Search this site

The evaluation must explain the selection A patient needs help communicating. The family has researched a speech-generating device and arrives with a preferred model. The SLP's evaluation still needs to establish what will meet this patient's needs and support the equipment request. Medicare's speech-generating device coverage determination requires a formal written SLP evaluation before delivery. It addresses communication impairment, alternatives, functional goals, the reason for selecting the device and accessories, and a training plan. The policy also requires the evaluation and recommendation to reach the treating practitioner before the device is ordered. These are Medicare equipment requirements, not a universal commercial authorization form. [1] A report that names a device without explaining the choice can leave both the clinical team and equipment supplier without the information they need. Describe the communication task the device must support Start with the patient's daily communication needs and the findings from the evaluation. Explain how the selected access method and features relate to those findings. If alternatives were considered, record why they did or did not meet the need. For example, a request for an accessory should describe the barrier it addresses. A product brochure describes what the accessory can do. The clinical report explains why this patient needs it. Keep the report individualized when using supplier forms. Review prefilled language against the evaluation rather than accepting it because similar wording appeared in an approved request for someone else. Separate the evaluation claim from equipment approval ASHA identifies 92607 and its add-on code 92608 as codes for evaluation for a speech-generating AAC device. Use the applicable current reporting guidance for the actual evaluation rather than copying units from a supplier's paperwork. [2] Track the professional evaluation and the equipment request separately. Payment for the SLP's service does not establish that the device has been authorized or delivered. Tell the family which part of the process is complete and which organization handles the next step. Medicare's device policy also restricts financial relationships between the evaluating SLP and the device supplier. Review that requirement before entering a supplier arrangement; the policy says the evaluator cannot be the supplier's employee or have a financial relationship with it. [1] Build time into operations for report completion, practitioner communication, and questions about missing information. A complete request gives the family a clearer path to equipment and reduces repeated paperwork that delays communication support. Sources [1] CMS Speech Generating Devices LCD L33739 [2] ASHA Medicare Coding Rules for SLP Services Sunshyn practice resources Explore Sunshyn billing support for your practice. Find practice education in the Sunshyn Learning Center.

Coordinate medical nutrition therapy and diabetes training A patient wants to attend diabetes self-management training and see the dietitian on the same day. It sounds convenient, especially when transportation or time off work is difficult. Before the practice schedules both, it needs to check how the benefits interact. Medicare's national coverage determination for medical nutrition therapy allows MNT and diabetes self-management training, or DSMT, during the same episode of care when the physician determines both are medically necessary. However, that policy does not allow the two services on the same date of service. The current listed version took effect January 1, 2022. This is an existing Medicare coverage rule, not a newly proposed restriction or a rule for every commercial plan. [1] A benefit can be available and still require a different scheduling plan. Ask about care occurring outside your practice Include a practical question in intake: Is the patient receiving diabetes education or nutrition services elsewhere, and when are those appointments scheduled? Patients may know the program's name without knowing whether it bills DSMT. With appropriate permission, clarify the service with the other office when that information affects the plan. Avoid assuming every diabetes-related appointment is DSMT or that every discussion about food is MNT. For example, the dietitian may learn that a patient's hospital education appointment falls on the same date as the planned MNT visit. Confirm what is being provided and how the applicable payer treats the combination before deciding whether to reschedule. Do not change a service date on the claim to solve the conflict. Keep the services clinically distinct The clinician should document the service actually delivered, its purpose, and the patient's response. If the practice offers both services, review the qualifications and program requirements for each. One provider's ability to deliver nutrition care does not settle eligibility for every diabetes benefit. Give the scheduling team a short explanation of the distinction and a route for questions. A generic appointment label such as diabetes visit makes it harder to identify a conflict before the patient arrives. When separate dates are needed, explain the reason to the patient and help plan the appointments around transportation, work, and other care. Do not leave the family to interpret an unexplained cancellation as a clinical problem. At Sunshyn, we want the calendar to reflect the care and coverage arrangement. Check the interaction before promising that two covered benefits can be delivered together. Convenience matters, and so does making sure the proposed schedule can be billed accurately. Sources [1] CMS Medical Nutrition Therapy NCD 180.1 Sunshyn practice resources Explore Sunshyn billing support for your practice. Find practice education in the Sunshyn Learning Center.

