Guest guest Posted September 29, 2000 Report Share Posted September 29, 2000 Jerry, Thanks for pointing this out - doctors have used that line on me, too ( " not taking new Medicare patients " ). Also, it is important to note that what the government reimburses for Medicare patients is generally far below the standard fees for any procedure. What this means is that the doctor's office, hospital, or whatever will almost always be taking a loss, and this generally means they have a strong incentive not to order any tests. In general, this is what I find - since almost all of the tests people discuss on this list are somewhat unusual, and many of the treatments experimental, it is very hard for doctors to get payment. I have known non-Medicare patients who have seen the same CFIDS doctor I see, and they received numerous tests while I could not get her to order a simple CBC. It took years before I found another doctor who knows nothing about CFIDS but is open minded, and is willing to deal with the Medicare system. The fact is, the equality clauses in Medicare simply do not play out in real life. Peggy <<Yes, they have to take Medicare - but they don't have to take a new patient who is covered by Medicare. If you have already been a patient there they are supposed to continue to treat you even if you change coverage to Medicare, but since they aren't obligated to take new patients they can use that as a way to avoid Medicare's puny reimbursements and horrendous paperwork. Jerry>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2001 Report Share Posted January 5, 2001 I am in Arizona but the following is a written quote: " The chiropractor is not required to bill excluded services, however, the provider may bill these services to Medicare in order to obtain a denial for secondary insurance purposes " page 5, Medicare Special issue, January 1998, regarding " Medical policy Chiropractic service (manual spinal manipulations) This Medicare B News says " this applies to the following states :Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. " They faxed this to me when I asked them about billing issues. Anglen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2001 Report Share Posted January 5, 2001 That was what we understood as week Thanks Steve Kinne Re: Medicare > I am in Arizona but the following is a written quote: > > " The chiropractor is not required to bill excluded services, however, the > provider may bill these services to Medicare in order to obtain a denial for > secondary insurance purposes " > > page 5, Medicare Special issue, January 1998, regarding " Medical policy > Chiropractic service (manual spinal manipulations) > > This Medicare B News says " this applies to the following states :Alaska, > Arizona, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. " They faxed this to me when > I asked them about billing issues. > > > > Anglen > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2001 Report Share Posted March 9, 2001 , I agree about involving the patient in this process. I am drafting a letter currently to send to all the Medicare patients who have been in since I have owned the business (8 months) and to give to new ones. It has been there for 13 years and accepted Medicare assignment the whole time. In the first 6 months (when Aetna was our Medicare) I did not have a single visit denied. I am expecting my first payment March 15. If they have denied or audited most of the visits I am expecting payment on I will just have to walk away from my business and the lease as I will not be able to afford to continue in operation. The first electronic billing I sent in to Medicare in January was deleted by their error after acknowleding receipt of it. Although it was their mistake I had to resubmit it again, which is pushing our first possible payment this year from Medicare to March 15. When they make a clerical error they shrug, when we do it we go to jail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2001 Report Share Posted March 9, 2001 It is my understanding that Medicare will not consider a hearing on any specific case unless the bill in question is at least $100 or more. Each denial I receive is followed up by a brief cover letter requesting a review and copies of my chart notes. Sometimes I get pain, sometimes I don't. Some of my medicare patients will call their congressman whenever medicare denies their claims, particularly when more than one visit is involved. It seems medicare denies their claims less often. Each time they contact their congressman he/she requests more info about the troubles with medicare and the patients are only too happy to respond. I also inform each patient of medicare's problems and the patient is required to sign the explanation of medicare benefits form each visit. They must understand with each visit the probability of medicare's denial. The patient needs to get involved and fight for his/her benefits as well. We cannot fight all their battles for them. Holzapfel Albany Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2001 Report Share Posted March 9, 2001 At 09:13 AM 3/9/01 -0800, J Holzapfel DC wrote: >. " Each denial I receive is followed up by a brief cover letter requesting a >review and copies of my chart notes. Sometimes I get pain, sometimes I >don't. " Paid, or pain? A freudian slip, perhaps? Les Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2001 Report Share Posted March 9, 2001 , before you throw in the towel on your Medicare problems, give a call to Terry and Penny over in Mesa. Terry helped to write the rules currently being used in Medicare, and Penny manages a LARGE Medicare practice, with mostly Medicare and Managed care Patients. Terry is past president of the AZ. Association, and is a very caring and wonderful Chiropractor. Thanks for your helpful participation in Oregondcs. Ron Johansen DC 5032557746. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2001 Report Share Posted March 12, 2001 Les, I just downloaded my email so sorry for the delayed response. I would be happy to fax you a copy of my cover letter. What is your fax number? I hope it helps... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2002 Report Share Posted April 26, 2002 Dr. Bob; You are right on target, again! Reimbursement to a medical doctor for therapeutic procedures that take the time a chiropractor takes to examine and treat a patient typically receive from third party payers as much as 10-20 times the dollars that a chiropractor receives for similar time, effort, and skill. A good example is the one I posted about my experience with a couple of dermatologists. Actually, it isn't a very good example since I would be embarrassed to put our level of skill and the thoroughness of our exams and documentation on the same level as a dermatologist. We can't even bill accurately to MC. If I see a new patient I have to use the 98940 code instead of the 99203, even though I take a history and perform an exam that 98940 doesn't come close to describing; yet 99203 brings no reimbursement at all. I think it is time for our profession to get out of the back of the bus and take a seat at the lunch counter. S. Feinberg, D.C. At 06:31 PM 4/25/02 -0700, W. Pfeiffer wrote: LISTMATES; UNHAPPY WITH MEDICARE ??????? MEDICARE