Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 20, 2026

Implementation of a Real-Time Psychosis Risk Detection and Alerting System Based on Electronic Health Records using CogStack
Published on: May 15, 2020
Is your claim editor really working?
Lauree Handlon1, William Cleverley
1Cleverley and Associates, Worthington, Ohio, USA.
Abstract:
An analysis of 15 selected areas from publicly filed Medicare outpatient claims was performed to test the accuracy of claim editors. The analysis disclosed that in 2004, U.S. providers lost more than dollar 327 million of reimbursement due to errors in claims. Reimbursement was deemed "lost" only where it was obvious that billing errors had been made. Claims that included pathology exams had the greatest potential for lost revenue, because they often failed to account for the presence of specimen-removal procedures.
Insights
Medicare claims analysis revealed significant financial losses for U.S. providers in 2004 due to billing errors. Pathology claims, specifically, showed the highest potential for lost reimbursement from overlooked specimen procedures.
Area of Science:
- Health Economics
- Medical Billing and Reimbursement
- Healthcare Administration
Background:
- Accurate medical billing is crucial for provider reimbursement and healthcare system efficiency.
- Errors in claims processing can lead to substantial financial losses for healthcare providers.
- Medicare outpatient claims represent a significant volume of healthcare transactions.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the accuracy of claim editors in processing Medicare outpatient claims.
- To quantify the financial impact of billing errors on U.S. healthcare providers.
- To identify specific areas within claims with a high potential for revenue loss.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of 15 selected areas from publicly filed Medicare outpatient claims data from 2004.
- Identification of billing errors where reimbursement was demonstrably lost due to claim inaccuracies.
- Focused examination of claims involving pathology exams and associated procedures.
Main Results:
- U.S. providers experienced over $327 million in lost reimbursement in 2004 due to claim errors.
- Billing errors were clearly identifiable in the assessed claims.
- Claims for pathology exams exhibited the greatest potential for lost revenue, often due to failure to account for specimen-removal procedures.
Conclusions:
- Claim editors demonstrated inaccuracies, leading to significant financial losses for providers.
- Systemic billing errors, particularly in pathology claims, result in substantial unrecovered revenue.
- Improved claims processing and attention to procedural coding are necessary to prevent revenue loss.
Related Concept Videos
Testing a Claim about Standard Deviation
The hypothesis testing for the claim of population standard deviation (or variance) requires the data and samples to be random and unbiased. The population distribution also must be normal. There is no specific requirement on the sample size as the estimation is based on the chi-square distribution.
As a first step, the hypothesis (null and alternative) concerning the claim about...
Testing a Claim about Population Proportion
There are two methods of testing a claim about a population proportion: (1) Using the sample proportion from the data where a binomial distribution is approximated to the normal distribution and (2) Using the binomial probabilities calculated from the data.
The first method uses normal distribution as an approximation to the binomial distribution. The requirements are as follows: sample size is large...
Proofreading
Errors During Replication are Corrected by the DNA Polymerase Enzyme
Proofreading
Proofreading
Testing a Claim about Mean: Unknown Population SD
Estimating a population mean requires the samples to be approximately normally distributed. The data should be collected from the randomly selected samples having no sampling bias. There is no specific requirement for sample size. But if the sample size is less than 30, and we don't know the population standard deviation, a different approach is used; instead...
