Patent Publication Number: US-8533009-B2

Title: Method and system for managing appeals

Description:
RELATED APPLICATION 
     The present application is a continuation-in-part application of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/655,391 filed Jan. 18, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in its entirety. 
    
    
     BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
     This invention relates to a method and system for managing appeals, more particularly, this invention relates to a method and system for managing managed care denials for healthcare providers. 
     With the advent of managed care, hospitals, physician practices, dental practices and other healthcare providers (collectively referred to herein as the “healthcare provider”) often have payments for claims denied by health insurance companies for a variety of reasons. Generally, when a healthcare provider&#39;s claims are denied, the healthcare provider has the ability to appeal the denial to the health insurance company that issued the denial. Upon receipt of a written appeal or grievance, the insurance company or an insurance plan administer must review the appeal and make a decision regarding its approval or denial. 
     One example is medical insurance coverage plans. State and federal laws, as well as contractual provisions, allow both those insured (consumers) and healthcare providers (e.g., doctors, dentists, hospitals, physical therapists, medical clinics, etc.) the right to file appeals with the insurance companies when the insurer has denied a request or benefit. A consumer appeal arises when a request for approval to receive medical treatment is denied or a claim is not paid correctly. A healthcare provider may file an appeal on behalf itself or the patient when an insurer has not properly paid for a particular service rendered. Upon receipt of a written appeal, the insurer must review the appeal and make a decision regarding its approval or denial. 
     In a typical denial of a request for medical services, a patient and a healthcare provider determine the need for a medical service and the healthcare provider contacts the insurance company to request preauthorization for that service. After the healthcare provider has treated the patient, a claim for payment of those services is submitted to the patient&#39;s insurance company. The claim must be submitted on the appropriate claims submission form. Insurance companies require that a completed claim form be submitted with all of the requisite information, such as, patient&#39;s name and address, diagnosis, date of service, procedures or services provided utilizing standardized codes and descriptions (e.g., CPT codes), cost of service, etc. 
     If the claim does not meet the specified criteria of the insurer, the insurance company can deny or make only partial payment to the healthcare provider. The healthcare provider receives an explanation of payment outlining what was paid on the claim or the reasons why the claim was denied or partially paid. A description of the provider&#39;s right to appeal may be included in the correspondence from the insurance company. While the patient typically does not receive notification why a healthcare provider&#39;s request for payment for a medical service has been denied, she is often billed by the healthcare provider when the insurance company does not pay. In many instances, claims are denied because information is missing from the claim form or the insurance company has the wrong information about healthcare provider or patient. 
     The healthcare provider can appeal claim denial or payment reduction on behalf of the patient or itself. If the healthcare provider is appealing on behalf of a patient for a medical service request denial, the process is generally the same as an appeal lodged by the patient. For example, the healthcare provider can lodge an appeal when a confusing or incorrect explanation of benefit (“EOB”) is received from the insurance company. An EOB is typically sent to the healthcare provider by the insurer explaining the payment(s) for submitted claims. The EOB is generally coded by the insurer&#39;s claims processing system and lists the reason(s) for the claims denial or partial payment. However, these EOB codes are not standardized in the healthcare industry. 
     Typically, the healthcare provider initiates an appeal by contacting the claims department of the appropriate insurance company. Generally, the healthcare provider has the right to appeal if and when: the appeal is on behalf of the patient for any reason; the insurer has denied the patient coverage for a service based on medical necessity; and a medical service claim payment has been denied, partially denied and/or paid incorrectly. 
     Patients generally submit a health insurance appeal for denial of a request for a medical service or claims payment. Once the patient and healthcare provider determine the need for a medical service, the healthcare provider contacts the insurer to request pre-authorization for that service. Upon receipt, the insurer initiates a pre-certification review to determine if the medical service request will be approved. The insurance company must send notification of any denial to the patient and the requesting healthcare provider and informs the patient that she has the right to appeal the decision. The insurer is required by law to outline the appeal process. 