A general benefit limit may not answer the child question A child needs a service, and the practice receives an answer that the benefit is unavailable or the visit limit has been reached. Before treating that answer as final, check whether the request received the review required under Medicaid's pediatric benefit. Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment, or EPSDT, provides comprehensive care for eligible Medicaid-enrolled children under age 21. Medicaid.gov explains that states must provide medically necessary services within federal Medicaid-coverable categories to correct or ameliorate conditions, even when the service is not otherwise included in the state's plan. States determine medical necessity individually. These are federal Medicaid requirements, not a promise that every service, provider, or submitted code is payable. [1] The child's age, enrollment, requested service, and clinical need belong in the coverage review. Identify what the denial actually says Obtain the written reason and applicable policy. Distinguish a missing authorization or enrollment problem from a medical necessity decision or a general benefit exclusion. Each needs a different response. For example, a therapy request may receive a generic visit-limit response without explaining whether additional care was reviewed for the child's individual need. Ask which pediatric review pathway applies and what clinical information the plan requires. The clinician should explain the condition, functional effects, requested service, and why the proposed care is needed. Avoid relying solely on a diagnosis label or attaching a long chart without identifying the relevant findings. Use the state process and keep the family informed Check the state's and managed care plan's procedures for authorization, reconsideration, appeals, and any expedited review appropriate to the circumstances. Record deadlines and who will submit the request. A telephone assurance should not replace tracking the written decision. Explain to the family what was denied and what remains under review. If the recommended service cannot be scheduled, bring that access problem to the clinical team and plan. A covered benefit still needs an available provider who can deliver the appropriate care. Review Medicaid and contract requirements before discussing patient payment. Do not automatically convert the denied amount into a private bill. Also verify the treating provider's eligibility; EPSDT does not independently credential a practitioner or erase requirements for the service. At Sunshyn, we want pediatric denials reviewed on the child's facts. Ask whether EPSDT applies, identify the reason for the decision, and submit the relevant clinical support through the correct process. Families deserve an explanation more useful than a general statement that Medicaid does not cover it. Sources [1] Medicaid Early and Periodic Screening Diagnostic and Treatment Sunshyn practice resources Explore Sunshyn billing support for your practice. Find practice education in the Sunshyn Learning Center.

An estimate should describe the expected care An MFT practice lists its session price on the website. A couple begins weekly appointments and assumes that price tells them everything they need to know about the cost. The practice still needs to determine whether a good faith estimate is required and explain the expected course of services. CMS explains that uninsured patients and patients choosing not to use insurance usually must receive a good faith estimate when they schedule care at least three business days ahead or request an estimate. These protections under the No Surprises Act took effect January 1, 2022. This is a federal estimate requirement, separate from a payer's coverage decision or the practice's cancellation policy. [1] A posted rate is useful, but it does not by itself explain the expected number of appointments or total charges. Describe a realistic recurring arrangement Ask whether the patient is using insurance for the proposed care. An insured person paying privately can fall within the self-pay estimate framework. Do not limit the intake question to whether the person has an insurance card. For recurring services, CMS guidance permits one estimate covering a specified course of care for up to 12 months when it identifies the expected frequency, number of services, and time period. Care expected beyond that period needs a new estimate. [2] For example, an anticipated weekly course of therapy should have a stated period and expected appointment count. Avoid implying that the clinician has committed the patient to treatment for the entire estimated period. An estimate describes expected charges; the clinical plan can change. Keep the estimate aligned with the plan Identify who prepares and delivers the estimate, where the copy is retained, and how changes are handled. When the expected scope or charges change, CMS guidance calls for a new estimate no later than one business day before the scheduled service. [2] Do not let an old intake document become the only cost explanation. When family members participate, make the financial arrangement understandable. Explain whose service is being scheduled and which provider's charges are included. Do not invent separately treated patients or diagnoses to make a private-pay relationship service appear covered. Give patients a way to ask about an estimate before charges accumulate. Keep estimates distinguishable from bills, receipts, and consent to treatment so patients know what each document means. At Sunshyn, we want the financial conversation to happen while patients can make an informed choice. A usable estimate puts the expected services and charges in one place and gives the practice a clear reference when the arrangement changes. Sources [1] CMS Medical Bill Rights When Not Using Insurance [2] CMS Good Faith Estimate FAQs Part 2 Sunshyn practice resources Explore Sunshyn billing support for your practice. Find practice education in the Sunshyn Learning Center.

