We found the need to separate collection adjustments from production adjustments.
I have come up with a pretty simple change that would allow a user to track adjustments separately and would not require any database change.
We would change the adjustment screen under definitions to ask more than just – or + ,
We would ask for -C, +C, -P, or +P These would stand for Minus collection, Positive Collections, Minus Production and Positive Production. This would allow the user to assign every adjustment.
We could modify the Adjustment report for starters and it would just break down the adjustment amount to Collection and Production Columns. This report then could be run to figure out what adjustment to production is needed for a provider at the end of the month.
Separating Collection / Production Adjustments
-
jordansparks
- Site Admin
- Posts: 5744
- Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 3:59 pm
- Location: Salem, Oregon
- Contact:
Please don't jump the gun on this. We need to discuss it thoroughly for a few days. I have two points to start with:
1. It seems like we should replace all existing - and + with -P and +P, since that is their current function. So we are talking about 4 types, not six.
2. I want to make sure that you are not talking about refunds and negative payments. I want to make sure that we are still clear that refunds affect income rather than production. And in this context, when I say "production", I'm including "collections" and "production". In other words, this new collections label would be for the purpose of changing the amount of money that the office expected to receive, such as for a write off. It would never be used for entering an actual monetary transaction, which should instead be done using either a positive or negative payment.
1. It seems like we should replace all existing - and + with -P and +P, since that is their current function. So we are talking about 4 types, not six.
2. I want to make sure that you are not talking about refunds and negative payments. I want to make sure that we are still clear that refunds affect income rather than production. And in this context, when I say "production", I'm including "collections" and "production". In other words, this new collections label would be for the purpose of changing the amount of money that the office expected to receive, such as for a write off. It would never be used for entering an actual monetary transaction, which should instead be done using either a positive or negative payment.
Jordan Sparks, DMD
http://www.opendental.com
http://www.opendental.com
We thought the same thing. We are only planning on 4 not 6 choices. We thought maybe we could add code in Database Mainenance that would look for the single - or + and make it a -P or +P. We would still want the edit screen for the -+ to stay as non editable. If the code no longer fits for a practice they could hide it and create a new one setup properly.
To give you an example that happens. An employee gets work done at the corporate practice. This employee doesn't even know the provider. The agreement with the providers is that they will get 50% credit for the work done on work collegues. the practice writes off 50% as a Employee production Adjustment (-P). then writes off the remaining balance for the patient as a Employee Collection Discount (-C). End result is two adjustments, no monetary transaction, and the provider production is adjusted accurately.
Also we would like to thank you for welcoming us aboard. We have no intentions of jumping the gun, however I beleive we are having a little trouble hiding our enthusiasm.
To give you an example that happens. An employee gets work done at the corporate practice. This employee doesn't even know the provider. The agreement with the providers is that they will get 50% credit for the work done on work collegues. the practice writes off 50% as a Employee production Adjustment (-P). then writes off the remaining balance for the patient as a Employee Collection Discount (-C). End result is two adjustments, no monetary transaction, and the provider production is adjusted accurately.
Also we would like to thank you for welcoming us aboard. We have no intentions of jumping the gun, however I beleive we are having a little trouble hiding our enthusiasm.
-
jordansparks
- Site Admin
- Posts: 5744
- Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 3:59 pm
- Location: Salem, Oregon
- Contact:
I posted a reply yesterday that was apparently dropped. I'll try again:
I would like to suggest one change to the implementation that we have discussed. I would like to keep the existing - and + rather than switching them to -P and +P. This would be less likely to result in bugs. We would still have only four types: - , +, -C, and +C. So we're just adding two types on top of what we already have. So, with that one change, I'm now OK with it. Green light as far as I'm concerned.
I would like to suggest one change to the implementation that we have discussed. I would like to keep the existing - and + rather than switching them to -P and +P. This would be less likely to result in bugs. We would still have only four types: - , +, -C, and +C. So we're just adding two types on top of what we already have. So, with that one change, I'm now OK with it. Green light as far as I'm concerned.
Jordan Sparks, DMD
http://www.opendental.com
http://www.opendental.com
What we came up with then would be a check mark box that can be on the definitions/adjustment type page. It could state that all adjustments are considered production adjustments unless otherwise checked. This would eliminate the need to change any existing user data and I feel would make a much easier user interface.
We should have something to look at in the next day or two.
We should have something to look at in the next day or two.