>> My initial thoughts are that Bulk Billed patients don't stand >> to gain anything from this system, but practices benefit by >> getting paid sooner by Medicare for these consultations. Fair >> assumption? > > The "get paid sooner" happens only once. Doctors don't seem to be very > good at understanding this or at understanding that the "get paid > sooner" promise is not a big deal. For example, if the EFTPOS based > system pays doctors in 1 day compared to say 7 days, doctors receive 6 > days' worth of claims sooner, but only once. It is not an ongoing > increase.
Understand. But in the very least, this will minimise the number of Medicare cheques in the system and provide increased efficiency to all? How many Medicare cheques do practices bank a month? >> Paying patients will be saved a trip to the Medicare office. >> If I was a patient, I'd be prepared to pay a fair bit for >> this time saving (especially given the fact that these >> patients are the ones that require 2-3 swipes, and therefore >> will be the larger drain on reception resources). I guess asking the patient for the BSB and account number has been too much of a hassle for most practices (or perhaps their software). I've not seen any stats, but if "Direct Patient Claiming" had been a widespread success, I doubt this new system would be bringing much to the party (maybe light beer). > There is no reason to expect it to be any easier to manage than what > vendors have to do in order to integrate the current Medicare Online > Claiming. At this point I'm only assuming Medicare will allow software integration down the track - I hope to have a better idea by tonight. In any case, interfaces between computers and EFTPOS terminals have been around for ages, and given the small amounts of simple data that would need be sent between the clinical software and EFTPOS terminal to minimise keystrokes on the terminal, I figure it will be relatively straight forward if and when APIs and documentation are released (nonprogrammers assumption). > I had not heard that there were any particular problems or > changes being imposed on software vendors with the current Medicare > Online Claiming system - what have you been told? The original HIC Online and the continually evolving feature set of Online Claiming (Eclipse, Paperless DVA) etc have placed (and continue to place) a significant burden on all practice software vendors. As has been discussed previously, this initiative would never have got of the ground if vendors weren't paid financial incentives to add the functionality to their software. Currently, several well known vendors have not yet released software that allows all (or in some cases any) of the functionality Medicare intends them to provide. I don't think this is through lack of effort - indeed, the rise of HIC Online flagged the beginning of the end for home grown practice software solutions. So getting back to my original point - compared to the difficulties vendors have faced with HIC Online, EasyClaim integration should be a snap (assuming consumers demand it or vendors are incentivised). Regards, Simon -- Simon James Publisher Pulse+IT M: 0402 149 859 F: 02 9475 0029 E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] W: http://www.pulsemagazine.com.au PO Box 52 Coogee NSW 2034 _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
