Computers
Medical billing is the practice of coding medical procedures, submitting claims to insurance companies for reimbursement and then sending a bill to the patient for their portion of payment for medical or dental services rendered. Previously, this was all done by hand, usually in a very time consuming manner office by someone who was knowledgeable about the medical practice and proficient in numbers. All that has changed though, with the advent of computers. Computers in Medical Billing have made the workload so much easier to manage by allowing a much faster rate in the processing of information.
Now, doctor’s offices, pharmacies, nursing homes, hospitals, insurance companies, clinics and even rehabilitation facilities can benefit from the ease with which computers in medical billing can help them with the job of processing patient bills and insurance claims. Too, for those who do medical billing work from home, they can now multi-task and work for multiple insurance companies and physician’s practices keeping all the patient loads separate.
Since computers in medical billing have made the manner of submitting claims and processing patient bills so efficient, there is also plenty of opportunity for advancement in this career field. If you choose not to go the traditional route of working as a traditional Medical Biller, you could most certainly become a consultant who provides practice management to those who are using computers in medical billing.
However, in order for a medical or dental office, or even a pharmacy, to reap the benefits of computers in medical billing they will need to purchase specific software that will integrate with the programs they are already using for their practice. Many of these software programs will also be able to replace some current tasks managers on existing computer systems, such as: scheduling appointments, running patient reports and keeping track of all your patient information in one convenient location.
Too, since the clinical software is often used to keep patient data, you’ll want to decide if you should purchase software that uses EHR (electronic health record) or EMR (electronic medical record) management. EHR would allow you to pull patient information from all systems while EMR is typically used to pull information from a specific medical procedure. Whichever method you decide is going to work out the best for your practice, your choice will effectively increase the efficiency of your practice and make your use of computers in medical billing a very wise decision and a solid health-care policy.
Jun
08
2009
The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONCHIT) will soon release a description of the “meaningful use” of electronic medical records (EMR). Until HHS releases what it will require for a EHR user to receive the EHR stimulus money, then it’s anybody’s guess just what the heck meaningful use of an EHR actually means, please forgive the pun 
I can think of a number of factors that may or may not be part of this aspect of the standard:
- The number of years the practice has used the system within the practice. Part of the way the money is being passed out is to encourage early adopters, they actual get a bigger incentive to convert to an EMR.
- Does the data on the system get passed to other systems. In other words, is the data transparent and can other systems export and import the demographic and clinical information. A simple example is placing a lab test and recieving the results back into the EMR.
- Does the system improve the quality of care. Well duh, but I bet this is the hardest part to quantify but isn’t this the most important factor.
But as I’ve read the healthcare blogs I’ve seen another thought about meaningful use. The concept evolves around that concept that “meaningful use” should somehow measure if the user(s) is/are move effective in their practive of medicine with the system. From a productivity vantage key to measure this would be great but even more difficult to define.
Mar
31
2009
In today’s ModernHealthcare.com there’s an article on EMR Usablity and CCHIT Evaluation. The main point is simple, make the user friendly aspect of an EMR part of the certification process. I am in total agreement, most EMR may pass the “mechanical” aspects of interoperability but are hard to use.
The stimulus act ignores the brutal fact that traditional EHR systems will NOT solve much of the healthcare industry’s woes if doctors can’t or won’t use them. The incentives assume that “if you fund it they will come” this just isn’t the case. I love this remark in the article “Based on the “success” of EHR systems over the past 10 years, this bet could be akin to AIG’s bets on credit default swaps.”
Here’s the problem with usability, much of this is in the eyes of the beholder. Its not just a matter of how many clicks a task takes. I agree with the sentiment of the author but this is a very subjective issue, classic apples and oranges.
Sep
17
2008
According to the people at Software Advice earlier this year the NAHIT established definitions for EHR, EMR and PHR. Given their authority, and the Bush administration’s plan to build an interoperable health IT infrastructure, EHR has become the standard phrase to describe an electronic patient chart. However, the majority of physicians are still searching for an EMR, and software vendors haven’t renamed their products.
Software Advise wrote their article EHR vs EMR - What’s the Difference? to explain the difference between the two systems and help physicians understand what role the acronym should have in their purchase.
I don’t remember seeing this on any of the regular IT healthcare blogs but it’s really mute. EMR is going to stick for sometime and I wonder if NAHIT only made things more complex by trying to pigeon-hole the definitions.
Feb
29
2008
Google Health is going to fail, it’s that simple. Actually since it will be in perpetual beta no one will notice.
It’s going to fail for the same reason that all PHRs are going to fail. You can’t design a system when you don’t have process and policy in place. In the US health market you have neither.
Right now we have the classic general system design philosophy being practiced. “If you don’t like the facts, get rid of them” Whether its Google Health, AllScripts, or Revolution Health its all a bunch of arrogant tech money trying to make more tech money, won’t work.
Neither the doctor nor the patient are truly at the center of any of these efforts.
Neither are most of the real stakeholders, a very long list.
Do I have a better idea, sure, who doesn’t. The question is how long will it take before the right people come to the table, some time. So in the meantime thanks for the betas, we’re all watching and learning.