     One of the most common reasons a medical service request is denied is because the insurer concludes that the medical service request is “not medically necessary.” This typically occurs because the healthcare provider and/or patient has not provided all of the necessary information or the treatment provided does not meet the insurers guidelines. Most insurers utilize nationally recognized standards of medical care and criteria to guide their medical decision-making. A medical director, who is a licensed physician, reviews all medical service request denials that are based on “medical necessity.” When a patient or healthcare provider appeals a medical service request denial and provides additional or missing information, the majority of denials are overturned and the request for service approved. 
     Also, appeals can be triggered when patients receive a bill from their healthcare providers, who have not received reimbursement from the insurance company for services already provided. Typically, healthcare providers are not legally or contractually permitted to bill patients for more than the co-payment or deductible. However, often correspondence from a collection agency is the first notification for patients that the insurance company has denied their healthcare providers&#39; service claim. 
     The appeal determination is made and the patient and/or healthcare provider is notified of the decision. If the denial is overturned, the patient is allowed to receive the requested service(s) and/or the healthcare provider is paid. If the appeal is upheld or affirmed, the patient and/or healthcare provider is then notified of the procedures for a secondary review. Typically, the third and final level of appeal includes external reviewers. 
     Many businesses or industries have regulated or contractual appeals or grievance process allowing a user or a customer the opportunity to challenge the denial of a service or benefit. However, these appeals or grievance processes uniformly suffer from lack of automation and standardization. Instead, the appeal or dispute is submitted in paper form and without the benefit of standardized nomenclature or data format. Accordingly, the claimed invention proceeds upon the desirability of providing an automated process for managing such appeals. 
     OBJECTS AND SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
     Hospitals and other healthcare providers typically have a high amount of receivables and lose a significant amount of money on non-collected or denied claims because of the administrative burden and expense of filing an appeal. Many healthcare providers are not familiar with the appropriate procedure for appealing a payment denial and simply resubmit the bill. Furthermore, many healthcare providers typically have a limited number of staff members for billing and appealing issues, and do not have sufficient resources for following up on these filed appeals. 
     Therefore, it is an object of the claimed invention to provide a method and system for managing the appeal process to reduce the number of claims denials for healthcare providers before they occur. 
     It is another object of the claimed invention to provide a method and system as aforesaid that assists healthcare providers in recovering unpaid claims by significantly increasing the success rate of appeals for denied claims. In accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention, the method and system provides a staged approach for managing appeals. 
     In accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention, a method and system processes and manages the healthcare or managed care denials for hospitals and other healthcare providers (hereinafter “healthcare provider”). The claimed invention allows an investigator to efficiently investigate and appeal a denial of an insurance claim, and ensure that approved appeals are timely paid to the healthcare provider by the insurer. 
     In accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention, the method and system develops a customized denial reduction program for healthcare providers on an individual basis based on the healthcare provider&#39;s appeal process and records, thereby reducing the number of denials received and minimizing the appeals burden on the healthcare provider. 
     Upon receiving denial notification and information transfer, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention, an appeals coordinator can utilize the inventive system to evaluate the denial and associated information. The inventive system and method provides a recommendation to the appeals coordinator whether to pursue an appeal. If a decision is made to pursue the appeal, the inventive system generates and transmits an appeal overturn letter, a completed appeal form and supporting documents to the insurer. The supporting documents can include medical records, financial information and call tracking information. The inventive system has tools to enable the appeals coordinator to monitor the appeal process to ensure timely processing and completion of the appeal. Subsequent action is then determined by the inventive system based on the appeals decision matrix. Different steps can be employed by the inventive system depending on the outcome of the appeal, i.e., denied, partially denied, or approved. 
     In accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention, the system for managing appeals and denials comprises a database. The database comprises a primary data entry portal, data selection tool, activity tracking tool, report generation and analysis tool, maintenance tool and data warehouse. 
     In accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention, the method for managing insurance claim denials comprises the steps of reviewing a denial of claim from an insurer and a patient medical record received from a healthcare provider to determine if an appeal should be filed for said denial; preparing an appeal to the denial comprising an appeals overturn letter and supporting document; submitting the appeal to the insurer; monitoring the progress of the appeal; and processing appeal determination received from the insurer. 
