| Title |
From imaging to reimbursement: what the pediatric radiologist needs to know about health care payers, documentation, coding and billing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Pediatric Radiology, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00247-018-4104-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chul Y. Chung, Mark D. Alson, Richard Duszak, Andrew J. Degnan |
| Abstract |
Medical coding and billing processes in the United States are complex, cumbersome and poorly understood by radiologists. Despite the direct implications of radiology documentation on reimbursement, trainees and practicing radiologists typically receive limited relevant training. This article summarizes the payer structure including the state-based Children's Health Insurance Programs, discusses the essential processes by which radiologists request and receive reimbursement, details the mechanisms of coding diagnoses using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes and imaging services using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) and Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes, and explores reimbursement and coding-related issues specific to pediatric radiology. Appropriate documentation, informed by knowledge of coding, billing and reimbursement fundamentals, facilitates appropriate payment for clinically relevant services provided by pediatric radiologists. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 43 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Unknown | 18 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 26% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
| Engineering | 2 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 20 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 June 2018.
All research outputs
#17,947,156
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from Pediatric Radiology
#1,499
of 2,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,482
of 332,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatric Radiology
#30
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,095 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,302 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.