DOUBLE STANDARDS?????? Bulletin 196 Apr 15, 02 has the rules we MUST follow for E & M s on page 40. Time consuming aren t they???? Look on page 71 MC wants your comments! Everyone on this listserve should write to MC and complain about the requirements they impose upon DCs, BUT DO NOT re-imburse us for these services they request. MC pays the other providers for E & Ms but not DCs. Uncle VERNE- Do you think the ACA should advocate a letter writing campaign on this subject????? DrBob W. Pfeiffer, DC,DABCO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2002 Report Share Posted April 26, 2002 Good Luck guys,on turning around the Federal Bureaucracy and the AMA.Considering the opposition to just paying for the adjustment, can you imagine the screaming and yelling when we ask to be paid for xrays and exams. Perhaps the better option would be to just say no ,drop out and let the crying grannies who can't find an adjustment take the message to our Senators and Reps. I was looking at my overhead figures the other day and trying to figure why I do PART, chart notes, and all the other crap Medicare wants and then occassionaly get paid $25.66 when my cash senior non Medicare patients willingly pony up $29 all day long?!?. Dr , where is your secret formula for converting Medicare to Cash?Ron Johansen On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 07:46:52 -0700 " S. Feinberg" <feinberg@...> writes: Dr. Bob;You are right on target, again! Reimbursement to a medical doctor for therapeutic procedures that take the time a chiropractor takes to examine and treat a patient typically receive from third party payers as much as 10-20 times the dollars that a chiropractor receives for similar time, effort, and skill. A good example is the one I posted about my experience with a couple of dermatologists. Actually, it isn't a very good example since I would be embarrassed to put our level of skill and the thoroughness of our exams and documentation on the same level as a dermatologist. We can't even bill accurately to MC. If I see a new patient I have to use the 98940 code instead of the 99203, even though I take a history and perform an exam that 98940 doesn't come close to describing; yet 99203 brings no reimbursement at all. I think it is time for our profession to get out of the back of the bus and take a seat at the lunch counter. S. Feinberg, D.C.At 06:31 PM 4/25/02 -0700, W. Pfeiffer wrote: LISTMATES; UNHAPPY WITH MEDICARE ??????? MEDICARE DOUBLE STANDARDS?????? Bulletin 196 Apr 15, 02 has the rules we MUST follow for E & M s on page 40. Time consuming aren t they???? Look on page 71 MC wants your comments! Everyone on this listserve should write to MC and complain about the requirements they impose upon DCs, BUT DO NOT re-imburse us for these services they request. MC pays the other providers for E & Ms but not DCs. Uncle VERNE- Do you think the ACA should advocate a letter writing campaign on this subject????? DrBob W. Pfeiffer, DC,DABCO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2002 Report Share Posted April 26, 2002 Listmates - My last response to Dr. Feinberg has been lost in chaos somewhere. I'll try again.... Our exclusion from MC reimbursement for the other services we are required to or may clinically choose to perform is not from the AMA or HCFA. It is from the dichotomy of our profession. The philosophical mess we have between those of us whom wish to practice as Chiropractic Physicians and those Chiropractors that wish us not to. If the ACA were the only significant national organization, we would eventually have more parity. I believe the MC mess started when we finaly entered into the program in the 1970's and the " subluxation only " camp kept us at only treating " subluxations " and treating with only adjustments instead of the plethora of adjunctive treatments we use. Thus, we find ouselves here, responsible in this State (as well as most others)for the patient's welfare by DDX and treatment but not having any reimbursement for it. Indeed, prior to the change in CPT coding a few years ago, our adjustment code did not require ANY documentation,and we were reimbursed appropriately for that minimal level of service. Now MC requires documentation, examination, diagnosis but does not pay for it. We have the dichotomy to blame. If you feel similarly, join the ACA. P. Thille, D.C., FACO Redmond, Oregon -- In @y..., " S. Feinberg " <feinberg@e...> wrote: > Dr. Bob; > > You are right on target, again! Reimbursement to a medical doctor for > therapeutic procedures that take the time a chiropractor takes to examine > and treat a patient typically receive from third party payers as much as > 10-20 times the dollars that a chiropractor receives for similar time, > effort, and skill. A good example is the one I posted about my experience > with a couple of dermatologists. Actually, it isn't a very good example > since I would be embarrassed to put our level of skill and the thoroughness > of our exams and documentation on the same level as a dermatologist. We > can't even bill accurately to MC. If I see a new patient I have to use the > 98940 code instead of the 99203, even though I take a history and perform > an exam that 98940 doesn't come close to describing; yet 99203 brings no > reimbursement at all. I think it is time for our profession to get out of > the back of the bus and take a seat at the lunch counter. > > S. Feinberg, D.C. > > At 06:31 PM 4/25/02 -0700, W. Pfeiffer wrote: > > >LISTMATES; > > > > > > > >UNHAPPY WITH MEDICARE ??????? > > > > > > > >MEDICARE DOUBLE STANDARDS?????? > > > > > > > >Bulletin 196 Apr 15, 02 has the rules we MUST follow for E & M s on > >page 40. Time consuming aren t they???? > > > > > > > >Look on page 71 MC wants your comments! > > > > > > > >Everyone on this listserve should write to MC and complain about > >the requirements they impose upon DCs, BUT DO NOT re-imburse us for > >these services they request. > > > > > > > >MC pays the other providers for E & Ms but not DCs. > > > > > > > >Uncle VERNE- Do you think the ACA should advocate a letter writing > >campaign on this subject????? > > > > > > > >DrBob > > > > W. Pfeiffer, DC,DABCO > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2002 Report Share Posted April 28, 2002 : Thanks for the ACA plug! The ACA currently has a bill in Washington DC that will take care of this problem (Watkins bill) and two Oregon Congressmen are co-sponsors of this proposed federal legislation that will reimburse us for everything we do that is under our lic. Vern Saboe, DC., FABS.,DACAN., FICC Albany Re: MEDICARE > Listmates - My last response to Dr. Feinberg has been lost in chaos > somewhere. I'll try again.... > > Our exclusion from MC reimbursement for the other services we are > required to or may clinically choose to perform is not from the AMA > or HCFA. It is from the dichotomy of our profession. The > philosophical mess we have between those of us whom wish to practice > as Chiropractic Physicians and those Chiropractors that wish us not > to. If the ACA were the only significant national organization, we > would eventually have more parity. I believe the MC mess started when > we finaly entered into the program in the 1970's and the " subluxation > only " camp kept us at only treating " subluxations " and treating with > only adjustments instead of the plethora of adjunctive treatments we > use. Thus, we find ouselves here, responsible in this State (as well > as most others)for the patient's welfare by DDX and treatment but not > having any reimbursement for it. Indeed, prior to the change in CPT > coding a few years ago, our adjustment code did not require ANY > documentation,and we were reimbursed appropriately for that minimal > level of service. Now MC requires documentation, examination, > diagnosis but does not pay for it. We have the dichotomy to blame. If > you feel similarly, join the ACA. > > P. Thille, D.C., FACO > Redmond, Oregon > > -- In @y..., " S. Feinberg " <feinberg@e...