     In accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention, the system for managing insurance claim denials comprises a nurse review module, an appeals coordinating module, a managed cared organization (MCO) process management module and an appeal decision matrix module. The nurse review module reviews a denial of claim from an insurer and a patient medical record received from a healthcare provider to determine if an appeal should be filed for the denial, and prepares an appeal to the denial comprising an appeals overturn letter and supporting document. The appeals coordinating module for submitting the appeal to the insurer. The MCO process management module monitors the progress of the appeal. The appeal decision matrix module processes appeal determination received from the insurer. 
     In accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention, the computer readable medium comprises code for managing insurance claim denials. The code comprises instructions for reviewing a denial of claim from an insurer and a patient medical record received from a healthcare provider to determine if an appeal should be filed for the denial; preparing an appeal to the denial comprising an appeals overturn letter and supporting document; submitting the appeal to the insurer; monitoring the progress of the appeal; and processing appeal determination received from the insurer. 
     In accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention, a web-based method for managing insurance claim denials for a plurality of healthcare providers comprises comparing a claim denial of a healthcare provider to a denial status grid comprising a list of denial types and an appeal success rate for each denial type on the list by a review module of a server. The review module provides a recommendation to proceed with or to decline to proceed with an appeal of the claim denial based on the comparison and a patient record associated with said claim denial. The method further comprises the steps of determining to proceed with the appeal of the claim denial is based on the recommendation; preparing an appeals package comprising an appeals overturn letter and a supporting document in support of the appeal to said claim denial by the nurse review module of said server; and submitting the appeals package to an insurer associated with the claim denial by an appeals coordinating module of the server over said communications network to file the appeal of the claim denial. The process management module of the server monitors the progress of said appeal filed with said insurer by a process management module of said server. The appeals decision matrix module of the server processes an appeal determination received from the insurer, and determines whether to file a second level appeal when the appeal is denied or partially denied. 
     In accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention, a web-based computer system for managing insurance claim denials over a communications network comprises a hardware server for managing claimed denials for a plurality of healthcare providers, a database and a plurality of processor based client devices. The hardware server comprises a review module, an appeals coordinating module, a managed care organization (MCO) process management module and an appeal decision matrix module. The review module compares a claim denial of a healthcare provider to a denial status grid comprising a list of denial types and an appeal success rate for each denial type on the list, provides a recommendation to proceed with or to decline with an appeal of the claim denial based on the comparison and a patient record associated with the claim denial. A determination to proceed with the appeal of the claim denial is based on the recommendation. The review module prepares an appeals package comprising an appeals overturn letter and a supporting document in support of the appeal to the claim denial. The appeals coordinating module submits the appeals package to an insurer associated with the claim denial over the communications network to file the appeal of the claim denial. The MCO process management module monitors the progress of the appeal filed with the insurer. The appeal decision matrix module processes appeal determination received from the insurer and determines whether to file a second level appeal when the appeal is denied or partially denied. The database for storing the claim denial, the patient medical record, the appeals package and the appeal determination. The processor based client devices for accessing the server over the communications network. Each client device associated with a health care provider. 
     Various other objects of the claimed invention will become readily apparent from the ensuing detailed description and from the accompanying figures. 
    
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES 
       The following detailed description, given by way of example, and not intended to limit the claimed invention solely thereto, will best be understood in conjunction with the accompanying drawings in which like components or features in the various figures are represent by like reference numbers: 
         FIG. 1  illustrates the denial notification and information transfer process in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention; 
         FIG. 2  illustrates the appeals processing and submission process in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention; 
         FIG. 3  illustrates the process for managing insurer&#39;s appeals in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention; 
         FIG. 4  illustrates the appeals decision matrix in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention; 
         FIG. 5  illustrates the claims process determination matrix in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention; 
         FIG. 6  illustrates the process for managing processing and payment of appeals in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention; 
         FIG. 7  illustrates the process for reducing denials in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention; 
         FIG. 8  illustrates the process for improving the appeals and claims processing in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention; and 
         FIG. 9  illustrates a schematic diagram of the system in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention. 
