Confession: I always
hated calculating savings dollars for case management. I’ve been in work comp case management since
1990, and I always felt guilty – like I was given a free license to make up
imaginary scenarios and inflated savings numbers. Outside of negotiated discounts, that’s essentially what is seemed to be – if CM
hadn’t been there, the treating MD might have recommended “X” and so I saved $__. Therefore, for years, I didn’t address
savings dollars in those terms.
· identify pre-existing conditions confused with
injuries,
· keep treatment focused on the mechanism of
injury, reducing wasted dollars
· address appropriate physical abilities and
limitations for work
· propel cases forward, avoiding delays in
treatment and approvals
· And communicate, communicate, communicate!
But how are these savings captured on a factual basis and
not imagination? Enter evidence-based
guidelines. These guidelines contain a
dataset of actual claims to capture and categorize virtually any injury
diagnosis along with other medical conditions, and the length of time it took
for these claimants to return to work, and when the claim to be closed. Utilizing ICD and CPT coding we can plug in
all the factors of a claim we are working, and find out real savings dollars.
Pretty cool. For the last few years we
have been utilizing these evidence-based guidelines to not only identify CM
savings, but also to steer expectations of outcomes.
This week I’ve been working on savings reports for customers
using evidence-based guidelines to “show them the money.” With evidence based guidelines, we can now
plug in all the factors of a claim and produce actual savings numbers. Putting the proof in the pudding, so to
speak.
In this age of escalating medical costs, case management can
be seen as an added expense to claim management when in actuality, case
management is a savings tool.
How much could case management be saving you on your claims?
Comments
Post a Comment