Use the psychotherapy time actually provided A counseling practice schedules hour-long appointments. One patient arrives late, another session ends early, and a third includes time spent resolving a connection problem before therapy begins. The calendar still shows an hour for all three. A Medicare contractor's psychiatry and psychology coding article identifies the individual psychotherapy time ranges as 16 to 37 minutes for 90832, 38 to 52 minutes for 90834, and 53 minutes or more for 90837. These ranges apply to the reported psychotherapy service; the appointment's scheduled length does not establish the time delivered. The article is Medicare contractor guidance, and practices should also check current coding and payer requirements. [1] A default code can make a claim inaccurate even when the therapist's care was appropriate. Make the note support the selected service Document psychotherapy duration using the method required for the service and payer. Distinguish treatment from time that does not meet the reported service requirements. The clinician should determine the appropriate description of what occurred. For example, a 60-minute calendar slot does not establish 90837 when the record supports 45 minutes of psychotherapy. A billing template should allow the actual service to control the code rather than forcing every encounter into the scheduling default. Duration is only part of the record. Explain the treatment provided, the patient's response, and the clinical reason for continuing or changing the approach. A time entry alone does not explain the need for psychotherapy. Check defaults and financial explanations Review the EHR's behavior when a session is shortened or rescheduled. Does the clinician select the code, or does the software silently populate it from the appointment type? Who catches a mismatch before submission? Train administrative staff to route timing questions back to the clinician. They should not extend a time entry, replace a shorter service with a longer one, or choose a diagnosis because it produces a preferred payment. Explain the difference between the appointment reservation and the clinical service to patients. If a separate late-cancellation policy exists, make that policy clear. Review its terms under applicable payer agreements and requirements rather than trying to recover a missed appointment through a psychotherapy claim. At Sunshyn, we want claims to reflect completed care. Compare the selected code with actual duration and the clinical note. When those agree, the practice has a clearer basis for payment review and for explaining a bill to the patient. Sources [1] CMS Medicare Contractor Article A56937 Psychiatry and Psychology Services Sunshyn practice resources Explore Sunshyn billing support for your practice. Find practice education in the Sunshyn Learning Center.

Completing the form does not complete the assessment A prenatal patient completes a mental health questionnaire in the portal. The EHR calculates a score and puts it in the chart. Someone still needs to review the responses and determine what they mean for this patient. ACOG recommends screening for perinatal depression and anxiety at the initial prenatal visit, later in pregnancy, and at postpartum visits using standardized, validated instruments. Its clinical guideline addresses screening and diagnosis as related parts of care. This is clinical guidance, separate from the payer's decision about payment for a screening service. [1, 2] An independent maternal health practice needs a process for reviewing completed screens, including forms received before the appointment. A score waiting in an inbox should have an assigned reviewer. Keep the score and the clinical conclusion distinct Record the instrument, date, responses or score as appropriate, and the clinician's assessment and action. Do not let software automatically turn a screening result into a confirmed diagnosis without the appropriate clinical evaluation. For example, a patient may complete a questionnaire days before the scheduled visit. The practice needs to know whether the responses require earlier attention under its clinical protocol. A routine appointment date should not be the only trigger for review. Have the clinical team define how concerning responses are routed, including the response required when a patient reports possible immediate risk. Administrative staff should have clear instructions for contacting the appropriate clinician rather than interpreting the questionnaire themselves. Make the claim follow the service performed Verify the payer's requirements for the actual screening instrument and service. Review frequency, eligible provider, documentation, and any rules about reporting with other services. A clinical recommendation to screen does not establish that every completed form produces a separate payable claim. Keep maternal and infant records accurate. When the mother receives a screening during a newborn encounter, review the actual service and the payer's specific reporting instructions. Do not casually move a maternal diagnosis to the infant's chart or assume the infant's visit establishes the mother's benefit. Tell patients why the practice asks these questions and how responses are handled. When the clinician recommends additional assessment or treatment, explain that recommendation using the patient's findings rather than presenting the score as the entire answer. At Sunshyn, we want screening workflows that lead to a documented clinical decision. Assign the reviewer, record the action, and check that the claim describes what occurred. The questionnaire is useful when its answers reach someone responsible for the patient's care. Sources [1] ACOG Patient Screening for Perinatal Mental Health [2] ACOG Clinical Practice Guideline 4 Screening and Diagnosis Sunshyn practice resources Explore Sunshyn billing support for your practice. Find practice education in the Sunshyn Learning Center.