     
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EMBODIMENTS 
     With reference to the figures, exemplary embodiments of the invention are now described. These exemplary embodiments illustrate principles of the invention and should not be construed as limiting the scope of the invention. 
     The term “healthcare providers” as used herein includes but is not limited to hospitals, doctors, dentists, medical clinics, dental clinics, physical therapists and other healthcare providers. 
     A denial notification is the process whereby the healthcare provider receives notification of a denied claim from the insurer. Most state insurance regulations require that the denial notification be in writing. Information transfer is the process by which denial notification is received along with other information in the healthcare provider&#39;s possession, such as patient&#39;s medical records, that are necessary for a successful appeal. 
     As exemplary shown in  FIG. 9 , the processor based server  100  implementing the claimed system and method is connected to one or more processor based client devices  110  (e.g., personal computers, laptops, tablets, smart phones, servers and the like) associated with one or more healthcare providers and one or more processor based devices  130  (e.g., computers, laptops, tablets, smart phones, servers and the like) associated with one or more insurers over a communications network, e.g., Internet. In accordance with an embodiment of the claimed invention, as shown in  FIG. 9 , the server  100  comprises an appeals coordinating module  200 , a nurse review module  250 , a MCO process management module  300 , an appeals decision matrix module  400 , a claims payment decision matrix module  500 , a claims payment management module  520 , a denial reduction program module  600  and a process feedback and improvement module  650 . Preferably, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention, the system and method provides web-based computer system and method for managing insurance claim denials for a plurality of healthcare providers. 
     In accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention, as shown in  FIG. 9 , the system comprises a database  150  comprising a primary data entry portal, data selection tool, activity tracking tool, report generation and analysis tool, maintenance tool and data warehouse. The data entry tool of the primary data entry portal in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention can collect these type of information: names, unique identifiers, healthcare provider&#39;s name, facility names, diagnosis code, claim amount, denied amount, units/days denied, denial letter date, healthcare provider denial receipt date, system denial receipt date, system denial mail date, admission date, discharge date, regulatory compliance met, denial type, bed type (intermediate care unit (ICU), critical care unit (CCU), medical/surgery (medsurg)), amount overturned and days/unit overturned. 
     In accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention, the activity tracking tool can collect activity tracking data such as, activity type (appeals activity, claims activity), activity subtype (level one appeal), actual event (denial mailed, Managed Cared Organization (MCO) called, etc.) and outcome tracking (approved, upheld, partial, etc.). 
     The report generation and analysis tool has the following exemplary capabilities for managerial reports: all appeals, appeals by MCO, hospital, physician, diagnosis or another combination of previously collected data, all open appeals, all closed appeals, all upheld appeals, all overturned appeals, all open appeals no response and all approved not paid. 
     In accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention, information reports can be used to analyze long term trends and develop initiatives to improve the appeals process, such as, denial types by MCO, physician denials by diagnosis, MCO denial by diagnosis and timeliness data. 
     In accordance with an embodiment of the claimed invention, information reports can be generated for clients to update them on the status of their denials. These report can include information on the status of each appeal or appeals in aggregate, such as, all appeals status (mailed, responded, approved, partial, denied, paid), aggregate appeals status by payor, aggregate approvals and partials and aggregate denial upheld. 
     Actionable reports can be used to develop plans for clients to reduce denials. In accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention, these actionable reports can include the following: denials by healthcare provider or physician, denials by insurer, denials by diagnosis, denials by denial type and insurer overturn activity. 
     In accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention, the maintenance tool is used to maintain the database and change the components of the database that are visible to the user and data warehouse is a repository where the data components are stored. 
