Last week, health plan provider Centene disclosed that they had lost track of six hard drives containing the private information of roughly 950,000 individuals. These records contained details such as names, addresses, dates of birth, member ID numbers, private health information (PHI), and Social Security Numbers. Luckily (if you can call it that), at least they did not contain any financial or payment details. According to the disclosure from Centene, the missing hard drives contained about six years worth of research data (2009-2015) and “were a part of a data project using laboratory results to improve the health outcomes of [their] members.”

Mailing medical bills 30 days after an encounter is a sure-fire way to lose money in the new world of high deductible health plans and changing payer models. In fact, the most efficient way to collect from patients is while they are still in the office, and, in some cases, before they arrive. High performing practices ask their patients how—not if—they would like to pay their bill today. Creating pricing transparency is the new imperative for providers, since data show that the probability of collecting from a patient after he/she leaves the office drops to less than 20 percent.

Now that the ICD-10 coding system has been up and running for just over a month, we are starting to see some reports back from the trenches. And those reports are surprisingly good. The sky did not fall in and the world did not come to an end. For most practices, denials did not go through the roof. Robert Tennant, senior policy advisor for the Medical Group Management Association, was at a Town Hall meeting a couple of weeks ago with Humana and Emdeon (a medical claims clearinghouse) and both organizations reported that they were seeing no great increase in denials and no big drop in the number of claims submitted.

In a recent article from Cataract & Refractive Surgery Today, Timothy J. Archer of the London Vision Clinic details his clinic's transition to Nextech from paper medical records. Not only did the practice experience a smooth implementation proccess, but Archer explains how your practice can have the same success as the London Vision Clinic through some helpful tips and strategies.

By Eric Nilsson, Chief Technology Officer, Nextech According to the most recent Medscape EHR report, fewer than half of all physicians – 42 percent – are satisfied with their current electronic health record (EHR) system. If you’re among the satisfied users, particularly if you’re a specialist, it’s probably because your practice asked the right questions before making a selection. If you’re not among those who are satisfied and are thinking of switching EHRs, asking the following five questions of each vendor you consider can ensure that your next EHR is a better choice for you in particular. What functionality does the EHR offer to my specialty? Data consistently shows a correlation between EHR satisfaction and the degree to which the system is designed for the type of practice using it. A system that works just fine for a primary care provider may be missing features and functions that are necessary for specialists – one-size-fits-all solutions don’t typically “fit all” when it comes to user productivity and user workflows. Before solidifying a relationship with a potential vendor, you should ask yourself: What templates will you get that are designed for your specialty? How many users of your type does the vendor have, and can you talk to reference accounts? If the vendor has deep knowledge of the needs of your specialty, and can connect you with users like you, who speak highly of the solution, you’re on the road to the right choice.

Compared to general practices and hospitals, specialty practices have a seemingly simpler task in transitioning to ICD-10, due to the luxury of dealing with a smaller set of codes. Despite this advantage, it is just as critical that specialty practices understand which codes apply to them to ensure a successful transition.

Specialty providers who have pursued meaningful use incentives can confirm that the program certainly was not designed for them. That’s not to say that the incentives aren’t worth the effort, however. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has paid out more than $25.7 billion in incentive payments as of Dec. 1, 2014. Any provider who has implemented an EMR and realizes significant revenue from Medicare or Medicaid billings, but didn’t take the time to seriously look into meaningful use, may have left money on the table — and may be subject to penalties that begin in 2015.

Federal healthcare initiatives tied to reimbursement, which invariably apply to all healthcare providers, tend to mean equal pain for unequal gain to specialty practices.