Secondary Procedure Codes
Review of operative facts that may support additional billable work beyond the primary cataract code.
High volume is the advantage and the risk. A small missed amount per case becomes a material revenue leak across hundreds of annual procedures.
Cataract clinics under Bill 60 often run efficient operating days with high case volume and tight administrative workflows. That speed is useful, but it leaves little room for billing review.
Small per-case misses add up fast. Secondary intraoperative procedure codes, anterior vitrectomy billing, assistant fees, and complexity variations may be clinically valid but never make it onto the claim.
The issue is often not the surgery. It is the documentation language. If the operative note does not clearly support the extra work, the billing team may default to the primary code and move on.
Our audit reviews cataract OHIP billing Ontario clinics already submit, compares it with documentation, and separates confident recovery opportunities from workflow improvements for future cases.
Review of operative facts that may support additional billable work beyond the primary cataract code.
Identification of cases where assistant involvement was documented but not reflected in the submitted claim.
Detection of cases where complications or additional intraoperative work may change the billing profile.
Review of lens-related complexity variations and whether operative documentation supports billing treatment.
Coaching on notes that describe clinical work too sparsely for billing confidence.
Analysis of repeat rejection reasons and whether process changes can prevent future leakage.
A Southern Ontario cataract clinic performing 900 cases per year. Our audit identified $142,000 in annual missed revenue across assistant fees and secondary procedure codes. This is an anonymized example, and recovery estimates are based on OMA data and industry billing audits.
Start with a no-cost sample audit of recent cataract claims and operative notes.
Book Free Audit →