Cash payment needs the correct Medicare arrangement An NP opening a private-pay practice wants to accept cash from Medicare patients. Before offering that option for otherwise covered services, the practice needs to establish the NP's actual Medicare status and the rules that apply. CMS lists nurse practitioners among clinicians eligible to opt out. Its instructions require an opt-out affidavit and private contracts with Medicare patients, subject to the program's requirements. CMS also says a practitioner cannot choose to opt out for some Medicare patients or services and remain in for others. Emergency and urgent care have separate rules. Opting out is not simply declining to submit a particular claim. [1] The decision should be settled before the practice's intake process promises a payment arrangement. Review the existing status before changing the model Check whether the NP is enrolled, participating, nonparticipating, or already opted out. Review relevant group relationships and the intended patient population. A commercial payer's out-of-network rules do not answer the Medicare question. Ask the applicable Medicare Administrative Contractor about the required affidavit, contract terms, and effective date. Keep the actual response and submitted documents accessible. Do not treat a website announcement that the practice is cash only as proof of a completed Medicare opt-out. For example, an NP may have Medicare enrollment through a prior position while opening a separate office. The new business name does not establish a new opt-out status for the individual practitioner. Resolve the enrollment record and intended arrangement before seeing patients under a private contract. Plan for renewal and patient communication CMS describes automatic renewal in two-year cycles and requires cancellation requests at least 30 days before the opt-out period expires. Initial opt-out has a limited early-termination process; an automatically renewed period cannot be ended early through that process. These existing program rules deserve calendar reminders. [1] Explain the actual arrangement to patients before care. Avoid saying they can simply send a receipt to Medicare for reimbursement when the private contract excludes that route. Review Medicare Advantage implications separately rather than assuming a managed care card removes the opt-out issue. Make the billing system reflect the decision. Staff should know which encounters require review and should not submit ordinary Medicare claims from a default workflow inconsistent with the NP's status. At Sunshyn, we want a practice's payment model supported by its enrollment records and patient documents. Opt-out can be a deliberate choice for an eligible NP. It needs to be made with the effective date, patient consequences, and renewal obligations understood. Sources [1] CMS Manage Your Enrollment and Opt Out of Medicare Sunshyn practice resources Explore Sunshyn billing support for your practice. Find practice education in the Sunshyn Learning Center.

The exception has conditions A PT practice receives a signed referral and hears that Medicare no longer needs a physician's signature on the initial treatment plan. That can reduce administrative work, but only when the practice meets the conditions of the exception. Medicare introduced an initial certification exception effective January 1, 2025. When a signed and dated physician or qualified nonphysician practitioner order or referral is in the record, the therapist also needs documented evidence that the treatment plan was transmitted to the referring practitioner within 30 days of the initial evaluation. Noridian identifies January 1, 2025 as the effective date. This is an effective Medicare policy, not simply a proposal to remove paperwork. [1] The exception changes a signature requirement. It does not eliminate the therapist's treatment plan or the need to show that the plan was sent. Keep the order and transmission evidence together Build a workflow that retains the qualifying order, the completed plan, and evidence of transmission. Record the recipient and date so someone reviewing the chart can determine which certification route the practice used. For example, a pelvic health referral may reach the office before the PT completes the evaluation. The referral should not cause the chart to be marked certification complete while the plan is still waiting to be sent. An internal task marked done is less useful than a record that identifies what was transmitted and when. Confirm that the receiving address or electronic destination belongs to the intended practitioner. Failed transmissions need follow-up. Resolve missing requirements before they become old claims Assign someone to review approaching deadlines and incomplete records. If the practice cannot establish the exception's conditions, review the applicable certification pathway rather than assuming the referral solves the problem. Keep later recertification review separate from the initial exception. Staff should not treat one qualifying order as an indefinite answer to every certification question during a long course of care. For pelvic health patients, also distinguish the referral's clinical purpose from insurance authorization. A referral for postpartum PT does not determine available visits or the patient's financial responsibility under every plan. At Sunshyn, we want useful policy changes reflected in the actual workflow. Medicare's exception can reduce repeated signature requests when its requirements are met. The practice should be able to open the chart and show the basis for using it, without reconstructing the timeline after a claim review. Sources [1] Noridian Initial Certification and Recertification Outpatient Therapy Exception Sunshyn practice resources Explore Sunshyn billing support for your practice. Find practice education in the Sunshyn Learning Center.