> wrote: > > Dr. Bob; > > > > You are right on target, again! Reimbursement to a medical doctor > for > > therapeutic procedures that take the time a chiropractor takes to > examine > > and treat a patient typically receive from third party payers as > much as > > 10-20 times the dollars that a chiropractor receives for similar > time, > > effort, and skill. A good example is the one I posted about my > experience > > with a couple of dermatologists. Actually, it isn't a very good > example > > since I would be embarrassed to put our level of skill and the > thoroughness > > of our exams and documentation on the same level as a > dermatologist. We > > can't even bill accurately to MC. If I see a new patient I have to > use the > > 98940 code instead of the 99203, even though I take a history and > perform > > an exam that 98940 doesn't come close to describing; yet 99203 > brings no > > reimbursement at all. I think it is time for our profession to get > out of > > the back of the bus and take a seat at the lunch counter. > > > > S. Feinberg, D.C. > > > > At 06:31 PM 4/25/02 -0700, W. Pfeiffer wrote: > > > > >LISTMATES; > > > > > > > > > > > >UNHAPPY WITH MEDICARE ??????? > > > > > > > > > > > >MEDICARE DOUBLE STANDARDS?????? > > > > > > > > > > > >Bulletin 196 Apr 15, 02 has the rules we MUST follow for E > & M s on > > >page 40. Time consuming aren t they???? > > > > > > > > > > > >Look on page 71 MC wants your comments! > > > > > > > > > > > >Everyone on this listserve should write to MC and complain about > > >the requirements they impose upon DCs, BUT DO NOT re-imburse us > for > > >these services they request. > > > > > > > > > > > >MC pays the other providers for E & Ms but not DCs. > > > > > > > > > > > >Uncle VERNE- Do you think the ACA should advocate a letter > writing > > >campaign on this subject????? > > > > > > > > > > > >DrBob > > > > > > W. Pfeiffer, DC,DABCO > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2002 Report Share Posted April 28, 2002 Dear Listmates, Regardless of how,why and to whom we should blame for our current MC dilema, I propose that we take a closer look at the legality of the current MC policies: We are legally required to perform and document the initial examination (extensive beyond the scope of examination time and content provided for in the 9894x CMT code); yet we are legally not allowed to receive renumeration for said service. If we were to " skip " the exam, we would be subject to forfeiture of our license due to malpractice. Therefore, it seems reasonable to me that an anti-trust case could (and maybe should) be brought against the MC administrating agency. allen >From: " Vern Saboe DC " <las@...> >< >, " mthille " <mpt@...> >Subject: Re: Re: MEDICARE >Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 13:08:04 -0700 > >: > >Thanks for the ACA plug! The ACA currently has a bill in Washington DC >that >will take care of this problem (Watkins bill) and two Oregon Congressmen >are >co-sponsors of this proposed federal legislation that will reimburse us for >everything we do that is under our lic. > >Vern Saboe, DC., FABS.,DACAN., FICC >Albany > Re: MEDICARE > > > > Listmates - My last response to Dr. Feinberg has been lost in chaos > > somewhere. I'll try again.... > > > > Our exclusion from MC reimbursement for the other services we are > > required to or may clinically choose to perform is not from the AMA > > or HCFA. It is from the dichotomy of our profession. The > > philosophical mess we have between those of us whom wish to practice > > as Chiropractic Physicians and those Chiropractors that wish us not > > to. If the ACA were the only significant national organization, we > > would eventually have more parity. I believe the MC mess started when > > we finaly entered into the program in the 1970's and the " subluxation > > only " camp kept us at only treating " subluxations " and treating with > > only adjustments instead of the plethora of adjunctive treatments we > > use. Thus, we find ouselves here, responsible in this State (as well > > as most others)for the patient's welfare by DDX and treatment but not > > having any reimbursement for it. Indeed, prior to the change in CPT > > coding a few years ago, our adjustment code did not require ANY > > documentation,and we were reimbursed appropriately for that minimal > > level of service. Now MC requires documentation, examination, > > diagnosis but does not pay for it. We have the dichotomy to blame. If > > you feel similarly, join the ACA. > > > > P. Thille, D.C., FACO > > Redmond, Oregon > > > > -- In @y..., " S. Feinberg " <feinberg@e...> wrote: > > > Dr. Bob; > > > > > > You are right on target, again! Reimbursement to a medical doctor > > for > > > therapeutic procedures that take the time a chiropractor takes to > > examine > > > and treat a patient typically receive from third party payers as > > much as > > > 10-20 times the dollars that a chiropractor receives for similar > > time, > > > effort, and skill. A good example is the one I posted about my > > experience > > > with a couple of dermatologists. Actually, it isn't a very good > > example > > > since I would be embarrassed to put our level of skill and the > > thoroughness > > > of our exams and documentation on the same level as a > > dermatologist. We > > > can't even bill accurately to MC. If I see a new patient I have to > > use the > > > 98940 code instead of the 99203, even though I take a history and > > perform > > > an exam that 98940 doesn't come close to describing; yet 99203 > > brings no > > > reimbursement at all. I think it is time for our profession to get > > out of > > > the back of the bus and take a seat at the lunch counter. > > > > > > S. Feinberg, D.C. > > > > > > At 06:31 PM 4/25/02 -0700, W. Pfeiffer wrote: > > > > > > >LISTMATES; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >UNHAPPY WITH MEDICARE ??????? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >MEDICARE DOUBLE STANDARDS?????? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Bulletin 196 Apr 15, 02 has the rules we MUST follow for E > > & M s on > > > >page 40. Time consuming aren t they???? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Look on page 71 MC wants your comments! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Everyone on this listserve should write to MC and complain about > > > >the requirements they impose upon DCs, BUT DO NOT re-imburse us > > for > > > >these services they request. