I stumbled upon the following post and comments about “Dual Coding vs. Double Coding.” The post was a good clarification as to the difference between Dual vs. Double Coding; and the comments made some good points pro and con for each process.
Here are my thoughts:
Indeed, which providers with current or future contracts impacted by ICD codes (which means many providers) wouldn’t put themselves into a better negotiating position by starting to “double code” their services? So as to better understand the services they provide and negotiate more accurate contracts with their payers? I’m not suggesting all providers need to start double coding everything indefinitely – just start to sample and understand differences and potential differences between their current I-9 stats and their soon to arrive I-10 indications.
Indeed double-coding is an added expense; albeit an expense that may not be as large as one may believe. More and more vendors have products to assist with this and consulting service providers are starting to understand how they can assist. Recall the old saying: "Pay me now or pay me later?" Providers don’t have to incur a large expense to double code and better understand where their typical services are targeted. Is it not true that a lot of providers services are targeted at a somewhat limited, number of categorized diagnoses groups?
Just a thought...not saying this applies to everyone but something most should consider..
ShimCode on Twitter
Also, I posted about the value of this topic a while ago: Financial Neutraility
BTW: I tried to comment at the actual site but had technical difficulties establishing an account; so I’ll post my reply here. I suggest reading the above referenced post and comments; then consider the following as an additional comment from me.