Apparently, this needs to be said: When a mother’s Aetna lactation benefits are exhausted, you cannot simply start billing lactation visits under Dad’s name because he has benefits available. And if Dad wasn’t even at the visit, that should be an immediate red flag. This issue is especially important for lactation providers who work through third-party billing or network organizations and may not have direct visibility into the claims being submitted for the care they provide. If a patient tells you, “They said since my benefits are used up, they’re going to bill the rest under my husband’s name,” don’t assume that’s a normal insurance workaround. Start asking questions. Insurance Benefits Belong to the Patient Receiving the Service Insurance claims are not a pool of household benefits that can be moved from one family member to another when someone’s benefits are exhausted. A claim identifies a patient. It reports a service provided to that patient. The medical record should support that service. And the diagnosis and procedure codes submitted on the claim should correspond to what actually occurred. If Mom was the patient, Mom received the service, and the documentation is for Mom, the fact that Dad has unused benefits does not turn Dad into the patient. Exhausted benefits do not create a new patient. What If Dad Wasn’t Even There? This makes the problem considerably more obvious. Suppose Mom attends a lactation visit. Dad isn’t present. The lactation consultant never sees him. He isn’t assessed. He isn’t counseled. He doesn’t participate in education or training. There is no Dad-specific plan of care. There is no clinical documentation of a service actually provided to Dad. Then someone says: “Mom is out of lactation benefits, so we’ll bill this visit under Dad.” What exactly are you billing to Dad? That’s the question providers should immediately ask. A payer claim isn’t supposed to represent a fictional encounter created because another family member happens to have unused benefits. Dad Can Be a Patient—When Dad Is Actually a Patient This distinction is important. There may absolutely be circumstances in which a father or other parent legitimately receives a healthcare service. If an appropriate covered service is actually furnished to Dad, documented for Dad, medically appropriate for Dad, and accurately coded and billed under Dad’s coverage, that’s a different situation. The problem isn’t that fathers can never be patients. The problem is using Dad as the named patient solely because Mom’s benefits have been exhausted. Those are not remotely the same thing. Outsourcing Billing Is Fine. Lack of Visibility Is the Red Flag. Healthcare providers routinely use third-party billing companies, and there is nothing inherently concerning about that arrangement. The concern is when a provider is unable to see the claims being submitted on their behalf—or the remittance advice showing how those claims were adjudicated. If a claim is being submitted for your professional service, potentially using your NPI and credentials, you should be able to determine what was actually reported to the payer: who was identified as the patient; what procedure codes were submitted; what diagnoses were reported; what units were billed; what charges were submitted; and how the payer processed the claim. That becomes especially important when a patient tells you something as significant as: “They said my lactation benefits ran out, so they’re going to bill the visits under my husband’s name.” At that point, the lack of claim visibility isn’t a theoretical concern anymore. The provider has been given a concrete reason to verify what is being submitted for the care they personally provided. And if Dad wasn’t even present, the question becomes extremely simple: What service could the claim possibly say was provided to him? A third-party billing arrangement should make billing easier for providers. It should not prevent providers from knowing how their own professional services are being represented to an insurance company. Outsourcing the billing function is normal. Outsourcing it without meaningful visibility into the claims and remittances submitted under your professional identity is the red flag. “I Don’t Handle the Billing” Is Not a Reason to Ignore a Red Flag Providers do not need to personally submit every claim. They do not need to become professional coders. They do not need to manage the billing office themselves. But if a patient reports that a visit was or will be billed under a different family member because benefits were