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >MC pays the other providers for E & Ms but not DCs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Uncle VERNE- Do you think the ACA should advocate a letter > > writing > > > >campaign on this subject????? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >DrBob > > > > > > > > W. Pfeiffer, DC,DABCO > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2002 Report Share Posted April 28, 2002 After continuous trouble with rejections and request for chart notes which never seem to go anywhere , I am looking at a business policy as follows for new Medicare patients in my office:1) All NP will receive a 99202 coded exam for which they will personally be responsible,2) All NP will meet Medicare xray requirements.If they don't bring one along, I will take it and they will pay for it. 3 ) I f the NP has not met the annual deductible, they pay cash in full until they have met it. After I explained this policy last week to a prospective NP, they chose to not be seen. IN my mind , if they dont want to spend $100 to begin the process, I can't afford to have them as a patient. If they want socialized Medicine, they can move to Canada. Am I getting cranky after my 55th BDAY or what? Ron Johansen, Portland On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 18:20:38 -0700 " Knecht " <allenknecht@...> writes: > Dear Listmates, > > Regardless of how,why and to whom we should blame for our current MC > dilema, > I propose that we take a closer look at the legality of the current > MC > policies: We are legally required to perform and document the > initial > examination (extensive beyond the scope of examination time and > content > provided for in the 9894x CMT code); yet we are legally not allowed > to > receive renumeration for said service. If we were to " skip " the > exam, we > would be subject to forfeiture of our license due to malpractice. > Therefore, it seems reasonable to me that an anti-trust case could > (and > maybe should) be brought against the MC administrating agency. > > allen > > > >From: " Vern Saboe DC " <las@...> > >< >, " mthille " <mpt@...> > >Subject: Re: Re: MEDICARE > >Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 13:08:04 -0700 > > > >: > > > >Thanks for the ACA plug! The ACA currently has a bill in > Washington DC > >that > >will take care of this problem (Watkins bill) and two Oregon > Congressmen > >are > >co-sponsors of this proposed federal legislation that will > reimburse us for > >everything we do that is under our lic. > > > >Vern Saboe, DC., FABS.,DACAN., FICC > >Albany > > Re: MEDICARE > > > > > > > Listmates - My last response to Dr. Feinberg has been lost in > chaos > > > somewhere. I'll try again.... > > > > > > Our exclusion from MC reimbursement for the other services we > are > > > required to or may clinically choose to perform is not from the > AMA > > > or HCFA. It is from the dichotomy of our profession. The > > > philosophical mess we have between those of us whom wish to > practice > > > as Chiropractic Physicians and those Chiropractors that wish us > not > > > to. If the ACA were the only significant national organization, > we > > > would eventually have more parity. I believe the MC mess started > when > > > we finaly entered into the program in the 1970's and the > " subluxation > > > only " camp kept us at only treating " subluxations " and treating > with > > > only adjustments instead of the plethora of adjunctive > treatments we > > > use. Thus, we find ouselves here, responsible in this State (as > well > > > as most others)for the patient's welfare by DDX and treatment > but not > > > having any reimbursement for it. Indeed, prior to the change in > CPT > > > coding a few years ago, our adjustment code did not require ANY > > > documentation,and we were reimbursed appropriately for that > minimal > > > level of service. Now MC requires documentation, examination, > > > diagnosis but does not pay for it. We have the dichotomy to > blame. If > > > you feel similarly, join the ACA. > > > > > > P. Thille, D.C., FACO > > > Redmond, Oregon > > > > > > -- In @y..., " S. Feinberg " <feinberg@e...> > wrote: > > > > Dr. Bob; > > > > > > > > You are right on target, again! Reimbursement to a medical > doctor > > > for > > > > therapeutic procedures that take the time a chiropractor takes > to > > > examine > > > > and treat a patient typically receive from third party payers > as > > > much as > > > > 10-20 times the dollars that a chiropractor receives for > similar > > > time, > > > > effort, and skill. A good example is the one I posted about > my > > > experience > > > > with a couple of dermatologists. Actually, it isn't a very > good > > > example > > > > since I would be embarrassed to put our level of skill and > the > > > thoroughness > > > > of our exams and documentation on the same level as a > > > dermatologist. We > > > > can't even bill accurately to MC. If I see a new patient I > have to > > > use the > > > > 98940 code instead of the 99203, even though I take a history > and > > > perform > > > > an exam that 98940 doesn't come close to describing; yet > 99203 > > > brings no > > > > reimbursement at all. I think it is time for our profession > to get > > > out of > > > > the back of the bus and take a seat at the lunch counter. > > > > > > > > S. Feinberg, D.C. > > > > > > > > At 06:31 PM 4/25/02 -0700, W. Pfeiffer wrote: > > > > > > > > >LISTMATES; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >UNHAPPY WITH MEDICARE ??????? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >MEDICARE DOUBLE STANDARDS?????? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Bulletin 196 Apr 15, 02 has the rules we MUST follow > for E > > > & M s on > > > > >page 40. Time consuming aren t they???? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Look on page 71 MC wants your comments! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Everyone on this listserve should write to MC and complain > about > > > > >the requirements they impose upon DCs, BUT DO NOT > re-imburse us > > > for > > > > >these services they request. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >MC pays the other providers for E & Ms but not DCs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Uncle VERNE- Do you think the ACA should advocate a > letter > > > writing > > > > >campaign on this subject????? