Billing, rebilling

Issue: BCMJ, vol. 45, No. 2, March 2003, Page 73 Letters
By: Peter V. Richards, MB

The devil is often in the details. In the case of the new fee agreement with the government that is certainly true.

I want to bring to your attention the consequences of the implementation of the new fee schedules for GPs. There will be five age differential fees for patients. If a wrong age-related fee code is submitted for a given age, the fee will be rejected, as is presently the case. There are inevitably going to be large volumes of refusals, which mean delayed payment and increased work in rebilling.

At this time the specification has not been released to vendors. I have brought the matter to the attention of the Section of General Practice. The extremely restrictive rejection of claims policy should be replaced by a much more permissive payment policy. If I make a 0100 claim for an office visit for a patient that is another claim category, then that claim at the very least should be paid at the 0100 level. It would even be nice for MSP to amend the fee to the correct age-related level. After all if the MSP computers have enough information to reject the claim based on age-related criteria, they have enough information to pay the claim in the first place and at the right level.

Another thing—if I submit a bill before the 90-day deadline, then that claim should never be rejected as stale-dated after 90 days. After all, I put the bill in before the deadline. It would require very little change to never reject a bill as over the 90-day limit if it was initially submitted before that date. I need not remind anyone of the considerable effort required now to have the claim reinstated.

—Peter V. Richards, MB
North Vancouver

Peter V. Richards, MB. Billing, rebilling. BCMJ, Vol. 45, No. 2, March, 2003, Page(s) 73 - Letters.


Above is the information needed to cite this article in your paper or presentation. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommends the following citation style, which is the now nearly universally accepted citation style for scientific papers:
Halpern SD, Ubel PA, Caplan AL, Marion DW, Palmer AM, Schiding JK, et al. Solid-organ transplantation in HIV-infected patients. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:284-7.

About the ICMJE and citation styles

The ICMJE is small group of editors of general medical journals who first met informally in Vancouver, British Columbia, in 1978 to establish guidelines for the format of manuscripts submitted to their journals. The group became known as the Vancouver Group. Its requirements for manuscripts, including formats for bibliographic references developed by the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), were first published in 1979. The Vancouver Group expanded and evolved into the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which meets annually. The ICMJE created the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals to help authors and editors create and distribute accurate, clear, easily accessible reports of biomedical studies.

An alternate version of ICMJE style is to additionally list the month an issue number, but since most journals use continuous pagination, the shorter form provides sufficient information to locate the reference. The NLM now lists all authors.

BCMJ standard citation style is a slight modification of the ICMJE/NLM style, as follows:

  • Only the first three authors are listed, followed by "et al."
  • There is no period after the journal name.
  • Page numbers are not abbreviated.


For more information on the ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, visit www.icmje.org

BCMJ Guidelines for Authors

Leave a Reply