Cardiology billing. Built around the detail of your practice.

Discuss the service mix, coding responsibilities, assigned contacts and escalation route before starting. If a particular cardiology certification is required, confirm the assigned team member’s current qualification rather than relying on an unverified website claim.

Diagnostic test review should distinguish the documented professional and technical work, provider, equipment and care setting. Modifier 26 or TC questions must be checked against the actual service and applicable requirements; they are not interchangeable additions to every test.

Keep the operative report, device details, mapping documentation, implant logs and physician notes connected. The billing review should identify supported CPT, HCPCS, supply and modifier questions for the actual EP or device procedure, with missing detail clarified by the practice.

Agree this explicitly in the service scope. Identify who submits requests, supplies clinical records, monitors payer responses and resolves outstanding questions for services such as PET, CTA or vascular procedures.

Set expectations after reviewing the service, payer, required records and urgency. Separate HQB’s administrative response time from the payer’s decision time. No universal turnaround or approval guarantee is asserted in this review.

Use an agreed definition, source system, reporting period and baseline. Distinguish acceptance, rejection and final payment. Discuss targets against the practice’s measured baseline, and review the actual acceptance, rejection and payment records over time.

Begin with the payer reason and claim history, then review supporting documentation, medical necessity, authorization and modifier questions. Agree the supported correction, reconsideration or appeal route and record the next action and responsible person.

Keep the documented service, relevant time or service-period information, provider review and applicable payer requirements together. Questions about RPM, remote cardiac monitoring or interpretation work must be resolved from source records rather than assumed.

Review the EHR, EMR, practice-management platform, clearinghouse and source access your practice already uses. Confirm compatibility and the handoff before agreeing work. Existing systems should be evaluated before proposing a migration or promising an integration.

Discuss the actual monitoring program, available device-generated information, clinical documentation, provider review and billing period. Agree who supplies each record and how the billing team raises missing-information questions through the approved access arrangements.

Agree reporting sources and definitions for net collections, days in A/R, first-pass claim acceptance, denial trends, aging, payer performance, provider productivity and authorization activity. The review cadence and reporting deliverables belong in the service scope.

These procedures should remain identifiable in the service mix and source documentation. Review operative records, device information, supported code combinations, NCCI edits and relevant payer policies for the actual work rather than treating every device service as identical.

Confirm the designated practice contact, HQB contact, escalation route and review cadence in the engagement. Dedicated staffing or account-management arrangements should be documented for your practice rather than assumed from a generic promise.

Review the current Pricing page and discuss specialty complexity, claim volume and service scope. The written proposal should identify fees, any minimum, implementation work and responsibilities. Confirm the current terms in the written proposal.

Your service mix, provider count, current systems and main billing priorities are a useful start. Do not send patient information through the public inquiry form.