Comment Re:Cruise Ship + Cantenna = ?? (Score 1) 308
Yeah and then they'll call DHS and say they're being followed by a pirate...
The only way doctors are going to go to EMR systems is when they improve the bottom line.
I believe 2014 is the target date to decrease physician reimbursement by 5% for not using EMR software
I currently do my patients records on paper. I bill much lower than I could, because I'm scared about penalties associated with being caught over-billing.
You should NOT be billing defensively! You need to have competent chart-audits regularly and bill for what you actually perform. You need to keep meticulous notes to verify your charges. Just because your office is "going EMR within the next year" and "amount you bill will increase" means absolutely NOTHING. They will still pay you the UCR rate in your area for whatever you bill for. Couple that with the fact that major insurers and Medicare/Medicaid are probably going to start paying a set fee on the diagnosis because of things like PQRI (see below), chances are you'll never make that up.
Case in point:
We have a doctor that bill $4000.00 for arthroscopic knee surgery. He only gets $600.00 and is very unhappy about it. We told him to stop doing surgery altogether and just do joint injections instead because they (payers) actually pay for that what it's worth, plus he'll save on malpractice insurance. If he takes our proposal seriously, he'll make more money for less work. Software won't give you that.
We have another doctor that tried out PQRI but for that extra 2% reimbursement it takes an extra 20 minutes of reporting per claim by the doctor herself. A chart-audit showed that all she had to do was bill her initial visit (9920X's) and she'd increase her monthly revenues by 7-15% (dermatologist - lots of new patients a month).
A different doctor (Psych) of ours asked about PORI and with what we came to the conclusion that it is nothing but research and for quantifying the data into a database to be able to start paying on the DX and not on the actual work performed. If you're a GP/Internist and you have a diabetic patient you're getting office visit reimbursement now. In the future you won't. You'll get a set-fee for the year and if it takes 2 visits, well maybe you're ahead on that patient but if it takes 20 visits you're out quite a bit of revenue... It's hard to stay on top of the reimbursement game.
Is EMR going to reduce the cost of health care? Almost certainly not. It will likely allow physicians to drill down into their database of patients to see:
Any decent billing software allows you to do the same exact thing. Even if it can't do it out of the box, chances are you can find someone who can get that data out of it with simple SQL queries. Our software does for the most part but since it is SQL based, I can extend any reporting easily either with CrystalReports or SSRS (SqlServerReportingServices) and in no time at all. Need to know reimbusement percentage? easy... Need to know detailed reimbursement analysis by CPT code and Insurance Company? easy... Need a recall list with specific parameters, again easy...You don't need EMR software to do that.
I don't presume to know your actual payer mix but if it's the normal 55% Insurance/ 45% the two M's/ 10% other you need a competent certified coder/biller/auditor who plays by the rules and investigates trends. You'll still end up with EMR down the road though some old-timers who still use ledger cards won't, but until more providers use it or it's a requirement to actually get paid... I'd wait.
homosexual (adj.) 1892, in C.G. Craddock's translation of Krafft-Ebbing's "Psychopathia Sexualis"
heterosexual (adj.) 1892, in C.G. Craddock's translation of Krafft-Ebbing's "Psychopathia Sexualis"
Now a quick search does not reveal who C.G. Craddock actually is, though I suspect he was a man of some science.
His son(?) C.G. Craddock Jr. is attributed as a co-author for
"LEUKEMIC CELL PROLIFERATION AS DETERMINED BY IN VITRO DEOXYRIBONUCLEIC ACID SYNTHESIS* C. G. Craddock and G. S. Nakai"
He also is referenced as CRADDOCK CG., Jr The physiology of granulocytic cells in normal and leukemic states. Am J Med. 1960 May;28:711-725
Sometimes it's enlightening to look up the etymological root of terms and this one is certainly worth noting. My original point was only that the poster was being less than honest about the time-frame of the usage of those terms and anyone of some age (anyone being born before the "Age of Aquarius...) knows that.
It's because "homosexual" is a dirty word because of centuries of religious meddling
Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't they referred to as "Sodomites" in the King James Bible version. Though the term "Homosexual" appears in the New International Edition I am pretty sure it's actually a scientific term.
Meanwhile, the term "Gay" and "Lesbian" probably only became common in the last half-century. Other than that I sorta understand what you're trying to say.
Cartoonist Tom Richmond was very excited about his new iPhone application project: He was approached to contribute cartoon caricatures of members of Congress for an app that would allow users to locate and contact their representatives using zipcodes and/or the iPhone's GPS capabilities. But then Apple rejected the app, after Richmond had done all 540 caricatures, claiming that "it contains content that ridicules public figures and is in violation of Section 3.3.14 from the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement."
From Here
Oh, it's cheaper, but if you are always zooming in and out, resizing the working window. Yes productivity will suffer. Read the post again and I make it clear that 4:3 works with landscape & portrait about the same. Sorry, I don't have any study other than personal experience with BOTH formats. Yes, I can claim that 4:3 subsidizes 16:9's because the price per pixel is way out of line.
1.90 cents vs. 1.03 cents is almost double in my book.
Sorry, I've tried that, I have screen rotate support. I use pdf's on one screen, data/email/filesys in the other... yes that works with letter/portrait but I also get legal/landscape pdf's. Needless to say, 16:9 works for legal/landscape but sucks for letter/portrait. 4:3 works for both marvelously. Also too you get crappy viewing angles when in portrait mode
Widescreen is a current darling, maybe so. 4:3 works for business and there is the reason they are so much more expensive. Productivity often suffers on those 16:9's and the makers know it. They probably count on getting 400.00 for a 4:3 that subsidizes the 149.00 16:9. Just let me buy Samsung 204B's at the 250 price point and I'll buy 5 of 'em.
I recently was gifted a Dell Inspiron Mini 10. I have no complaints (for what it is). It runs fine and what I really like about it is the HDMI output lets me easily hook it up to my plasma and watch movies with netflix. If this was available a month ago I would've seriously considered it, even though it has VGA out. Put an HDMI connector in it and I'd be in heaven.
I have always wondered why they charge such a premium for tablets, just like I still wonder today why I can't buy a large non-widescreen format LCD monitor for < an arm and a leg...
There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.