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >DrBob > > > > > > > > > > W. Pfeiffer, DC,DABCO > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2002 Report Share Posted April 28, 2002 Ron: Buddy you have just instituted the office policy I have had for 21 years, better late than later eh? Oh and did I mention that those folks that pay for those services tend to want to buy one of everything else ya got to! Vern Saboe Re: MEDICARE > > > > > > > > > > Listmates - My last response to Dr. Feinberg has been lost in > > chaos > > > > somewhere. I'll try again.... > > > > > > > > Our exclusion from MC reimbursement for the other services we > > are > > > > required to or may clinically choose to perform is not from the > > AMA > > > > or HCFA. It is from the dichotomy of our profession. The > > > > philosophical mess we have between those of us whom wish to > > practice > > > > as Chiropractic Physicians and those Chiropractors that wish us > > not > > > > to. If the ACA were the only significant national organization, > > we > > > > would eventually have more parity. I believe the MC mess started > > when > > > > we finaly entered into the program in the 1970's and the > > " subluxation > > > > only " camp kept us at only treating " subluxations " and treating > > with > > > > only adjustments instead of the plethora of adjunctive > > treatments we > > > > use. Thus, we find ouselves here, responsible in this State (as > > well > > > > as most others)for the patient's welfare by DDX and treatment > > but not > > > > having any reimbursement for it. Indeed, prior to the change in > > CPT > > > > coding a few years ago, our adjustment code did not require ANY > > > > documentation,and we were reimbursed appropriately for that > > minimal > > > > level of service. Now MC requires documentation, examination, > > > > diagnosis but does not pay for it. We have the dichotomy to > > blame. If > > > > you feel similarly, join the ACA. > > > > > > > > P. Thille, D.C., FACO > > > > Redmond, Oregon > > > > > > > > -- In @y..., " S. Feinberg " <feinberg@e...> > > wrote: > > > > > Dr. Bob; > > > > > > > > > > You are right on target, again! Reimbursement to a medical > > doctor > > > > for > > > > > therapeutic procedures that take the time a chiropractor takes > > to > > > > examine > > > > > and treat a patient typically receive from third party payers > > as > > > > much as > > > > > 10-20 times the dollars that a chiropractor receives for > > similar > > > > time, > > > > > effort, and skill. A good example is the one I posted about > > my > > > > experience > > > > > with a couple of dermatologists. Actually, it isn't a very > > good > > > > example > > > > > since I would be embarrassed to put our level of skill and > > the > > > > thoroughness > > > > > of our exams and documentation on the same level as a > > > > dermatologist. We > > > > > can't even bill accurately to MC. If I see a new patient I > > have to > > > > use the > > > > > 98940 code instead of the 99203, even though I take a history > > and > > > > perform > > > > > an exam that 98940 doesn't come close to describing; yet > > 99203 > > > > brings no > > > > > reimbursement at all. I think it is time for our profession > > to get > > > > out of > > > > > the back of the bus and take a seat at the lunch counter. > > > > > > > > > > S. Feinberg, D.C. > > > > > > > > > > At 06:31 PM 4/25/02 -0700, W. Pfeiffer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >LISTMATES; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >UNHAPPY WITH MEDICARE ??????? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >MEDICARE DOUBLE STANDARDS?????? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Bulletin 196 Apr 15, 02 has the rules we MUST follow > > for E > > > > & M s on > > > > > >page 40. Time consuming aren t they???? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Look on page 71 MC wants your comments! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Everyone on this listserve should write to MC and complain > > about > > > > > >the requirements they impose upon DCs, BUT DO NOT > > re-imburse us > > > > for > > > > > >these services they request. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >MC pays the other providers for E & Ms but not DCs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Uncle VERNE- Do you think the ACA should advocate a > > letter > > > > writing > > > > > >campaign on this subject????? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >DrBob > > > > > > > > > > > > W. Pfeiffer, DC,DABCO > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2002 Report Share Posted April 29, 2002 Vern, Did you say, " under our license? " Now that's a concept!!!!! Steve L. Re: MEDICARE > > > > Listmates - My last response to Dr. Feinberg has been lost in chaos > > somewhere. I'll try again.... > > > > Our exclusion from MC reimbursement for the other services we are > > required to or may clinically choose to perform is not from the AMA > > or HCFA. It is from the dichotomy of our profession. The > > philosophical mess we have between those of us whom wish to practice > > as Chiropractic Physicians and those Chiropractors that wish us not > > to. If the ACA were the only significant national organization, we > > would eventually have more parity. I believe the MC mess started when > > we finaly entered into the program in the 1970's and the " subluxation > > only " camp kept us at only treating " subluxations " and treating with > > only adjustments instead of the plethora of adjunctive treatments we > > use. Thus, we find ouselves here, responsible in this State (as well > > as most others)for the patient's welfare by DDX and treatment but not > > having any reimbursement for it. Indeed, prior to the change in CPT > > coding a few years ago, our adjustment code did not require ANY > > documentation,and we were reimbursed appropriately for that minimal > > level of service. Now MC requires documentation, examination, > > diagnosis but does not pay for it. We have the dichotomy to blame. If > > you feel similarly, join the ACA. > > > > P. Thille, D.C., FACO > > Redmond, Oregon > > > > -- In @y..., " S. Feinberg " <feinberg@e...> wrote: > > > Dr. Bob; > > > > > > You are right on target, again! Reimbursement to a medical doctor > > for > > > therapeutic procedures that take the time a chiropractor takes to > > examine > > > and treat a patient typically receive from third party payers as > > much as > > > 10-20 times the dollars that a chiropractor receives for similar > > time, > > > effort, and skill. A good example is the one I posted about my > > experience > > > with a couple of dermatologists. Actually, it isn't a very good > > example > > > since I would be embarrassed to put our level of skill and the > > thoroughness > > > of our exams and documentation on the same level as a > > dermatologist. We > > > can't even bill accurately to MC. If I see a new patient I have to > > use the > > > 98940 code instead of the 99203, even though I take a history and > > perform > > > an exam that 98940 doesn't come close to describing; yet 99203 > > brings no > > > reimbursement at all. I think it is time for our profession to get > > out of > > > the back of the bus and take a seat at the lunch counter. > > > > > > S. Feinberg, D.C. > > > > > > At 06:31 PM 4/25/02 -0700, W. Pfeiffer wrote: > > > > > > >LISTMATES; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >UNHAPPY WITH MEDICARE ??????? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >MEDICARE DOUBLE STANDARDS?????? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Bulletin 196 Apr 15, 02 has the rules we MUST follow for E > > & M s on > > > >page 40. Time consuming aren t they???? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Look on page 71 MC wants your comments! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Everyone on this listserve should write to MC and complain about > > > >the requirements they impose upon DCs, BUT DO NOT re-imburse us > > for > > > >these services they request. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >MC pays the other providers for E & Ms but not DCs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Uncle VERNE- Do you think the ACA should advocate a letter > > writing > > > >campaign on this subject????? