RE: Re: Insurer site visit

[Guest guest]

Physician's Insurance never asked me how many exam

rooms I have. No medical insurance company has

either.

Gwen Hanson

--- umehta00 wrote:

> Is the two exam room minimum really a disqualifying

> criteria for

> certain insurances in WA state?

> Thank you

> Uday.

>

>

>

>

>

> >

> > I want to take 's questions one at a

> time to make it

> a bit

> > easier for those searching the archive.

> >

> > Insurers vary in what they seek. In Rochester I

> was reviewed for

> > compliance with Americans with Disability Act,

> that nothing

> appeared

> > dangerous, and I had some way of really seeing

> patients.

> >

> > I am very very leery of insurers dictating terms

> of practice, and

> see some

> > stipulations as deal breakers (i.e. I would

> consider walking away

> from the

> > contract).

> >

> > " Must have two exam rooms. "

> > Why? Based on what reasoning? How does that

> reasoning apply to

> the care I

> > give in my practice? What is the ultimate goal?

> > The real goals are " satisfied members, good care. "

> We can

> demonstrate that

> > in other ways. Two exam rooms has nothing to do

> with either. In

> my

> > practice, a second exam room would become a

> holding area, anathema

> to

> > patient flow and efficiency.

> >

> > Some on the list practice with a goal of higher

> flow and have a

> larger care

> > team to accomplish this. In that setting a second

> exam room

> becomes a

> > resource for: IV hydration, back-to-back nebs,

> etc.

> > Gordon

> >

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I am not positive that any of the Ohio carriers actually require that, but they

did mention something about it during there inspections. However, they only

require an 80% rate on their checklist to " pass " here so that could just be one

of the 20% not checked off.

>

>

> Date: 2005/10/07 Fri PM 08:16:06 EDT

> To:

> Subject: Re: Insurer site visit

>

> Is the two exam room minimum really a disqualifying criteria for

> certain insurances in WA state?

> Thank you

> Uday.

>

>

>

>

>

> >

> > I want to take 's questions one at a time to make it

> a bit

> > easier for those searching the archive.

> >

> > Insurers vary in what they seek. In Rochester I was reviewed for

> > compliance with Americans with Disability Act, that nothing

> appeared

> > dangerous, and I had some way of really seeing patients.

> >

> > I am very very leery of insurers dictating terms of practice, and

> see some

> > stipulations as deal breakers (i.e. I would consider walking away

> from the

> > contract).

> >

> > " Must have two exam rooms. "

> > Why? Based on what reasoning? How does that reasoning apply to

> the care I

> > give in my practice? What is the ultimate goal?

> > The real goals are " satisfied members, good care. " We can

> demonstrate that

> > in other ways. Two exam rooms has nothing to do with either. In

> my

> > practice, a second exam room would become a holding area, anathema

> to

> > patient flow and efficiency.

> >

> > Some on the list practice with a goal of higher flow and have a

> larger care

> > team to accomplish this. In that setting a second exam room

> becomes a

> > resource for: IV hydration, back-to-back nebs, etc.

> > Gordon

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Didn't they come to your office & look? Almost all of our local payors did for

me.

>

>

> Date: 2005/10/08 Sat AM 02:05:41 EDT

> To:

> Subject: Re: Re: Insurer site visit

>

> Physician's Insurance never asked me how many exam

> rooms I have. No medical insurance company has

> either.

>

> Gwen Hanson

>

> --- umehta00 wrote:

>

> > Is the two exam room minimum really a disqualifying

> > criteria for

> > certain insurances in WA state?

> > Thank you

> > Uday.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> > > I want to take 's questions one at a

> > time to make it

> > a bit

> > > easier for those searching the archive.

> > >

> > > Insurers vary in what they seek. In Rochester I

> > was reviewed for

> > > compliance with Americans with Disability Act,

> > that nothing

> > appeared

> > > dangerous, and I had some way of really seeing

> > patients.

