Background


As laboratories grow in the competing diagnostics services industry it has become a must that they provide some form of interface to physician offices to get work from them. These interfaces could be in the form of patient demographic interface to physician practice management system or an orders ... The lack of a standardized list across PMS/EMR vendors is a huge problem ... interfaces from the physician's EMR.

Laboratories have to rely on the patient demographic and insurance information stored in these PMS/EMR systems. There are several hundreds of these PMS/EMR vendors in the country and each system allows physicians to store master insurance records in their individual format. Each master insurance record usually comprises of a unique insurance code, insurance name, address and a phone number. Most systems prefer a method of generating these unique insurance codes on-the-fly i.e. at the time the physician office creates a master insurance record. This creates an environment where the code for say "Aetna" for the same PMS/EMR could be different in different physician offices. Laboratories rely on an ordering system (Outreach) or EMR to send these electronic orders to them. Internally, most laboratories also have an LIS and optionally a separate billing system. These systems also have their own master insurances.

Laboratories want to get paid for the services they provide and they generate most of their revenue by billing insurance companies for their services. The lack of a standardized list across PMS/EMR vendors is a huge problem, as it forces the laboratories to maintain a cross-referenced list of insurances between each physician's system and the laboratory master insurances.


What a champ!

Current Solutions and Limitations


Laboratories manage their internal master listing of insurances typically in excel files. Every implementation of an electronic orders interface requires laboratories to perform a cross-reference mapping of insurances. Most laboratories have some form of mapping implemented and the most common of these are either a one-time cross-reference mapping during the installation or some form of a software program that performs the mapping. Both these methods have some serious limitations which eventually lead to increase in bad-debts or inefficient billing.


  • One-time mapping during implementation

    In this option, laboratories will get the latest listing of insurances from the physician office and perform the cross-reference mapping manually. While one-time mapping works great for the day of the implementation, it does not take into account that the physician's data is in a constant mode of change. Patients switch insurances when jobs change and physician offices update their data. New patients visit doctor's office with some new insurance card and the offices with add a new insurance to their database. The more the doctor's office updates their insurance master listing, it decreases the quality of the previously performed mapping; eventually not assisting the laboratory in their overall goal of "Increased Revenue".

  • Software program for mapping

    While software application to do the mapping appears to be the easiest route, it comes with a significant limitation. Physician offices often misspell insurance names and also use the fields in PMS/EMR to store additional information about their billing. As an example, an office might just add an asterisk next to the insurance name to mark that insurance as an HMO. It would be almost daunting for a software program to determine and resolve such discrepancies. As everything is tied into the overall revenue of the laboratory, successful laboratories go the route of hiring personnel and performing the task of mapping it manually. "Increased Revenue".

  • Ideal Options

    The ideal solution would be to have an industry standard master listing shared between all software vendors throughout the healthcare industry. That would be a major undertaking by any company and would take several years to implement. The most viable best-case option for laboratories would have been to have some form of a system that captures and stores insurances from all physicians' offices and allows laboratories to control the crossreference mapping for all their accounts from a centralized location. ELLKAY has built this solution in the form of Live Mapping.