exhausted, that should trigger verification. At minimum, the provider should be able to ask: What claim was submitted for the care I provided? Who was identified as the patient? What procedure code was submitted? What diagnosis was attached to it? Was the claim submitted under my NPI or credentials? Does the claim match my clinical documentation? Those are reasonable questions for any healthcare professional whose services are being billed to an insurer. Benefit Exhaustion Is a Coverage Issue, Not Permission to Change Patients If Aetna determines that Mom has exhausted the lactation benefits available under her plan, then the next question is what happens under Mom’s benefits and the provider’s contractual obligations. Maybe additional services aren’t covered. Maybe another appropriate benefit applies. Maybe there are appeal rights. Maybe the patient becomes financially responsible under the terms of the plan. Maybe the network contract requires a write-off. Maybe advance notice is required before a noncovered service can be provided privately. The exact answer can depend on the plan and circumstances. But one answer should immediately raise concern: “We’ll just bill somebody else.” The identity of the patient is not a workaround for a benefit limitation. Your Documentation Should Match the Claim Providers should be able to perform a very simple exercise. Put your clinical documentation beside the claim. Do they tell the same story? If the claim identifies Dad as the patient, where is the documentation showing the service you provided to Dad? What did you assess? What did you teach him? Why was the service medically appropriate for him? How much time did you spend providing that service to him? What diagnosis supports the claim? And perhaps the easiest question of all: Was he even there? If the answer to that last question is no, you have a very good reason to stop and investigate before accepting an explanation that this is simply “how lactation billing works.” Providers Need Visibility Into What Is Being Billed in Their Names This is also a broader lesson for lactation consultants using third-party networks and billing companies. You should know enough about the billing process to recognize when something doesn’t make sense. Ask how claims are submitted. Ask which patient is billed. Ask which codes are used. Ask whether claims are submitted under your NPI. Ask how benefit exhaustion is handled. Ask what happens when a claim is denied. Ask whether you can review claims and remittance information associated with your services. If the answer is essentially, “Don’t worry about it; we handle everything,” that should not necessarily make you feel better. If your name, NPI, credentials, and professional services are attached to the claim, you should have a way to verify what is being represented. Listen When Patients Tell You Something Doesn’t Sound Right Sometimes the provider’s first indication of a billing problem comes from the patient. A patient may receive an EOB. She may notice her husband’s name. She may be told something surprising by the billing company. She may ask you why insurance says Dad received a service when Dad never attended the appointment. Don’t dismiss those conversations because you don’t personally handle claims. They may be giving you information about how your services are being represented to a payer. That deserves attention. The Bottom Line When Mom’s Aetna lactation benefits are exhausted, you don’t solve the problem by finding another insured person in the household with unused benefits. The patient on the claim should be the patient who actually received the reported service. Dad can legitimately be a patient when a medically appropriate service is actually provided to Dad. But if Dad wasn’t evaluated, wasn’t counseled, wasn’t documented, and wasn’t even at the appointment, billing the visit under his name simply because Mom ran out of benefits should be an enormous red flag. And if you’re a provider working through a third-party organization and a patient tells you this is happening, don’t dismiss it because you don’t handle the billing. Ask to see what’s being billed. Ask to see how it was adjudicated. Your documentation tells one side of the story. The insurance claim and remittance tell the other. They should match. Sunshyn practice resources For help with claim submission and payer follow-up, see Sunshyn's medical billing services. For a structured review of documentation and practice requirements, explore the Documentation & Compliance learning pathway in the Sunshyn Learning Center.

