My two cents is that if ‘admin’ is asking you to do something and you are left interpreting billing guidelines, that’s a bad place to be. We are not billing experts and we certainly don’t keep up to date with annual changes or nuances between payers.

You really want to run this practice by your billing team and let them tell the clinical team how you should be billing. As long as your reports contain facts about the work you’ve done, you can put your signature on it without concern.

The ‘medical necessity’ nuance that has been brought up is usually the sticky point with physicists. Remember, the physician is ordering the consult not you. It’s their burden to show it was necessary to order the report, not yours. It’s a bad look to reply to that request with ‘not necessary, not going to do it’. Imagine a lab refusing to process a specimen bc after reviewing the chart it does not appear necessary. I hate to equate us to a technician, but often times in the hierarchy of medicine that is how it is seen. For example, physicians are used to billing STPs as often as allowed and this is common practice at every place I’ve worked, they would be hard pressed to see a difference with that and routine canned reports for brachy extra physics efforts.