Davis Health System

I received written notice on 5/11/from the Revdex.com dated 5/4/16, where a patient was questioning how a visit for their child was codedAlso, mentioned statements were mailed with the wrong name and to the incorrect addressI reviewed the 12/9/visit with coding staffIt is noted that the child's initial visit with the physician was on 12/1/and that the next preventative follwould be days from the initialHowever, DrPennington's standard of care requires an additional visit between the initial and day follto ensure proper weight gain and healthThis is the visit in question which would not be coded as a preventativeIt was coded as a general follwhich was why the patients insurance processed and applied a deductible to that visitThe child's day preventative visit on 12/31/was processed at 100% by the insuranceI did discuss with our Patient Access Director, the issue with child being listed guarantor and address being incorrectThis was a staff oversite, and the necessary corrections have been made to the child's recordsWritten notice is being mailed to the plaintiff, addressing all issues and the outstanding balance related to the visits in question, has been adjusted to zero for their inconveniences

I received written notice on 5/11/16 from the Revdex.com dated 5/4/16, where a patient was questioning how a visit for their child was coded. Also, mentioned statements were mailed with the wrong name and to the incorrect address. I reviewed the 12/9/15 visit with coding staff. It is noted that the child's...

initial visit with the physician was on 12/1/15 and that the next preventative follow-up would be 30 days from the initial. However, Dr. Pennington's standard of care requires an additional visit between the initial and 30 day follow-up to ensure proper weight gain and health. This is the visit in question which would not be coded as a preventative. It was coded as a general follow-up which was why the patients insurance processed and applied a deductible to that visit. The child's 30 day preventative visit on 12/31/15 was processed at 100% by the insurance. I did discuss with our Patient Access Director, the issue with child being listed guarantor and address being incorrect. This was a staff oversite, and the necessary corrections have been made to the child's records. Written notice is being mailed to the plaintiff, addressing all issues and the outstanding balance related to the visits in question, has been adjusted to zero for their inconveniences.