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >DrBob > > > > > > > > W. Pfeiffer, DC,DABCO > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2002 Report Share Posted April 29, 2002 I sure did and the legislation is looking good, the ACA be on a roll in our nation's capital baby and the medical lobby is absoluetly dumbfounded! Vern Saboe, DC ACA Delegate (Oregon) CAO Executive Board Re: MEDICARE > > > > > > > Listmates - My last response to Dr. Feinberg has been lost in chaos > > > somewhere. I'll try again.... > > > > > > Our exclusion from MC reimbursement for the other services we are > > > required to or may clinically choose to perform is not from the AMA > > > or HCFA. It is from the dichotomy of our profession. The > > > philosophical mess we have between those of us whom wish to practice > > > as Chiropractic Physicians and those Chiropractors that wish us not > > > to. If the ACA were the only significant national organization, we > > > would eventually have more parity. I believe the MC mess started when > > > we finaly entered into the program in the 1970's and the " subluxation > > > only " camp kept us at only treating " subluxations " and treating with > > > only adjustments instead of the plethora of adjunctive treatments we > > > use. Thus, we find ouselves here, responsible in this State (as well > > > as most others)for the patient's welfare by DDX and treatment but not > > > having any reimbursement for it. Indeed, prior to the change in CPT > > > coding a few years ago, our adjustment code did not require ANY > > > documentation,and we were reimbursed appropriately for that minimal > > > level of service. Now MC requires documentation, examination, > > > diagnosis but does not pay for it. We have the dichotomy to blame. If > > > you feel similarly, join the ACA. > > > > > > P. Thille, D.C., FACO > > > Redmond, Oregon > > > > > > -- In @y..., " S. Feinberg " <feinberg@e...> wrote: > > > > Dr. Bob; > > > > > > > > You are right on target, again! Reimbursement to a medical doctor > > > for > > > > therapeutic procedures that take the time a chiropractor takes to > > > examine > > > > and treat a patient typically receive from third party payers as > > > much as > > > > 10-20 times the dollars that a chiropractor receives for similar > > > time, > > > > effort, and skill. A good example is the one I posted about my > > > experience > > > > with a couple of dermatologists. Actually, it isn't a very good > > > example > > > > since I would be embarrassed to put our level of skill and the > > > thoroughness > > > > of our exams and documentation on the same level as a > > > dermatologist. We > > > > can't even bill accurately to MC. If I see a new patient I have to > > > use the > > > > 98940 code instead of the 99203, even though I take a history and > > > perform > > > > an exam that 98940 doesn't come close to describing; yet 99203 > > > brings no > > > > reimbursement at all. I think it is time for our profession to get > > > out of > > > > the back of the bus and take a seat at the lunch counter. > > > > > > > > S. Feinberg, D.C. > > > > > > > > At 06:31 PM 4/25/02 -0700, W. Pfeiffer wrote: > > > > > > > > >LISTMATES; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >UNHAPPY WITH MEDICARE ??????? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >MEDICARE DOUBLE STANDARDS?????? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Bulletin 196 Apr 15, 02 has the rules we MUST follow for E > > > & M s on > > > > >page 40. Time consuming aren t they???? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Look on page 71 MC wants your comments! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Everyone on this listserve should write to MC and complain about > > > > >the requirements they impose upon DCs, BUT DO NOT re-imburse us > > > for > > > > >these services they request. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >MC pays the other providers for E & Ms but not DCs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Uncle VERNE- Do you think the ACA should advocate a letter > > > writing > > > > >campaign on this subject????? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >DrBob > > > > > > > > > > W. Pfeiffer, DC,DABCO > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2002 Report Share Posted April 29, 2002 Ron: The x-ray requirement has been eliminated. The rest of your ideas seem a bit harsh, but maybe that's how to show to policy makers that WE value what we do. Great to see you this weekend. Ann Goldeen Astoria Re: MEDICARE > > > > > > > > > > Listmates - My last response to Dr. Feinberg has been lost in > > chaos > > > > somewhere. I'll try again.... > > > > > > > > Our exclusion from MC reimbursement for the other services we > > are > > > > required to or may clinically choose to perform is not from the > > AMA > > > > or HCFA. It is from the dichotomy of our profession. The > > > > philosophical mess we have between those of us whom wish to > > practice > > > > as Chiropractic Physicians and those Chiropractors that wish us > > not > > > > to. If the ACA were the only significant national organization, > > we > > > > would eventually have more parity. I believe the MC mess started > > when > > > > we finaly entered into the program in the 1970's and the > > " subluxation > > > > only " camp kept us at only treating " subluxations " and treating > > with > > > > only adjustments instead of the plethora of adjunctive > > treatments we > > > > use. Thus, we find ouselves here, responsible in this State (as > > well > > > > as most others)for the patient's welfare by DDX and treatment > > but not > > > > having any reimbursement for it. Indeed, prior to the change in > > CPT > > > > coding a few years ago, our adjustment code did not require ANY > > > > documentation,and we were reimbursed appropriately for that > > minimal > > > > level of service. Now MC requires documentation, examination, > > > > diagnosis but does not pay for it. We have the dichotomy to > > blame. If > > > > you feel similarly, join the ACA. > > > > > > > > P. Thille, D.C., FACO > > > > Redmond, Oregon > > > > > > > > -- In @y..., " S. Feinberg " <feinberg@e...> > > wrote: > > > > > Dr. Bob; > > > > > > > > > > You are right on target, again! Reimbursement to a medical > > doctor > > > > for > > > > > therapeutic procedures that take the time a chiropractor takes > > to > > > > examine > > > > > and treat a patient typically receive from third party payers > > as > > > > much as > > > > > 10-20 times the dollars that a chiropractor receives for > > similar > > > > time, > > > > > effort, and skill. A good example is the one I posted about > > my > > > > experience > > > > > with a couple of dermatologists. Actually, it isn't a very > > good > > > > example > > > > > since I would be embarrassed to put our level of skill and > > the > > > > thoroughness > > > > > of our exams and documentation on the same level as a > > > > dermatologist. We > > > > > can't even bill accurately to MC. If I see a new patient I > > have to > > > > use the > > > > > 98940 code instead of the 99203, even though I take a history > > and > > > > perform > > > > > an exam that 98940 doesn't come close to describing; yet > > 99203 > > > > brings no > > > > > reimbursement at all. I think it is time for our profession > > to get > > > > out of > > > > > the back of the bus and take a seat at the lunch counter. > > > > > > > > > > S. Feinberg, D.C. > > > > > > > > > > At 06:31 PM 4/25/02 -0700, W. Pfeiffer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >LISTMATES; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >UNHAPPY WITH MEDICARE ??????? