Request a Quote


Our Services


Summary of Services

The FIRM provides professional claims billing services for individual providers, clinics and facilities. We service all disciplines of practice, i.e., medical, dental, diagnostic testing, chiropractic, physical therapy, optometry/ophthalmology, mental health, chemical dependency, and durable medical equipment.

We offer specialty services such as consultation, collections and appeals, contracting and credentialing, verification and preauthorization and personal injury settlement negotiating. We offer form development and revision services, office reorganization and personnel training.

We have extensive experience in all areas of commercial insurance, Workers Compensation, personal injury, Third Party Administrators, Medicare, Medicaid, and other state and federally funded programs. We offer personalized services designed specifically to meet your needs.

­

CMS Proposes Site-Neutral Payments, Drug Price Negotiation

HealthPayer Intelligence- Thomas Beaton- July 26,2018 A proposed rule from CMS aims to expand the use of site-neutral payments, and drug price negotiation at the federal level, to reduce Medicare costs. CMS has proposed a rule that would expand the use of site-neutral payments and improve the drug price negotiation process with manufacturers in order to reduce Medicare’s overall spending. The new rule would allow Medicare to reimburse providers with site-neutral payments for clinic visits, such as check-ups. CMS explained that clinic visits contribute significantly to preventable spending, because many providers charge varying rates for clinic visits. By using site-neutral payments, CMS expects to control spending and reduce clinic costs for beneficiaries. The new payments would lower the cost of clinic visits from $116 with a $23 beneficiary copay down to $46 and a copay of $9. “If finalized, this proposal is projected to save patients about $150 million in lower copayments for clinic visits provided at an off-campus hospital outpatient department,” the agency said in a press release. “CMS is also proposing to close a potential loophole through which providers are billing patients more for visits in hospital outpatient departments when they create new service lines.” By 2019, CMS also expects to reduce hospital outpatient spending by $760 million through the use of site-neutral payments within the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) and Ambulatory Surgical Center (ASC) Payment System. CMS is adjusting provider payment rates within both programs to promote site neutrality between ASCs and hospital settings. The rule also contains a request for information (RFI) about how to improve the competitive acquisition program (CAP), so CMS can negotiate prescription drug prices with greater authority. CMS is seeking comments about how to innovate [...]

CMS Plugs Changes to E/M Coding

by Shannon Firth, Washington Correspondent, MedPage Today- July 18, 2018 Agency argues that streamlined billing codes will reduce physician burden WASHINGTON -- Administration officials sought to explain the nuts and bolts of proposed changes to evaluation and management (E/M) codes during an online panel discussion on Wednesday. Last week, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed several major changes to the Medicare physician fee schedule that the agency believes will greatly reduce some of the paperwork burden physicians face each day. By making documentation less onerous, CMS says it's giving physicians more time to focus on their patients and to improve their health outcomes. "If we're serious about improving the quality and access for patients we have to address the concerns of providers on the front lines," CMS Administrator Seema Verma said during Wednesday's webcast. Under the current system of E/M billing, providers must choose between category levels 1-5. Level 1 is reserved for non-physician services and level 5 is reserved for the most complex patients. "The differences between levels 2 to 5 are often really difficult to discern and time-consuming to document," said Kate Goodrich, MD, CMS's chief medical officer. Physicians are required to justify the level they choose by performing certain tasks, for example reviewing a certain number of organ systems during their physical exam, for level 3 and a different number for level 5, she explained. Also, under current E/M codes, each physician has to redocument a patient's past medical history, family history and social history even if the same histories were already taken and recorded by a previous provider, or during a previous visit. Under the new proposed rule, the agency "collapsed" the codes between 2 and 5, Goodrich said. [...]

CMA News – Coding Corner : Modifier 59

California Medical Association News - Coding Corner: Modifier 59 -May 01, 2018 | Practice Management CPR’s “Coding Corner” focuses on coding, compliance, and documentation issues relating specifically to physician billing. This month’s tip comes from G. John Verhovshek, the managing editor for AAPC, a training and credentialing association for the business side of health care. Modifier 59 Distinct procedural service is an “unbundling modifier.” When properly applied, it allows you to separately report—and to be reimbursed for—two or more procedures that normally would not be billed or paid independently during the same provider/patient encounter. For example, per CPT Assistant (Jan. 2018): Code 20680 [Removal of implant; deep (eg, buried wire, pin, screw, metal band, nail, rod or plate)] describes a unit of service that is typically reported only once, provided the original injury is located at only one anatomic site, regardless of the number of screws, plates, or rods inserted, or the number of incisions required for removal. The removal of a single implant system or construct, which may require multiple incisions (eg, intramedullary [IM] nail and several locking screws) is reported only once with code 20680. Reporting code 20680 more than once is appropriate only when the hardware removal is performed for another fracture(s) in a different anatomical site(s) unrelated to the first fracture (eg, ankle hardware and wrist hardware). In these circumstances, modifier 59, Distinct Procedural Service, would be appended to subsequent uses of the implant removal code. CPT® and CCI Conditions to Append Modifier 59 As outlined in the CPT® codebook, the general conditions under which you might append modifier 59 include situations where two or more CPT® codes, not normally reported together, are performed at a: Different session Different procedure or surgery [...]

Legal Compliance: One More Reason to Collect Patient Deductibles and Copays

WEBPT - By Tom Ambury - June 24, 2018 Collecting coinsurance, copays, and deductibles upfront is an important piece of the effort to accurately value the services we provide. And yet, we still hear about practices that routinely waive their patients’ deductibles and copays. Today, I’ll discuss another reason not to routinely waive deductibles and copays. In the past, I’ve written about collecting deductibles and copays when a patient presents with a federally funded insurance like Medicare. In cases involving the Department of Justice, the powers that be have stated very clearly that the practice of routinely waiving deductibles and copays can be a violation of the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute. But what about commercial insurances like BlueCross BlueShield, Aetna, and Cigna? That’s what I’ll chat about today. Why You Shouldn’t Waive Before I get into the compliance-related reasons to collect full payment for our services, let me say that to me, from a business standpoint—and with the knowledge that payments are continually being reduced as the cost of doing business keeps rising—it’s hard to imagine why a provider wouldn’t want to collect full payment for his or her services. Here’s an example I came up with to better explain my point: Let’s say you’re getting paid $75 per visit from a commercial insurance company, with $25 of that total coming from the patient’s copay and $50 from the insurance company. (These totals don’t necessarily reflect what’s happening in the real world; for illustration purposes, we’re staying in Tom’s World.) Wouldn’t you rather get paid $75 per visit versus waiving the copay and accepting only $50? Aren’t your services worth the full $75—if not more? And if the business reasons are not enough to sway you toward collecting [...]