Silly question, what steps do you take when checking in the patient for the second visit? Iāll look at the code, but I believe the auto-encounter creation is tied to a status change for the appt
We probably need to allow multiple encounters in appointments i.e. anytime a ā@Arrivedā is selected allow encounter creation. Or some other status that would be appropriate. Iām not sure why we are keen to discourage more than one encounter per day. Maybe billing issue.
1 appt = 1 encounter almost certainly for billing, but really I think billing is tied to the encounter. An āappointmentā is just the ancillary stuff
I suppose in the end this would be a matter of convenience unless flowchart would like to see an encounter for each appointment.
We allow a user to create a new encounter for same day and many times a patient may see several providers(mental health comes to mind) during the same visit. Iām sure billing managers know how to bill this use case.
Another use case may be for collecting co-pays before seeing provider where front desk knows they need to collect a co-pay for each encounter(usually collected at check in).
This comes up a lot and probably needs to be address in this release.
Iām being told that insurance would not allow more than one co-pay in a day. Sureād be nice if someone could clarify this for me.
If we allow an encounter for each appointment by doing a checkin/arrival on each appointment in single day, can each appointment be considered a visit thus a co-pay for each.
I donāt mind adding this feature and iāve also been told that this was allowed in v4.2.x but first I need to be comfortable weāre not breaking a fix or if this is even feasible.
Also, did this work in past versions?
Educate me folks
Hi @stephenwaite I look on Billing the same way I did Linear algebra in college , a mystery Anyway I checked back to v4.2.2 and weāve never allow but one encounter per day so, now we do for whatever reason folks need it for. Canāt find a down side.
I almost made a rule that a second encounter had to be to a different provider thinking that would be a reason for a second co-pay but, decided to let user decide.
Maybe this PR puts this to rest.