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >MEDICARE DOUBLE STANDARDS?????? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Bulletin 196 Apr 15, 02 has the rules we MUST follow > > for E > > > > & M s on > > > > > >page 40. Time consuming aren t they???? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Look on page 71 MC wants your comments! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Everyone on this listserve should write to MC and complain > > about > > > > > >the requirements they impose upon DCs, BUT DO NOT > > re-imburse us > > > > for > > > > > >these services they request. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >MC pays the other providers for E & Ms but not DCs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Uncle VERNE- Do you think the ACA should advocate a > > letter > > > > writing > > > > > >campaign on this subject????? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >DrBob > > > > > > > > > > > > W. Pfeiffer, DC,DABCO > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2002 Report Share Posted April 30, 2002 You want harsh? I'll show you harsh! Come to my clinic anytime and watch to old geezers demand that my staff rebill, rebill,rebill, document, document, document, call, call, call, to try to get Medicare to reimburse them $22. Then leave to go to the RV dealership to replace the gas/AC/DC/plutonium fridge in the motor home with a new one that matches the color of the new upholstery better as they are going to see the kids in Orlando next week. I know, not all of them are wealthy. We have no problem though, asking them to pay as I do not accept assignment. They sometimes ACCUSE me of not cooperating with Medicare as they get letters clearly stating (isn't it amazing that Medicare can CLEARLY get this message across?) that I am refusing to accept assignment. I explain that it's about money, profit, and cash flow. If I accept assignment, I get paid whatever Medicare decides to pay me and often VERY LATE and only after returning with the burnt broom of the wicked witch of the east. I then tell them that I am both a doctor and a business owner and Medicare is bad for business. It's interesting how they self select into groups of people who don't value my care (leave) and do value my care (stay). Wait a minute! I think I'm onto something! Is that why some of your guys like Darald, Les, Jack, , Don, love going to work? ...because you operate under the FALSE perception that patients love, need, and value your care because you have callously made policies which force people to pay for services rendered and force other people to leave, in spite of your chiropractic oath to do good, and res ipsa roqualog, make no profit and die poor after trying to get Medicare approval for your own health care which you cannot afford. But I digress. Keep talking successful docs. We are listening. -- Dr. Abrahamson > From: " Ann " <anngoldeen@...> > Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 22:23:19 -0700 > <allen@...>, " R Johansen " <drjohansen@...> > Cc: <las@...>, < >, <mpt@...> > Subject: Re: Re: MEDICARE > > Ron: The x-ray requirement has been eliminated. The rest of your ideas > seem a bit harsh, but maybe that's how to show to policy makers that WE > value what we do. Great to see you this weekend. > > Ann Goldeen > Astoria > Re: MEDICARE >>>> >>>> >>>>> Listmates - My last response to Dr. Feinberg has been lost in >>> chaos >>>>> somewhere. I'll try again.... >>>>> >>>>> Our exclusion from MC reimbursement for the other services we >>> are >>>>> required to or may clinically choose to perform is not from the >>> AMA >>>>> or HCFA. It is from the dichotomy of our profession. The >>>>> philosophical mess we have between those of us whom wish to >>> practice >>>>> as Chiropractic Physicians and those Chiropractors that wish us >>> not >>>>> to. If the ACA were the only significant national organization, >>> we >>>>> would eventually have more parity. I believe the MC mess started >>> when >>>>> we finaly entered into the program in the 1970's and the >>> " subluxation >>>>> only " camp kept us at only treating " subluxations " and treating >>> with >>>>> only adjustments instead of the plethora of adjunctive >>> treatments we >>>>> use. Thus, we find ouselves here, responsible in this State (as >>> well >>>>> as most others)for the patient's welfare by DDX and treatment >>> but not >>>>> having any reimbursement for it. Indeed, prior to the change in >>> CPT >>>>> coding a few years ago, our adjustment code did not require ANY >>>>> documentation,and we were reimbursed appropriately for that >>> minimal >>>>> level of service. Now MC requires documentation, examination, >>>>> diagnosis but does not pay for it. We have the dichotomy to >>> blame. If >>>>> you feel similarly, join the ACA. >>>>> >>>>> P. Thille, D.C., FACO >>>>> Redmond, Oregon >>>>> >>>>> -- In @y..., " S. Feinberg " <feinberg@e...> >>> wrote: >>>>>> Dr. Bob; >>>>>> >>>>>> You are right on target, again! Reimbursement to a medical >>> doctor >>>>> for >>>>>> therapeutic procedures that take the time a chiropractor takes >>> to >>>>> examine >>>>>> and treat a patient typically receive from third party payers >>> as >>>>> much as >>>>>> 10-20 times the dollars that a chiropractor receives for >>> similar >>>>> time, >>>>>> effort, and skill. A good example is the one I posted about >>> my >>>>> experience >>>>>> with a couple of dermatologists. Actually, it isn't a very >>> good >>>>> example >>>>>> since I would be embarrassed to put our level of skill and >>> the >>>>> thoroughness >>>>>> of our exams and documentation on the same level as a >>>>> dermatologist. We >>>>>> can't even bill accurately to MC. If I see a new patient I >>> have to >>>>> use the >>>>>> 98940 code instead of the 99203, even though I take a history >>> and >>>>> perform >>>>>> an exam that 98940 doesn't come close to describing; yet >>> 99203 >>>>> brings no >>>>>> reimbursement at all. I think it is time for our profession >>> to get >>>>> out of >>>>>> the back of the bus and take a seat at the lunch counter. >>>>>> >>>>>> S. Feinberg, D.C. >>>>>> >>>>>> At 06:31 PM 4/25/02 -0700, W. Pfeiffer wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> LISTMATES; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> UNHAPPY WITH MEDICARE ??????? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> MEDICARE DOUBLE STANDARDS?????? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bulletin 196 Apr 15, 02 has the rules we MUST follow >>> for E >>>>> & M s on >>>>>>> page 40. Time consuming aren t they???? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Look on page 71 MC wants your comments! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Everyone on this listserve should write to MC and complain >>> about >>>>>>> the requirements they impose upon DCs, BUT DO NOT >>> re-imburse us >>>>> for >>>>>>> these services they request. