estimates the time required for providers administrative transactions, including verifying a patient’s insurance coverage, sending and receiving payments, checking on the status of claims and handling prior authorization processes.

Its research concluded that despite the potential rewards, the medical and dental practices made only a modest level of progress in automating claims and related business processes over the past year. According to CAQH calculations, practices are still leaving roughly $11.1 billion in savings on the table, an estimate which has climbed by $1.8 billion over the prior year.

If these savings are realized, the majority ($9.5 billion) would end up in providers’ hands. However, many practices just haven’t gotten there yet.

A rise in portal use is certainly an improvement over paper-based claims processes. In fact, some of the increase in potential savings noted by the study is being created by a rise in online portal use.

However, providers’ adoption of fully-electronic claims is basically growing only a small amount or even declining for most transactions that can be done via a portal. For example, for prior authorizations, a big increase in portal use correlated with the decline in the adoption of fully-electronic transactions.

For CAQH, the endgame is getting all providers to automate claims processes complete, so the modest to flat growth in automated claims transactions is not exactly good news. In fact, it’s not a winning situation for medical practices either. According to the group’s estimates, each manual transaction costs practices $4.40 more than each electronic transaction and eats up five more minutes of provider time, which can create a real drag on profits.

Meanwhile, processing a single claim electronically through its lifecycle would save medical practices almost 40 minutes on average, and more than $15 in direct cost savings. Meanwhile, processing a single dental claim from start to finish could save dental practices almost 30 minutes on average and almost $11.75.

The CAQH press release doesn’t spell out what’s holding dentists and doctors back from automating the claims process completely, but it’s not hard to guess was going on. Unlike some providers, medical and dental practices typically don’t have deep pockets or large staff they can make this transition. If health plans want these providers to get on board, they’ll probably have to help them make the transition. However, even health plans haven’t invested in automated claims processing enough either.

ICD-10 Deja Vu – End of Grace Period

Posted on June 8, 2016 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

I recently came across this article by Aiden Spencer about the possibility that ICD-10 could still cause issues for healthcare organizations once the grace period ends. Here’s what he suggests:

The CMS grace period was a welcomed relief because it meant practices would still be reimbursed under Medicare Part B for claims that at least had a valid ICD-10 diagnosis code. This meant physicians and their staff could get up to speed without worrying about taking a huge hit to their revenue stream.

With only five months left until the grace period ends, industry experts are predicting that an ICD-10 crisis might still be coming for some providers. Will you be one of them? Are you currently implementing quality medical billing software, or will the system you’re using fail come October 1st?

This certainly feels like what we were talking about last October when ICD-10 went live. A bunch of fuss and very little impact on healthcare. Are we heading for another round of fear and anxiety over the end of the ICD-10 grace period?

My gut tells me that it won’t be a bit deal for most healthcare organizations. They’ve had a year to improve their ICD-10 coding and so it won’t likely be an issue for most. This is particularly true for organizations who have quality HIM staff that’s gone through and done audits of their ICD-10 coding practices to ensure that they were doing so accurately.

I saw one stat from KPMG that only 11 percent of healthcare organizations described the ICD-10 implementation as a “failure to operate in an ICD-10 environment” with 80% finding the move to ICD-10 to be smooth. I imagine we’ll have a similar breakout when the ICD-10 grace period ends. Just make sure you’re not part of the 11 percent.

How Much Patient Data Do We Truly Need?

Posted on November 23, 2015 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

As the demands placed on healthcare data increase, the drive to manage it effectively has of course grown as well. This has led to the collection of mammoth quantities of data — one trade group estimates that U.S. hospitals will manage 665 terabytes of data during 2015 alone — but not necessarily better information.

The assumption that we need to capture most, if not all, of a patient’s care history digitally is clearly driving this data accumulation process. As care moves into the digital realm, the volume of data generated by the healthcare industry is climbing 48% percent per year, according to one estimate. I can only assume that the rate of increase will grow as providers incorporate data feeds from mHealth apps, remote monitoring devices and wearables, the integration of which is not far in the future.

The thing is, most of the healthcare big data discussions I’ve followed assume that providers must manage, winnow and leverage all of this data. Few, if any, influencers seem to be considering the possibility that we need to set limits on what we manage, much less developing criteria for screening out needless data points.

As we all know, all data is not made equal.  One conversation I had with a physician in the back in the early 1990s makes the point perfectly. At the time, I asked him whether he felt it would be helpful to put a patient’s entire medical history online someday, a distant but still imaginable possibility at the time. “I don’t know what we should keep,” he said. “But I know I don’t need to know what a patient’s temperature was 20 years ago.”

On the other hand, providers may not have access to all of the data they need either. According to research by EMC, while healthcare organizations typically import 3 years of legacy data into a new EMR, many other pertinent records are not available. Given the persistence of paper, poor integration of clinical systems and other challenges, only 25% of relevant data may be readily available, the vendor reports.

Because this problem (arguably) gets too little attention, providers grappling with it are being forced to to set their own standards. Should hospitals and clinics expand that three years of legacy data integration to five years? 10 years? The patient’s entire lifetime? And how should institutions make such a decision? To my knowledge, there’s still no clear-cut way to make such decisions.

But developing best practices for data integration is critical. Given the costs of managing needless patient data — which may include sub-optimal outcomes due to data fog — it’s critical to develop some guidelines for setting limits on clinical data accumulation. While failing to collect relevant patient data has consequences, turning big data into astronomically big data does as well.

By all means, let’s keep our eye on how to leverage new patient-centric data sources like wearable health  trackers. It seems clear that such data has a role in stepping up patient care, at least once we understand what part of it is wheat and which part chaff.

That being said, continuing to amass data at exponential rates is unsustainable and ultimately, harmful. Sometimes, setting limits is the only way that you can be sure that what remains is valuable.

Will We Need Billing Codes Once We Have Nice Structured EHR Clinical Data?

Posted on July 27, 2015 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

I had a really fascinating discussion recently with @AlexHBurgess where we discussed the role of billing codes in an EHR today and also the future of billing codes as EHR notes get much better and more granular. This is particularly interesting to me as I’m at the HealthPort HIM Summit the next couple days.

Here’s the question that started the conversation:

This was @AlexHBurgess’s response:

And then I replied:

The last question is something worth chewing on. I’ll have to ask it of a few HIM managers the next couple days. I think the simple answer is that we’ll still likely need billing codes. I don’t think that our payers are forward thinking enough or at least progressive enough to try and push forward a non-billing code reimbursement system. It’s pretty interesting to think about though.

The second reason I don’t think it’s likely to happen is that the data in the EHR will likely not be good enough. Although, if the data in the EHR (and not just the billing codes that were selected) were how you got paid, then you’d see a dramatic improvement in the quality of the EHR data. So, maybe it’s not a bad idea after all. I’m pretty sure my medical billing friends would scoff at this idea as they think about the number of times they’ve had to have doctors correct something in the paper chart to make sure the billing was ok.

Long story short, I think that you could theoretically get rid of medical billing codes and just use EHR data for reimbursement. However, in practice I don’t really see this ever becoming a reality. At least not in the short to medium term.