     In accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention, the denial notification and information transfer process is now described in conjunction with  FIG. 1 . Once the healthcare provider receives a denial notification from the insurer, the client device  110  associated with the healthcare provider (or hereinafter the healthcare provider  110 ) sends a copy of the denial notification to an appeals coordinating module  200  so it can be reviewed by the appeals coordinator at step  1100 . Preferably, the healthcare provider  110  also sends patient&#39;s medical records to the appeals coordinating module  200 . The appeals coordinator can instruct the appeals coordinating module  200  to send a message or alert a nurse reviewer to conduct an initial review of the received denial notification. Additionally, the appeals coordinating module  200  sends electronic copies of the denial notification and the patient&#39;s medical record to a nurse review module  250 . Alternatively, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention, the health care provider can outsource the appeal process to a third-party service provider such that the denial notifications from the insurer can be sent directly to the third party service provider. In such an embodiment, the healthcare provider  110  can access the third party&#39;s server  100  over the communications network to monitor the status of the claim denial. 
     The nurse reviewer utilizes the nurse review module  250  to review and compare the denial notification and the medical records to a denial status grid at step  1200 . In accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention, the denial status grid comprises a list of denial types and the appeals success rates associated with these denial types. Based on the comparison, the nurse review module  250  provides a recommendation to the nurse reviewer whether to proceed with the appeal process or to decline the appeal. The nurse reviewer can make her decision to proceed with the appeals process based on the recommendation of the nurse review module  250  or can independently make her decision ignoring the nurse review module&#39;s recommendation. 
     If a decision is made to decline the appeal at step  1200 , all the available information is entered into a database at step  1300  and no further work is done on that particular appeal. 
     However, if a decision is made to continue with the appeal at step  1200 , the healthcare provider  110  is contacted and medical records are obtained at step  1400 . Appeals coordinator utilizes the appeals coordinating module  200  to process the medical records and other documentation to ensure all needed documentation is claimed and arranged in a logical and orderly fashion using documentation check list template at step  1500 . Once the documentation has been appropriately processed and organized, appeals are prioritized based on completion time frame, and primary demographic data is entered into the database. Appeals documentation and medical records are then scanned onto server  100  and the appeals coordinating module  200  notifies a head nurse reviewer of the assignments, preferably by phone or email, at step  1600 . 
     In accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention, the appeals processing and submission process is now described in conjunction with  FIG. 2 . The inventive system generates the necessary documents for an appeal the information received from the healthcare provider  110 . Typically, the appeals documents comprises a letter stating why the healthcare provider should be paid and supporting documents, such as medical records, financial information, call tracking information, etc. The head nurse reviewer using the nurse review module  250  assigns a nurse reviewer to each individual appeal based on the nurse reviewer&#39;s area of expertise and prior experience at step  2000 . 
     The nurse reviewer in conjunction with the nurse review module  250  evaluates the medical records and all other available information at step  2010 . Based on the review and the recommendation of the nurse review module  250 , the nurse reviewer makes a decision to continue with the appeal or end the appeals process at step  2010 . If nurse reviewer decides to end the process, the nurse review module  250  stores any additional information, including the specific reason for ending the appeal into the database at step  2020  and closes out the appeal. However, if nurse reviewer decides to continue the appeal, the nurse review module  250  and/or the nurse reviewer develops an appeal overturn letter at step  2030 . Additionally, the nurse review module  250  and/or the nurse reviewer determines whether a physician input is required to conduct additional research to support the denial overturn argument at step  2030 . If the inquiry of step  2030  is answered in the negative at step  2030  (that is, a physician input is not required), the nurse review module  250  completes the appeal and enters the information into the database at step  2040 . 
     However, if the inquiry of step  2030  is answered in the affirmative (that is a physician input is required), the nurse review module  250  indicates that a specific research needed in appeal overturn letter. The nurse review module  250  assigns the appeal to a physician review folder and notifies the head reviewer requesting a physician review. Before the appeal is assigned to a physician for her input, a second nurse reviewer reviews the appeal and its corresponding supporting document. The second nurse reviewer either completes the appeal document or confirms the need for physician review and obtains a physician&#39;s input at step  2060 . Once the appeal is completed, the nurse reviewer makes a secondary entry in the database at step  2040 . Appeal specific information, including the appeal type, physician name, diagnosis, admission and discharge date, appeals completion date are all entered into the database. 
