Diagnostic Specificity
Whether the diagnosis and operative findings support the billed service level.
Gynecology billing leakage often comes from sparse diagnostic detail, secondary procedure coding, assistant fees, and post-op classification habits that do not match the clinical record.
Minimally invasive gynecology cases can involve diagnostic findings, additional procedures, and post-op scenarios that are easy to compress into a generic claim workflow.
When documentation is thin, billing teams may choose the safest primary code and avoid secondary details. When post-op visits are classified too broadly, clinics may absorb work that should be reviewed more carefully.
Our audit compares submitted claims, operative notes, diagnostic context, and rejection history to identify defensible recovery opportunities and future documentation improvements.
Whether the diagnosis and operative findings support the billed service level.
Additional clinically necessary work that may be folded into the primary code.
Assistant involvement documented in the case but missing from the OHIP submission.
Visits that may have been incorrectly grouped into a global period.
Operative note language that prevents billing staff from confidently claiming valid work.
Recurring OHIP rejection reasons that indicate workflow fixes, not isolated errors.
A Southern Ontario gynecology clinic performing 720 minimally invasive cases per year. A focused audit can identify annual missed revenue across diagnostic specificity, assistant fees, and post-op classification. Recovery estimates are based on OMA data and industry billing audits.
Start with a no-cost review of recent gynecology claims and documentation.
Book Free Audit →