In today’s competitive market, businesses face increasing pressure to maintain high standards and comply with industry regulations. Credentialing companies offer specialized services that help organizations verify qualifications, licenses, and certifications efficiently. Partnering with these companies can unlock significant benefits, from saving time to reducing risks. This post explores the key advantages of working with credentialing companies and how they can support your business growth. Reviewing credential documents for business compliance Saving Time and Reducing Administrative Burden One of the most immediate benefits of partnering with a credentialing company is the reduction in administrative workload. Credentialing involves verifying education, licenses, work history, and other qualifications, which can be time-consuming and complex. Credentialing companies have the expertise and systems to handle these tasks quickly and accurately. For example, a healthcare provider working with a credentialing company can avoid delays in onboarding new staff. The company manages background checks, license verification, and compliance with regulatory bodies, freeing internal teams to focus on patient care and other priorities. Supporting Accurate Credentialing Records A credentialing partner can help organize credential records and complete required verification steps. The practice should confirm which tasks the service covers and track outstanding payer requirements. By outsourcing this responsibility, businesses reduce the risk of errors or omissions. For instance, a financial firm partnering with a credentialing company can be confident that all advisors hold valid licenses and certifications, protecting the firm from regulatory penalties. Improving Accuracy and Quality of Verification Credentialing companies use standardized processes and technology to verify credentials thoroughly. This reduces the chance of human error or fraudulent documentation slipping through. Their expertise allows them to spot inconsistencies or red flags that might be missed internally. For a healthcare practice, verification should follow the payer's requirements and identify missing or inconsistent information. Ask how the credentialing company documents its work and reports unresolved items. Digital dashboard displaying credential verification progress Enhancing Business Reputation and Trust Trust is a cornerstone of successful business relationships. When clients or partners know that your team’s credentials have been verified by a reputable third party, it builds confidence. This can be a deciding factor in winning contracts or attracting new customers. For example, a consulting firm that highlights its partnership with a credentialing company can demonstrate commitment to professionalism and quality assurance. This transparency reassures clients that the firm meets industry standards. Access to Specialized Expertise and Technology Credentialing companies invest in advanced technology and maintain expert staff who understand the nuances of various industries. This expertise is difficult and costly for individual businesses to develop in-house. By partnering with these companies, businesses gain access to tools such as automated verification systems, secure databases, and compliance tracking software. These resources improve efficiency and provide real-time updates on credential status. Flexibility and Scalability for Growing Businesses As businesses expand, their credentialing needs grow more complex. Credentialing companies offer scalable solutions that can adapt to changing demands. Whether onboarding a few new employees or managing hundreds of credentials across multiple locations, these companies provide consistent service levels. A growing healthcare network, for example, can rely on a credentialing partner to handle increasing verification volumes without sacrificing speed or accuracy. This flexibility supports smooth growth without overwhelming internal teams. Cost Savings Over Time While there is a cost associated with credentialing services, partnering with a credentialing company often results in long-term savings. Avoiding compliance fines, reducing staff hours spent on verification, and preventing costly hiring mistakes all contribute to a better bottom line. Outsourcing credentialing may reduce the administrative work your team handles, but results depend on the practice and the agreed service scope. Compare the work performed, follow-up included, and reporting provided rather than relying on unsupported savings claims. How to Choose the Right Credentialing Partner Selecting a credentialing company requires careful consideration. Look for providers with: Proven experience in your industry Transparent processes and clear communication Strong data security measures Positive client references Technology that integrates with your existing systems Request case studies or pilot projects to evaluate their service quality before committing. Sunshyn practice resources For help with payer applications and enrollment, see Sunshyn's insurance credentialing services. For a structured look at enrollment workflows, explore the Credentialing & Payer Enrollment learning pathway in the Sunshyn Learning Center.

Effective immediately, Georgia Medicaid now requires the initial lactation consultation to be provided in person before any follow-up services may be delivered via telehealth. While telehealth continues to play an important role in improving access to lactation care, this policy changes how Georgia Medicaid beneficiaries begin treatment and may require providers to adjust scheduling workflows. What Changed? Under Georgia Medicaid’s updated policy: The first lactation visit must be completed in person. Follow-up visits may still be provided via telehealth when they otherwise meet Medicaid requirements. Providers should ensure documentation clearly identifies the initial face-to-face encounter before billing any telehealth follow-up services. Why This Matters Many breastfeeding challenges arise during the first few days after birth—often before families have reliable transportation, childcare, or the ability to travel. While an in-person assessment can provide valuable clinical information, it may also create additional barriers for some families who previously relied on virtual access immediately after hospital discharge. Practices serving rural communities, medically underserved areas, or families with transportation challenges should consider how this policy may affect appointment availability and patient access. Operational Considerations for Providers Georgia Medicaid providers should review their scheduling and billing processes to ensure compliance. Recommended steps include: Update scheduling protocols to identify Medicaid patients requiring an initial in-person visit. Educate front office staff on the new requirement. Verify telehealth eligibility before scheduling follow-up visits. Clearly document that the first lactation consultation occurred face-to-face. Maintain documentation supporting medical necessity and services provided for every encounter. Impact on Patients Patients should be informed that: Their first breastfeeding consultation must now occur in person if they are using Georgia Medicaid. Once the initial visit has been completed, subsequent follow-up care may still be available through telehealth when appropriate. Early scheduling after delivery is encouraged to avoid delays in breastfeeding support. Looking Ahead Telehealth remains an important tool for improving breastfeeding support, particularly for follow-up care. As state Medicaid programs continue refining telehealth policies, providers should monitor updates closely to remain compliant while minimizing disruptions to patient care. SunShyn Credentialing & Medical Billing will continue tracking Medicaid policy changes affecting IBCLCs nationwide and will provide updates as additional states revise their lactation coverage requirements. Sunshyn practice resources For help with claim submission and payer follow-up, see Sunshyn's medical billing services. The Sunshyn Learning Center offers practice education and tools to help you work through billing, payer, and practice questions.