     The nurse review module  250  sends the completed appeal package, including the appeal overturn letter, to the appeals coordinating module  200  so it can be reviewed by the appeals coordinator. At the instruction of the appeals coordinator, the appeals coordinating module  200  submits the completed appeal package to the insurer  130  via a secure delivery system with delivery confirmation at step  2050 . The database tracks the date of delivery to insurer  130 . If a confirmation of receipt from the insurer is not received within a predetermined time period, the appeals coordinating module  200  resubmits the completed appeal package to the insurer  130 . 
     In accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention, the process for managing the appeal process with the insurer is now described in conjunction with  FIG. 3 . The MCO process management module  300  monitors the timeliness and completion of each appeal by using the activity tracking system of the database at step  3000 . The MCO process management module  300  can identify any appeals that have been with the insurer  130  for over 45 days and notify the appeal coordinator of any such delayed appeal at step  3010 . The appeals coordinator can call the appeals customer service line of the insurer  130  to expedite the completion of such delayed appeals at step  3010 . A response to an appeal received within 45 days, the MCO process management module  300  sends such received appeal to the appeals decision matrix module  400  at step  3020 . 
     Additionally, the MCO process management module  300  uses the activity tracking system of the database to identify any appeals that have been with the insurer  130  for over 60 days and notifies the appeals coordinator of any such delayed appeal at step  3030 . The appeals coordinator contacts a chief nurse reviewer who can call the insurer&#39;s appeal supervisor to expedite the completion of such delayed appeals at step  3030 . A response to an appeal received within 60 days, the MCO process management module  300  sends such received appeal to the appeals decision matrix module  400  at step  3040 . 
     A response to an appeal received within 90 days, the MCO process management module  300  sends such received appeal to the appeals decision matrix module  400  at step  3060 . The MCO process management module  300  uses the activity tracking system of the database to identify any appeal that have been with the insurer  130  for over 90 days and notifies the appeals coordinator of any such delayed appeal at step  3050 . The appeals coordinator then contacts a medical director who can call the insurer&#39;s medical director or other senior management personnel to expedite the completion of such delayed appeals at step  3050 . 
     If a response to delayed appeal is finally received after contacting the insurer&#39;s medical director, the MCO process management module  300  sends such received appeal to the appeals decision matrix module  400  at step  3070 . However, if no response is received from the insurer  130  after contacting the insurer&#39;s medical director, then the medical director contacts the state insurance regulators at step  3080 . 
     Upon receipt of the appeals determination from the insurer  130 , the appeals decision matrix module  400  enters the appeals determination and appeals timeliness information into the database and reviews the received appeals determination. 
     In accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention, the appeals decision matrix process is now described in conjunction with  FIG. 4 . The appeals decision matrix module  400  reviews the appeal determination in accordance with the appeals decision matrix comprising a plurality of variables, including but not limited to the identity of the insurer, claims processing history of the insurer, appeals determination, state regulations, etc. at step  4000 . If appeal is denied, a decision is made either to accept the denial and close the appeal or complete a second level appeal to challenge the denial at step  4010 . If the appeal is closed, the appeals decision matrix module  400  enters a closure date and the reason for closure into database at step  4030 . However, if a decision is made to proceed with a second level appeal, the appeals decision matrix module  400  initiates a process mirroring the initial appeal process at step  4020 . Alternatively, if a decision is made to call the insurer  130 , then the appeals decision matrix module  400  communicates the appeal information and reason for calling to medical director, who then makes the call to the insurer&#39;s medical director. 
     If the appeal is partially denied, a decision is made whether to accept the partial denial and proceed to claims payment, proceed with a second level appeal to challenge the appeal or call the insurer&#39;s medical director to challenge the appeal at step  4040 . If partial denial of the appeal is accepted, then the appeals decision matrix module  400  moves the appeal to a claims payment decision matrix module  420  at step  4060 . If the decision is made to proceed with a second level appeal, the appeal decision matrix module  400  sends the appeal to the appeals processing and submission process at step  4050 , as described herein with steps  2000 - 2060 . Alternatively, if a decision is made to call insurer&#39;s medical director, then appeal information and reason for calling are communicated to medical director, who then makes the call to the insurer&#39;s medical director. However, if appeal is approved, it is moved to a claims payment decision matrix module  500  at step  4070 . 