> > >

> > > I am very very leery of insurers dictating terms

> > of practice, and

> > see some

> > > stipulations as deal breakers (i.e. I would

> > consider walking away

> > from the

> > > contract).

> > >

> > > " Must have two exam rooms. "

> > > Why? Based on what reasoning? How does that

> > reasoning apply to

> > the care I

> > > give in my practice? What is the ultimate goal?

> > > The real goals are " satisfied members, good care. "

> > We can

> > demonstrate that

> > > in other ways. Two exam rooms has nothing to do

> > with either. In

> > my

> > > practice, a second exam room would become a

> > holding area, anathema

> > to

> > > patient flow and efficiency.

> > >

> > > Some on the list practice with a goal of higher

> > flow and have a

> > larger care

> > > team to accomplish this. In that setting a second

> > exam room

> > becomes a

> > > resource for: IV hydration, back-to-back nebs,

> > etc.

> > > Gordon

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

No insurer has looked at my office. When I recently

sent in renewal paperwork for Premera (BCBS) they said

site visits are possible.

Gwen

--- drbrock@... wrote:

> Didn't they come to your office & look? Almost all

> of our local payors did for me.

>

>

> >

> >

> > Date: 2005/10/08 Sat AM 02:05:41 EDT

> > To:

> > Subject: Re: Re: Insurer

> site visit

> >

> > Physician's Insurance never asked me how many exam

> > rooms I have. No medical insurance company has

> > either.

> >

> > Gwen Hanson

> >

> > --- umehta00 wrote:

> >

> > > Is the two exam room minimum really a

> disqualifying

> > > criteria for

> > > certain insurances in WA state?

> > > Thank you

> > > Uday.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > > > I want to take 's questions one

> at a

> > > time to make it

> > > a bit

> > > > easier for those searching the archive.

> > > >

> > > > Insurers vary in what they seek. In Rochester

> I

> > > was reviewed for

> > > > compliance with Americans with Disability Act,

> > > that nothing

> > > appeared

> > > > dangerous, and I had some way of really seeing

> > > patients.

> > > >

> > > > I am very very leery of insurers dictating

> terms

> > > of practice, and

> > > see some

> > > > stipulations as deal breakers (i.e. I would

> > > consider walking away

> > > from the

> > > > contract).

> > > >

> > > > " Must have two exam rooms. "

> > > > Why? Based on what reasoning? How does that

> > > reasoning apply to

> > > the care I

> > > > give in my practice? What is the ultimate

> goal?

> > > > The real goals are " satisfied members, good

> care. "

> > > We can

> > > demonstrate that

> > > > in other ways. Two exam rooms has nothing to

> do

> > > with either. In

> > > my

> > > > practice, a second exam room would become a

> > > holding area, anathema

> > > to

> > > > patient flow and efficiency.

> > > >

> > > > Some on the list practice with a goal of

> higher

> > > flow and have a

> > > larger care

> > > > team to accomplish this. In that setting a

> second

> > > exam room

> > > becomes a

> > > > resource for: IV hydration, back-to-back nebs,

> > > etc.

> > > > Gordon

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

We are on with about 15 insurance companies in WA. Two have done sight

visits. Neither required two rooms. None of our contracts require two

rooms. The site visits were easy. We are in a fairly new office with

wide doors. The only things we did for the site visits was to replace

our door handles with lever type handles for handicap accessibility, put

up our privacy policies and our registration for medical testing site

license with the State of Washington. We passed both with a 100%. But

only 80 % was required. They both sent their review criteria before

hand.

Ernie

Re: Insurer site visit

Is the two exam room minimum really a disqualifying criteria for

certain insurances in WA state?

Thank you

Uday.

>

> I want to take 's questions one at a time to make it

a bit

> easier for those searching the archive.

>

> Insurers vary in what they seek. In Rochester I was reviewed for

> compliance with Americans with Disability Act, that nothing

appeared

> dangerous, and I had some way of really seeing patients.

>

> I am very very leery of insurers dictating terms of practice, and

see some

> stipulations as deal breakers (i.e. I would consider walking away

from the

> contract).

