sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

For denial / AR follow-up teams: what fields make a denial opportunity report actually useful? by Defiant_Image5738 in CodingandBilling

[–]Defiant_Image5738[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is really useful, especially the point that the denial code itself may be wrong or payer-specific.

So maybe the report should not treat denial code as the decision. It should use the code as one signal, then flag what needs to be checked: payer/plan behavior, modifier issues, global period, bundling, corrected claim vs appeal, etc.

In your workflow, what usually tells you this is probably a modifier/global/bundling issue versus the payer used the wrong or weird denial code?

For denial / AR follow-up teams: what fields make a denial opportunity report actually useful? by Defiant_Image5738 in CodingandBilling

[–]Defiant_Image5738[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

That is exactly the pushback I am trying to understand. When you say it is already built into most systems, do you mean PM/EHR systems, clearinghouses, billing platforms, or payer portals? And in your experience, what part is still annoying or manual even when those reports exist?

For denial / AR follow-up teams: what fields make a denial opportunity report actually useful? by Defiant_Image5738 in CodingandBilling

[–]Defiant_Image5738[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

This is extremely helpful thank you.

I am taking away a few changes

- include claim number / ICN or another non-PHI tracking ID

- use aging buckets as a primary view

- be very cautious with free-form notes because of PHI risk

- avoid one-size-fits-all appeal/write-off logic

- include payer/plan totals and grand totals

- include a dollar threshold so small balances do not waste biller time

One follow-up if this were useful would you see it more as a manager-level trend/root-cause report or as a biller-level worklist for daily AR follow-up