15 Sep In-House vs. Outsourced Billing: What Is Best for an OBGYN Practice?
Almost every OBGYN practice runs a predictable schedule of prenatal visits, annual exams, ultrasounds, and surgeries. Behind all this is the billing team responsible for getting all those services paid. However, as a practice grows, the number of claims and, by extension, claim denials also increases. At this point, every small practice owner faces the same question: should they manage medical billing in-house, where the staff knows the providers and the patients, or should they outsource medical billing services for small practices so that specialists can help them scale at a faster rate? According to CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services), accurate medical billing and coding are foundational to appropriate reimbursement, and errors in claims submission — whether from inexperience, staff turnover, or payer-specific rule gaps — represent one of the most common and preventable sources of revenue loss for small practices.
[caption id="attachment_76015" align="aligncenter" width="500"] Photo by Kindel Media[/caption]
Shani Vaknine[/caption]
Shani Vaknine, Ph.D. candidate
Brain and Behavioral Sciences
The Hebrew University
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Response: We’ve long known that maternal stress during pregnancy can affect her baby’s development, but the molecular mechanisms behind this remained unclear. In our study, we explored how psychosocial stress experienced by the mother in late pregnancy influences tiny molecular fragments in the newborn’s blood. These fragments, called transfer RNA fragments or tRFs, were considered for many years to be disposable, but have recently been shown to have important biological functions.
Dr. Ådén[/caption]
Ulrika Ådén PhD
Professor of Neonatology
Department of Women's and
Children's Health Karolinska
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Response: Children born preterm are at higher risk of cognitive impairment during childhood and later in life. However, an important unresolved question is whether these impairments primarily reflect genetic susceptibility or are driven by the biological consequences of being born too early. Cognitive development is known to have a strong heritable component (~70 %), and previous studies have attempted to disentangle genetic and environmental contributions, for example through sibling comparison designs. Although informative, such approaches have inherent limitations.
In this study, we aimed to investigate long-term cognitive outcomes across a range of gestational age groups including very preterm, moderately preterm, late preterm, and early term, compared to children born full term. Importantly, we accounted for genetic influences as well as a range of potential confounding factors, including prenatal risks and child-specific factors. This approach provides a more nuanced understanding of the extent to which cognitive outcomes associated with preterm birth reflect biological versus inherited risk.
