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.

thoughts?

 

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.

 

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?

 

Patrick,

the Podiatrists' Procedural Terminology List on the A.Pod.C. website
http://www.apodc.com.au/clinical-coding/
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.