[log in to unmask],Net wrote at 21:42 on 11/02/98 
about "Re: links-again!":
-----------------------------
>It has been pointed out that the HAs don't have the staff to process 
>manual claims, so if we pull the plug on links we won't get paid.
Actually the HAs don't process the manual claims.
They look at the summary on the envelope, ("the bill")
and pay that much.
They retain the contents of the envelope in case they wish to check, 
and they investigate a proprotion randomly or using rules to target 
oddities and outliers.

So why, one asks, given that linked claims are paid against the 
audit trail retained in the practice, does anything except the 
summary info (99 contraceptive services, 50 new patient checks, 104 
A imms) need to flow fromthe practice to the HA before hand?

Here is a complet list of all information contained in Devon HA/PPSA 
replies to such questions (to be fair, it wasn't their design)

(......)

There, ^^ up there. <g>

So would anyone have produced a links IoS spec, and then enabled 
certain companies to sell it for £2k per practice, if they had 
thought of that?
Roy Sharma and the other patients not paper people are heroes, but 
as is common their efforts were largely bypassed by other people 
inventing ever more elaborate ways of generating useless and 
parasitic work.

Graham Ross may comment on how ood an excuse for not paying a bill 
it is to say that you have made all the people who used to deal with 
that redundant because they were not needed, so you don't have staff 
to process their bills.  I think the average judge would suggest 
that the chief exec of the organisation should process them, if 
nobody else was available, before getting on with whatever other 
matters seemed important to them.

>Someone else pointed out the red book says we must be paid each 
>quarter for work done/claimed previously.
Yes.  Most of us could predict to +/- £500 how much we should be 
paid each quarter of next year, now, and it would then take minimal 
time to sort out what the balancing payment should be each year in 
order to adjust it correctly.
Payments on account would work well enough I think.

>We could get into a real mess here. LMC don't want to get solicitors 
>involved in another GMS argument!

Why not?  Anyway, if it is just one IoS payment, the small claims 
court could handle it.
'course, there might be several individual cases concerning 
separate IoS payments for the average practice.  


--- OffRoad 1.9r registered to Adrian Midgley


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%