On its face, New York's proposed Senate Bill S1670 / Assembly Bill A4677 is exciting news for breastfeeding families. The legislation would require many health insurance plans to provide coverage for outpatient lactation services, helping more families access the breastfeeding support they need. As someone who has spent years working in lactation billing and insurance credentialing, I strongly support expanding access to quality lactation care. However, after reviewing the bill as currently written, I have concerns about how it may affect the very patients it is intended to help. The Goal Is Excellent There is no question that increasing insurance coverage for lactation services is a positive step. Breastfeeding support has been shown to improve maternal and infant health outcomes, and removing financial barriers can help families receive care earlier when challenges arise. If implemented successfully, this legislation could allow thousands of additional New York families to utilize their insurance benefits for lactation support. The Practical Concern The current language of the bill defines an eligible lactation consultant as a healthcare professional licensed under Title VIII of New York Education Law who also holds the International Board Certified Lactation Consultant (IBCLC) credential. At first glance, that may not seem significant. In practice, however, it could have a substantial impact on provider availability. Who Actually Provides Lactation Care? Many people assume physicians and nurse practitioners provide most outpatient lactation care. That is not the reality. While physicians and nurse practitioners can certainly earn the IBCLC credential, they represent only a very small portion of the lactation workforce. Most outpatient lactation care is provided by: Registered Nurses (RNs) who are also IBCLCs Independent IBCLCs whose primary professional credential is the IBCLC Very few private lactation practices are owned by physicians or nurse practitioners who also maintain an IBCLC credential. Independent IBCLCs are often the providers families rely on for timely appointments, home visits, and specialized breastfeeding support. Why This Matters If implementation of the bill ultimately limits insurance participation to providers who meet the bill's current eligibility language, many experienced IBCLCs could find themselves unable to participate in insurance networks. That would not simply affect providers. It would affect patients. Families could experience: Longer wait times Fewer in-network providers Increased travel distances Less provider choice Delays in receiving care during the most critical days after birth These challenges are especially concerning in rural and underserved communities, where lactation providers are already in short supply. More Coverage Doesn't Always Mean More Access Insurance coverage is only one piece of healthcare access. Patients also need enough qualified providers who can actually accept that insurance. If a benefit exists on paper but there are too few eligible providers available, families may still struggle to receive timely care. A Better Path Forward This legislation has tremendous potential. With thoughtful implementation, New York could become a leader in improving access to lactation care. As lawmakers continue reviewing this proposal, I encourage them to consider the composition of today's lactation workforce and ensure that qualified IBCLCs are not unintentionally excluded from participating in insurance networks. Expanding insurance coverage should also expand patient choice—not reduce it. The Bottom Line I applaud New York's efforts to improve insurance coverage for lactation services. My concern is not with the goal of the legislation. My concern is ensuring that, once implemented, families can actually find qualified providers to use those new benefits. Insurance coverage only improves access if patients have providers available to see them. As this legislation moves forward, I hope lawmakers, insurers, and the lactation community continue working together to ensure the final result supports both patients and the professionals who provide their care. This article reflects my interpretation of the proposed legislation as currently written and is intended for educational discussion. The bill may be amended before enactment, and its final implementation will ultimately depend on the enacted language, regulatory guidance, and insurer policies. Sunshyn practice resources For help with claim submission and payer follow-up, see Sunshyn's medical billing services. The Sunshyn Learning Center offers practice education and tools to help you work through billing, payer, and practice questions.