6 min read · Published
The false choice
Groups often frame billing standardisation as a choice between letting every doctor do as they wish and forcing everyone onto identical settings. Both options are unattractive, and neither is necessary.
The useful distinction is between policy — which should be consistent — and preference, which legitimately varies between providers.
What should be policy
Policy covers how the group operates: when accounts are followed up, what patients are told and in what form, who can change a fee, how exceptions are escalated, and what reporting the group produces.
These are group-level decisions because inconsistency in them creates operational cost and, in the case of patient communication, reputational exposure.
- Follow-up timing and escalation
- Patient communication content and channel
- Who may vary a fee, and with what approval
- Reporting definitions so figures are comparable across providers
What should remain preference
Fee positions frequently reflect a provider's subspecialty, case mix and established patient relationships. Forcing convergence there is neither necessary for operational consistency nor likely to survive contact with the providers concerned.
A billing rule structure that supports per-provider fee configuration within a common policy resolves this without requiring the group to litigate every individual position.
Why administrative load scales badly without this
Where nothing is policy, every case is potentially an exception, and administrative effort scales with the number of providers rather than with the volume of work. That is the practical reason groups add administrators faster than they add doctors.