     In accordance an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention, the claims determination process and the process for managing processing and payment of appeals are described in conjunction with  FIGS. 5 and 6 . The claims payment decision matrix module  500  and claims payment management module  550  monitor the approved appeal to insure timely payment from the insurer  130  to the healthcare provider  110 . The claims payment decision matrix module  500  and claims payment management module  550  ensure that the insurer  130  has a clean claim for each approved appeal, as well as tracking the timeliness of payment of each approved appeal. Most states have a 30 day claims payment rule that insurers must abide by. 
     In accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention, the claims payment decision matrix module  500  processes the approved appeals and determines subsequent actions based on the stored information in the database, including but not limited to a past payment history of the insurer  130 , the approved amount, insurer&#39;s regulatory entity, insurer&#39;s policies and procedures, and the timeliness of the claim processing and payment at step  5000 . The claims payment decision matrix module  500  can take no action, send a clean universal billing form (UB) or a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) form, send a UB form and an itemized bill, send a UB form and an itemized bill by certified mail. If the claims payment decision matrix module  500  determines that the insurer never pays the appealed claims timely at step  5010 , then the claims payment decision matrix module  500  re-bills by preparing and sending a clean UB form and an itemized bill by certified mail to the insurer  130  at step  5020 . 
     However, if the inquiry at step  5010  is answered in the negative, then the claims payment decision matrix module  500  determines if the insurer  130  sometimes pays the appeal claims timely at step  5030 . If the inquiry at step  5030  is answered in the affirmative, then the claims payment decision matrix module  500  re-bills by preparing and sending a clean UB form and an itemized bill to the insurer  130  at step  5040 . However, if the inquiry at step  5030  is answered in the negative, then the claims payment decision matrix module  500  determines if the insurer  130  often pays the appeal claims timely at step  5050 . 
     If the inquiry at step  5050  is answered in the affirmative, then the claims payment decision matrix module  500  re-bills by preparing and sending a clean UB form to the insurer  130  at step  5060 . However, if the inquiry at step  5050  is answered in the negative, then the claims payment decision matrix module  500  determines if the insurer  130  always pays the appeal claims timely at step  5070 . If the inquiry at step  5070  is answered in the affirmative, then the claims payment decision matrix module  500  does not re-bill the insurer  130  at step  5080 . However, if the inquiry at step  5070  is answered in the negative, then these cases have already been addressed in steps  5000 - 5060  and the claims payment decision matrix module  500  does nothing. 
     Turning now to  FIG. 6 , the appeals coordinator utilizes the claims payment management module  550  and the database to identify any appealed claims not paid within 45 days at step  6000 . If the inquiry at step  6000  is answered in the negative, the claims payment management module  550  closes the appeal and payment is recorded or booked at step  6010 . However, if the inquiry at step  6000  is answered in the affirmative, the claims payment management module  550  notifies the appeal coordinator, who calls the insurer  130  and confirms clean claim on file, approval on file and confirms payment date at step  6020 . If any information is missing, appeal coordinator sends the required information to the insurer  130 . 
     If a claim is identified as being not paid within 60 days, the claims payment management module  550  notifies the appeals coordinator who contacts the chief nurse reviewer or the head nurse at step  6040 . The head nurse calls the insurer&#39;s appeal supervisor to expedite the payment. However, if a claim is identified as being paid within 60 days, the claims payment management module  500  closes the appeal and payment is recorded or booked at step  6030 . 
     If a claim is identified as being not paid within 90 days, the claims payment management module  550  notifies the appeals coordinator who contacts the medical director at step  6060 . The medical director calls the insurer&#39;s medical director to expedite the payment. However, if a claim is identified as being paid within 90 days, the claims payment management module  550  closes the appeal and payment is recorded or booked at step  6050 . 