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> MC pays the other providers for E & Ms but not DCs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Uncle VERNE- Do you think the ACA should advocate a >>> letter >>>>> writing >>>>>>> campaign on this subject????? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> DrBob >>>>>>> >>>>>>> W. Pfeiffer, DC,DABCO >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2002 Report Share Posted May 9, 2002 Steve and colleagues: We need to use Congressman Walden to be the guy all the other Oregon Congressional folks contact and tell him to support. It would be useful to have our Oregon Congressmen and Women contact the other committee members as well and ask them to support the chiropractic provision of the Medicare bill. VErn Saboe Medicare Doctors: After examining the list of members included in both the House Energy and Commerce and the House Ways and Means Committees, I have only found one member(HWM) from Oregon, Greg Walden. New Medicare reforms are being drafted in both committees. His email address is greg.walden@... Though I know the other legislators are very important, it seems Greg will be very important as he will be in on the writing. Contact him with your urging to include HR 902(Watkins) as a Medicare provision into any Medicare reform legislation. Thanks, Steve LumsdenOregonDCs rules:1. Keep correspondence professional; the purpose of the listserve is to foster communication and collegiality. No personal attacks on listserve members will be tolerated.2. Always sign your e-mails with your first and last name.3. The listserve is not secure; your e-mail could end up anywhere. However, it is against the rules of the listserve to copy, print, forward, or otherwise distribute correspondence written by another member without his or her consent, unless all personal identifiers have been removed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2002 Report Share Posted May 9, 2002 Vern & listmatesI was at a dinner meeting a couple mos ago and had a chance to talk one one with congressman Walden about this issue and the health services corps and he seemed very responsive. I will re-contact him today and urge hijm for continued support. Charlie A Caughlin DC 155 NW 1st Ave Day, Or. 97845 ofice 541-575-1063 fax 541-575-5554 >From: "Vern Saboe DC" >, "lumsden" >Subject: Re: Medicare >Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 08:01:34 -0700 > >Steve and colleagues: > >We need to use Congressman Walden to be the guy all the other Oregon Congressional folks contact and tell him to support. It would be useful to have our Oregon Congressmen and Women contact the other committee members as well and ask them to support the chiropractic provision of the Medicare bill. > >VErn Saboe > Medicare > > > Doctors: > > After examining the list of members included in both the House Energy and Commerce and the House Ways and Means Committees, I have only found one member(HWM) from Oregon, Greg Walden. New Medicare reforms are being drafted in both committees. His email address is greg.walden@... Though I know the other legislators are very important, it seems Greg will be very important as he will be in on the writing. Contact him with your urging to include HR 902(Watkins) as a Medicare provision into any Medicare reform legislation. > > Thanks, > Steve Lumsden > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2002 Report Share Posted May 9, 2002 Charlie you have gotta big hug coming, just to for warn ya buddy! PS. Did you get the Senator's award to him and if so what did he think?? Vern Saboe Medicare > > > Doctors: > > After examining the list of members included in both the House Energy and Commerce and the House Ways and Means Committees, I have only found one member(HWM) from Oregon, Greg Walden. New Medicare reforms are being drafted in both committees. His email address is greg.walden@... Though I know the other legislators are very important, it seems Greg will be very important as he will be in on the writing. Contact him with your urging to include HR 902(Watkins) as a Medicare provision into any Medicare reform legislation. > > Thanks, > Steve Lumsden > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 22, 2002 Report Share Posted August 22, 2002 Thanks Willard. It takes a village to bill Medicare. Dr. A. > From: " Dr. Willard Bertrand, D.C. " <mail@...> > Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 08:47:53 -0700 > " Oregon DC List " < > > Subject: Medicare > > Hi all! > > Medicare has a new requirement that will generate reject notices this month > (I have them already). Now we have to complete box 11 with the word “none” > to indicate no other insurance is primary except Medicare. > > Happy form corrections to you. > > Willard > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 22, 2002 Report Share Posted August 22, 2002 Willard= Hate to tell you, but the stage coach forgot to leave you your mail pouch several yrs ago on the Box 11 contents. Many of MCs rules for billing are not enforced , so apparently someone with nothing else to do does a " nit-pick " survey to cause providers trouble. DrBob W. Pfeiffer,D.C.;D,A.B.C.O. P. O. Box 606 Pendleton, Or. 97801 Medicare > > Hi all! > > Medicare has a new requirement that will generate reject notices this month > (I have them already). Now we have to complete box 11 with the word " none " > to indicate no other insurance is primary except Medicare. > > Happy form corrections to you. > > Willard > OregonDCs rules: 1. Keep correspondence professional; the purpose of the listserve is to foster communication and collegiality. No personal attacks on listserve members will be tolerated. 2. Always sign your e-mails with your first and last name. 3. The listserve is not secure; your e-mail could end up anywhere. However, it is against the rules of the listserve to copy, print, forward, or otherwise distribute correspondence written by another member without his or her consent, unless all personal identifiers have been removed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 22, 2002 Report Share Posted August 22, 2002 will they may have nothing else to do but they just rejected over $1500 in billings at my office for lack of the word none as well. Take care steve kinne Medicare > > > > Hi all! > > > > Medicare has a new requirement that will generate reject notices this > month > > (I have them already). Now we have to complete box 11 with the word > " none " > > to indicate no other insurance is primary except Medicare. > > > > Happy form corrections to you. > > > > Willard > > > > > > OregonDCs rules: > 1. Keep correspondence professional; the purpose of the listserve is to > foster communication and collegiality. No personal attacks on listserve > members will be tolerated. > 2. Always sign your e-mails with your first and last name. > 3. The listserve is not secure; your e-mail could end up anywhere. > However, it is against the rules of the listserve to copy, print, > forward, or otherwise distribute correspondence written by another > member without his or her consent, unless all personal identifiers have > been removed. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.