Remix clone Hacker News

For them it's a cost of doing business. Many of those claims will be paid after resubmissions (upon fixes the mistakes if it is possible) but the office operates with higher amount of working capital in this case

▲

bradly a day ago | parent [-]

> For them it's a cost of doing business

"a cost of doing business" reads like they do not care that over half their denials are not real. You are working with business that do not care about humans and will use your tool to more extract profit. I'd rather them go out of business if they cannot get 50% of their claims done in a way that doesn't get them auto rejected.

▲

nradov a day ago | parent [-]

Be careful what you wish for. We already have a shortage of healthcare providers. Do you want to make it harder to get an appointment? There's nothing wrong with billing at the maximum level legally and contractually allowed.

▲

bradly a day ago | parent [-]

> There's nothing wrong with billing at the maximum level legally and contractually allowed.

I completely disagree with that statement. By nothing wrong, do you mean it isn't illegal?

It is horrible that some health care providers are denying more than half their claims incorrectly. A strawman argument about making it harder to get an appointment does not change that.

	▲	nradov a day ago \| parent [-]
		You seem to be mixing up providers and payers (insurers). Providers don't deny claims, but sometimes payers sent claims because the providers coded them incorrectly. There's nothing wrong with coding a claim with all services rendered and charging the maximum agreed rate. If the payers want a lower rate then they can negotiate it next time the contract is up for renewal. Obviously it would be wrong for providers to bill for things they didn't actually do. That would be fraud. This part isn't in dispute.