     If a payment is finally received after contacting the insurer&#39;s medical director, the claims payment management module  550  closes the appeal and payment is recorded or booked at step  6070 . However, if no payment is received from the insurer  130  after contacting the insurer&#39;s medical director, then the medical director contacts the state insurance regulators at step  6080 . 
     In accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention, the claimed system and method aids healthcare providers in recovering on unpaid claims by significantly increasing the success rate of appeals for claims that are denied. The claimed system and method comprises a denial reduction program module  600  that enables the system provider and/or operator to develop a customized denial reduction program for healthcare providers  110  on an individual basis, in order to reduce the number of denials received and reduce the appeals burden on the healthcare provider  110 . The database captures all information related to each denial received. By trending and analyzing this information stored in the database, the denial reduction program module  600  can develop a customized denial reduction program for individual healthcare providers based on the particular needs of the provider. The program is implemented with the healthcare provider and results are monitored with by the claimed invention. 
     In accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention, the medical director and data analysts utilize the denial reduction program module  600  and the database to develop and generate denial reports in conjunction with the healthcare provider  110 , nurse reviewer and appeals coordinator at step  7000 . The medical director utilizes the denial reports to examine and analyze the denials by insurer, physician, denial type and/or diagnosis. The data is analyzed to identify key drivers of denial activity. Medical director and healthcare provider representatives review the data and strategies that are developed by the denial reduction program module  600  to decrease denials, which are implemented and monitored by the system. The system provides regular reports, including but not limited to status reports, to the healthcare provider  110 . It is appreciated that the system provider and/or healthcare provider provides focused education and seminar to healthcare provider&#39;s staff to successfully implement the program. The process feedback and improvement module  650  reviews and analyzes the denials by physician and diagnosis to determine potential intervention points to reduce such denials at step  7010 . The medical director and healthcare provider representatives review the data and analysis and utilize the denial reduction program module  600  to develop and implement direct, indirect, prospective, concurrent and retroactive interventional programs to reduce the incidence of such denials at step  7020 . The process feedback and improvement module  650  measures developed program results and provides feedback, e.g., reports, to the medical director and the healthcare provider  110  at step  7030 . 
     In accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention, the denial reduction program module  600  reviews and analyzes the denials by service type and/or timeliness of service provided to determine potential intervention points and/or identify appeals process inefficiencies at step  7040 . The medical director and healthcare provider representatives review the data and analysis and utilize the process feedback and improvement module  650  to identify appeals process inefficiencies in terms of dollars resulting from such denials and develop programs to improve process efficiencies at step  7050 . The process feedback and improvement module  650  performs a cost benefit analysis of implementing such process improvement programs at step  7060 . 
     In accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention, the denial reduction program module  600  reviews administrative denials and performs root cause analysis on such denials at step  7070 . The medical director and healthcare provider representatives review the data and analysis and utilize the denial reduction program module  600  to develop and implement programs/strategies to minimize administrative denials at step  7070 . 
     In accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention,  FIG. 8  illustrates the process of managing appeals by the inventive system and method. The system and method identifies appeals process inefficiencies and intervention points to reduce potential denials as depicted in  FIG. 7 . The system reviews process specific data and develops changes to improve the appeals process. The changes are then deployed at best site and the outcomes are measured over time. Those changes with positive outcomes are then deployed through the entire enterprise. 
     Although the claimed invention and its advantages have been described in detail, it should be understood that various changes, substitutions and alterations can be made herein without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention as defined by the appended claims. Moreover, the scope of the present application is not intended to be limited to the particular embodiments of the process, machine, manufacture, and composition of matter, means, methods and steps described herein. As one of ordinary skill in the art will readily appreciate from the disclosure of the claimed invention, processes, machines, manufacture, compositions of matter, means, methods, or steps, presently existing or later to be developed that perform substantially the same function or achieve substantially the same result as the corresponding embodiments described herein may be utilized according to the claimed invention. Accordingly, the appended claims are intended to include within their scope such processes, machines, manufacture, compositions of matter, means, methods, or steps.