Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Everything that you are ever going to want to know about running shoes: Running Shoes Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Have you considered the Critical Thinking and Skeptical Boot Camp, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Item numbers - far too broard?

Discussion in 'Australia' started by MrBen, Nov 4, 2009.

  1. MrBen

    MrBen Active Member

    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    Does anyone else find a single charge for a 'consult' overly restrictive. I would find more sense in charging and itemising for actual treatment.

    For example when comparing two patients:

    consultation 1 may be:
    • Diabetes review - assessment conducted
    • Involuted nails - IGTN @ hallux of BF
    • Onychomycosis at the 5th toe RF
    • Callus border of the heels BF
    For this consultation the code of F012 applies and is a flat fee of say $50

    consultation 2 may be:
    • Orthotic review
    F012, also a charge of $50

    Would it not make more sense for a flat fee of say $30 be charged for a consultation and then individual items be created for individual treatments. So there was be a code for IGTN, Mycosis Rx and so on. This would also help with treatment tracking and developing accurate statistics.

  2. podcare

    podcare Active Member

    Our practice fees are as follows:
    F004 30 minute initial consultation = $ 84.00
    F010 10 minute consultation = $ 61.00
    F012 20 minute consultation = $ 79.00
    F014 30 minute consultation = $ 103.00

    If you run short of time - book a second appointment.

    Treat the primary complaint first. Schedule another appointment as needed. You don't have to do everything all in one visit. If you try to do everything for one low fee it will take you far too long and you'll never make a decent living.

    You've done the study. You're a foot specialist. Don't be afraid to charge what your worth.
  3. Patrick Rainville

    Patrick Rainville Welcome New Poster

    Does anyone have a standardized itemized fee schedule that is accepted by 3rd party health insurance. Or does anyone have an full itemized fee guide they would share like the examples posted in this tread? I along with many of my colleagues are finding our general association fee schedule to simplified. I recently had dental work done and had my eyes opened on how they have their fee guide very specific and itemized. How do I get the rest of my colleagues in my association to develop and agree on an itemized fee guide?
  4. Tuckersm

    Tuckersm Well-Known Member


    the Podiatrists' Procedural Terminology List on the A.Pod.C. website
    has the full range. of current codes.

    About 8-10 years ago the list was pruned very heavily in an attempt to have the PPT code list accepted by the health funds, which was somewhat sucessful, but has limited the practicioners ability to easily include "extras".

    Within the public health system, it is even blunter, with the proposed TIER 2 ABF funding coding just "Podiatry" with a new/review.

Share This Page