Written by Phil Colpas, Managing Editor August 2011
“He who rejects change is the architect of decay,” said former British Prime Minister Harold Wilson. “The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery.”
For several years, print publications have been criticized – often rightly – for being stuck in their ways, afraid or unwilling to change or go against the grain or do something different.
Here at Health Management Technology, we look at our annual readers’ survey as an opportunity for us to change for the better in order to provide more of what our readers want.
We were gratified to see that our expert roundups are among the most popular features (the favorite of more than 70 percent of you); we recently introduced them as a regular feature based upon feedback on another reader survey. We thought the roundups were a good way for readers to get a variety of perspectives on important subjects in a short amount of time; it turns out you agree.
And that brings me to another change we’ve implemented: keeping it short and sweet.
For better or worse, most people I know are busier than they’ve ever been. Honestly, when was the last time you sat down and read an entire 3,500-word feature article in a magazine?
In our continuing effort to make sure our readers and advertisers get the most bang for their buck, we are running more short stories, editing them down to their most important points, so that you can quickly glean something positive from reading a page-long case study on one organization’s purchase and implementation of an EHR system, for example – and then get on with the rest of your busy day.
Also faring well in the readership survey: our weekly e-newsletter, bylined case studies, industry news, hospital and EHR features, Thought Leaders and product announcements. Rest assured we will continue to provide you with these popular regular items.
Some other key findings of the survey: Nearly half of readers surveyed have read or looked through all of the most recent four magazines. Our audience is varied: Readers’ IT networks range from serving less than 50 to more than 10,000 users. Nearly 80 percent of those surveyed saved an issue for future reference; 60 percent visited a vendor Web site after seeing a story or ad in this magazine; 65 percent shared HMT with a coworker or supervisor; more than 20 percent contacted a vendor after seeing them here; and nearly 10 percent of you purchased a product featured in these pages.
More than half of readers surveyed are more likely to inquire about a company featured in an HMT advertisement, and more than a third are more likely to consider that company during product evaluations.
These are encouraging numbers; they keep us motivated to continue to improve on giving our readers what they want.
Enjoy the magazine. Until next time, here’s wishing you good healthcare IT.
Written by Phil Colpas, Managing Editor July 2011
Coding.
Does that term evoke images of pristine, crisp, detailed ICD-10 code zip-zapping around the ether, leaving reduced claims and billing errors in its formidable wake? Or does the mere thought of abandoning the relatively simpler days of ICD-9 give you a bellyache?
In this issue of HMT, we’re focusing on that very issue, with a roundup of experts discussing the best ways to minimize mistakes during the conversion to ICD-10, as well as other articles on coding, claims and compliance.
I have a vested interest in this coding conversion conversation.
I recently received a bill for a few hundred dollars from the local hospital. Since I hadn’t been to the hospital, this concerned me. I contacted the billing office, and a person there gave me several other numbers to call. After discussing the situation with a number of representatives from the hospital, the company that handles the hospital’s billing and my health insurance company, I contacted the only two doctors I had seen within the past year who were connected in any way to the hospital. Both assured me I didn’t owe them anything.
Apparently, the only way to get an itemized bill was to obtain and fill out a form allowing the hospital to send such information to me.
I filled out the form and sent it in. The next week I received another bill from the hospital, this time threatening to contact a collection service if the bill wasn’t paid immediately in full.
I again filled out the form to request an itemized bill and sent it in. Weeks went by. Finally, I received in the mail a work order, coded for insurance, but nothing in English to tell me – the lowly patient – what I supposedly received for my money.
Before I could contact the hospital yet again, I received a call from a collection agency; and every day after that for a few weeks, several times a day.
I sent a letter to the collection agency, explaining the bill is in error and I am disputing it.
A co-worker gave me the name of someone to talk with at the hospital. We played phone tag. The harassing phone calls from the collection agency stopped.
Until yesterday, that is, when the calls began anew, with renewed vigor.
I guess I’ll resume my phone-tag rally with the hospital, and continue to hope for a smooth transition to ICD-10 so that billing errors like this one – all too commonplace today – might become a thing of the past.
On a separate topic, I will be moderating a panel discussion, “From the Technology and Clinical Perspectives: Enterprise Planning for a Diversity of Mobile Devices,” at the third annual World Congress Leadership Summit on mHealth, July 28-29 in Cambridge, Mass. Hope to see you there.
Enjoy the magazine. And, until next time, here’s wishing you good healthcare IT.