I suggest you ...

Would like billing types to be attached per patient, not per family.

Would like billing types to be attached per patient, not per family.

239 votes
Sign in
Password icon
Signed in as (Sign out)
You have left! (?) (thinking…)
Max Sessions shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →


Sign in
Password icon
Signed in as (Sign out)
  • AdminElliot Walker (Enterprise Product Analyst, Project Lead, Dentrix Enterprise) commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    We are currently working on part of this request. The part that we will be addressing has more to do with the reporting side of things versus the billing system itself. Billing on a patient basis would require very extensive amounts of work to change, as Greg pointed-out. We will not forget about the idea of more flexible billing options, as we understand the value in such functionality, and we will visit that idea at a later point in time. I would also point out that billing types and the assigning of billing types will remain how they are now, as they are so deeply integrated into many functions already.

    That being said, in addressing the report usage of an identifier such as billing types, we are currently developing another identification system that can be assigned on a patient level and will be called Patient Tags. You will be able to create and assign as many tags to patients as you like.

    We will initially include Patient Tags as filters/fields in only several heavily trafficked reports to start with. The list of reports using Patient Tags will grow over the next several versions, as well as the functionality of the tags themselves, as we get more feedback and guidance from you when the feature is in your hands and being used.

    The future potential is such that the idea of tagging will hopefully also be applied to other parts of the software such as appointments, clinical notes, procedures, etc.

    Thank you for all of your feedback, support, and patience on this request. It is very much appreciated!

  • Paula commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    I am removing my vote from here to place it somewher else. I have to say this is important but I do believe that Greg's suggestion makes alot more sense then just changing the one billing type.

  • Christine Geary commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    If there could be historical reports pulled with an effective date and termination date of the Billing Type, that would be great. Being able to assign more than one Billing Type would be my next most-requested enhancement.

  • Amah commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Here is a new one....we are a mobile clinic and provide dental services in 30+ schools. We assign each school as a billing type. This way, we will know what school each patient goes to. I would LOVE to see this be a filter for Unscheduled treatment report and to not have it assigned to the whole family

  • Greg Gibson commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    I think there are a few issues here that are all getting mixed together.
    BT is used to separate different groups of patients for billing or for reporting. When putting each patient in their own family as their own HofH, BT works at the patient level. Since BT is a filter on almost every report and is also a filter on the billing statements, the BT field is extremely useful. Unfortunately, there are some issues with BT:

    a) BT can change and in some clinics it changes often. When BT changes and it is also being used as a filter on a report, the data given by that report will be different. Reports using BT as filters are point-in-time reports. Whatever the BT value for the family is in the family file when the report is generated is used.
    b) If you are using BT to group bills in a specific way, you usually cannot also use it to report on groups of patients in a different way or to do reporting for a different purpose.
    c) Some financial reports like medicaid vs non-medicaid visits could be built into reporting without needing to rely on BT. BT doesn't really work for this purpose anyway, as many patients move in and out of state/federal aid monthly. Changing BT to keep up with this is not practical. This report should be filtered by the insurance company attached to the procedures.
    d) By design, BT operates at the family level and not at the patient level. You can get around this by putting every patient in their own family as HofH.
    e) Putting each patient in as their own family/HofH often requires double entering patients. Dentrix Enterprise enforces a family relationship between patients when setting the insurance subscriber for each patient.
    f) The reporting system in Dentrix Enterprise is not based on batches. In older medical systems, batches of say treatments and payments were posted, reconciled, and tracked. The data as of a certain time could always be regenerated by looking at the batches up to that point in time.

    If BT is changed to per-patient, all the reports as well as statement billing will need to be updated to work correctly. That is a lot of work to take on in one upgrade cycle. Instead, I think different billing type data tags are needed and I can think of three specific types:
    a) BT-family (this is the one used now, and I vote that we leave it alone)
    b) BT-patient (this would be individual to the patient and a new field in family file)
    c) BT-Procedure (this would tag the procedure either with a copy of one of the other BT-data tags when the procedure is posted, or with its own values.)

    Many reports will need to be changed to allow the use of these three data tags as filters. In the interim, organizations can write reports themselves to get clean data that does not change by using the BT-Procedure field. A couple of other fields might be added to the procedure too, including one for sliding scale.

    Patients cannot have insurance subscribers set from a different "family" with double entering that subscriber into the family of the patient. In my opinion, it is very important to remove this restriction.

  • Heather McConnell commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    We have not used Family File for Family/PT set up. We have set up each pt as HofH and their own family.. Now w/5010 requirements for additional subscriber information on claim, we are having to "move" PTs into a family and it is tedious, taking forever, etc, etc. Why not have an option under the insurance block, to key in the subscriber information instead of creating families? Due to BT problems, we cannot put Medicaid pts under their family.

  • Heather McConnell commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    We use BT to run statements and create financial stmt reports. IT would be usedful to have BT applied to a specific procedure, instead of a moment in time. BT can change throughout the year and if you run a report for the year, you receive inaccurate info if a BT has changed. Also, the BT needs to be by PT and not family. 1 family member could have Medicaid ins and HoH and Spouse commercial insurance. Your #'s if run via BT are then scewed under present criteria.

  • Karyn commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    We use the billing types to group our "avenues" of billing - Medicaid, Private Insurance, Sliding Scale, Uncompensated Care, Military, etc (regardless of the individual insurance plans). Our intention is to be able to group same or similar types of coverage and have this data stay the same for historical transactions.

  • Barbara commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Attaching the Billing type to the procedure would be more helpful for us. We do NYS Medicaid and with the new HMO's is hard, they cover regular work but the Orthodontics are covered under Medicaid. So it is hard to report our income correctly.

  • Karyn commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Also, please store the billing type with the ledger transactions. We are given the option of running most of the DX1 reports with a billing type filter, but if the billing type changes then historic data changes also. If a patient was billing type 2 when I ran a report in January, we change them to billing type 3 in March, but in April I want to re-run the January number, the details that were previously included in my report for billing type 2 are no longer there. This makes for inconsistencies in reporting.

  • Greg Gibson commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    This could be done and allow each family member to get their own bill. Also there is no technical reason to limit the assigning of insurance to someone within a specific family group. In the case of a divorced family, children on one account can certainly have the insurance of their dad even if he is on a new account. I do not see anything in the db structure that would make this a particularly difficult change, but maybe I am missing something.

Feedback and Knowledge Base