>

> " Must have two exam rooms. "

> Why? Based on what reasoning? How does that reasoning apply to

the care I

> give in my practice? What is the ultimate goal?

> The real goals are " satisfied members, good care. " We can

demonstrate that

> in other ways. Two exam rooms has nothing to do with either. In

my

> practice, a second exam room would become a holding area, anathema

to

> patient flow and efficiency.

>

> Some on the list practice with a goal of higher flow and have a

larger care

> team to accomplish this. In that setting a second exam room

becomes a

> resource for: IV hydration, back-to-back nebs, etc.

> Gordon

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks for this information! Where are you in WA?

Gwen Hanson (Bellevue, WA)

--- Ernie Leland

wrote:

> We are on with about 15 insurance companies in WA.

> Two have done sight

> visits. Neither required two rooms. None of our

> contracts require two

> rooms. The site visits were easy. We are in a

> fairly new office with

> wide doors. The only things we did for the site

> visits was to replace

> our door handles with lever type handles for

> handicap accessibility, put

> up our privacy policies and our registration for

> medical testing site

> license with the State of Washington. We passed

> both with a 100%. But

> only 80 % was required. They both sent their review

> criteria before

> hand.

>

> Ernie

>

> Re: Insurer site

> visit

>

> Is the two exam room minimum really a disqualifying

> criteria for

> certain insurances in WA state?

> Thank you

> Uday.

>

>

>

>

>

> >

> > I want to take 's questions one at a

> time to make it

> a bit

> > easier for those searching the archive.

> >

> > Insurers vary in what they seek. In Rochester I

> was reviewed for

> > compliance with Americans with Disability Act,

> that nothing

> appeared

> > dangerous, and I had some way of really seeing

> patients.

> >

> > I am very very leery of insurers dictating terms

> of practice, and

> see some

> > stipulations as deal breakers (i.e. I would

> consider walking away

> from the

> > contract).

> >

> > " Must have two exam rooms. "

> > Why? Based on what reasoning? How does that

> reasoning apply to

> the care I

> > give in my practice? What is the ultimate goal?

> > The real goals are " satisfied members, good care. "

> We can

> demonstrate that

> > in other ways. Two exam rooms has nothing to do

> with either. In

> my

> > practice, a second exam room would become a

> holding area, anathema

> to

> > patient flow and efficiency.

> >

> > Some on the list practice with a goal of higher

> flow and have a

> larger care

> > team to accomplish this. In that setting a second

> exam room

> becomes a

> > resource for: IV hydration, back-to-back nebs,

> etc.

> > Gordon

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Down in Vancouver. We opened on August 1.

Ernie

Re: Insurer site

> visit

>

> Is the two exam room minimum really a disqualifying

> criteria for

> certain insurances in WA state?

> Thank you

> Uday.

>

>

>

>

>

> >

> > I want to take 's questions one at a

> time to make it

> a bit

> > easier for those searching the archive.

> >

> > Insurers vary in what they seek. In Rochester I

> was reviewed for

> > compliance with Americans with Disability Act,

> that nothing

> appeared

> > dangerous, and I had some way of really seeing

> patients.

> >

> > I am very very leery of insurers dictating terms

> of practice, and

> see some

> > stipulations as deal breakers (i.e. I would

> consider walking away

> from the

> > contract).

> >

> > " Must have two exam rooms. "

> > Why? Based on what reasoning? How does that

> reasoning apply to

> the care I

> > give in my practice? What is the ultimate goal?

> > The real goals are " satisfied members, good care. "

> We can

> demonstrate that

> > in other ways. Two exam rooms has nothing to do

> with either. In

> my

> > practice, a second exam room would become a

> holding area, anathema

> to

> > patient flow and efficiency.

> >

> > Some on the list practice with a goal of higher

> flow and have a

> larger care

> > team to accomplish this. In that setting a second

> exam room

> becomes a

> > resource for: IV hydration, back-to-back nebs,

> etc.

> > Gordon

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>