We know that automated claim editing is unable to analyze many claims due to their clinical complexity, the most obvious examples being claims with modifiers 25 and 59. These simply pass through the system and get paid without any further intervention. That’s why clinical claim review—also known as clinical validation—is so valuable. Clinical validation is a process whereby a team of clinicians, nurses, and coding experts reviews potentially incorrect claims and makes a swift payment recommendation. Over the years we’ve heard questions and concerns from health plans about the value of clinical validation. Here are four common myths and our responses to set your mind at ease.... Read More
There’s no question that automated claim editing is a crucial component of accurate and efficient claims payment. Using black-and-white sourced edits from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the American Medical Association’s (AMA) CPT® book, as well as payer-sourced custom rules, these systems save plans a significant amount of money by keeping them from paying incorrect claims without human intervention.
But is having one automated claim editing system enough to ensure total claim accuracy, or are you leaving significant savings on the table without a secondary editor? And if you already have a secondary editor, is there a benefit to adding a tertiary editor? Here are three fast facts you should know about how far automated claims editors can go.... Read More