Reducing Denial Rates Through Better Documentation

Reducing Denial Rates Through Better Documentation

Overview of Medical Coding and Its Role in Healthcare Payment Systems

In the complex landscape of healthcare, accurate and comprehensive documentation stands as a cornerstone for operational efficiency and financial stability. Healthcare staffing agencies help facilities maintain competitive workforce strategies staffing agency for medical assistant activity-based costing. One critical area where this is profoundly evident is in reducing denial rates by enhancing the quality of documentation. Denial rates, which refer to the percentage of claims rejected or denied by payers, can significantly impact a healthcare facility's revenue cycle management. Therefore, improving documentation practices is not just an administrative necessity but a strategic imperative to ensure fiscal health and patient care continuity.


The importance of accurate documentation cannot be overstated. It serves as the primary communication tool between healthcare providers and payers, conveying the medical necessity and details of services rendered. When documentation lacks precision or completeness, it can lead to misunderstandings or insufficient evidence for claim approval. This often results in denials that require time-consuming appeals processes or worse, forfeited reimbursements. By ensuring that every detail-from diagnosis codes to treatment narratives-is recorded with accuracy, healthcare providers can preemptively address potential reasons for denial.


Comprehensive documentation goes hand in hand with accuracy; it provides a holistic view of the patient's clinical journey. This includes not only what was done but why it was necessary within the context of each patient's unique circumstances. Such thoroughness ensures that insurance companies have all necessary information at their fingertips to process claims without delay or dispute. Moreover, comprehensive records facilitate better patient outcomes by promoting continuity of care-ensuring that any provider accessing the record has a complete understanding of previous treatments and decisions.


To achieve these standards, healthcare organizations must invest in training programs for their staff focused on best practices in medical documentation. Clinicians should be well-versed in using standardized terminologies and coding systems such as ICD-10 and CPT codes accurately to describe diagnoses and procedures performed. Furthermore, leveraging technology through electronic health records (EHRs) can streamline this process by providing tools for real-time data entry verification and decision support.


In addition to reducing denial rates, robust documentation practices also enhance audit readiness and compliance with regulatory requirements such as those mandated by Medicare and Medicaid. In an era where legal scrutiny over billing practices is intensifying, having detailed patient records acts as a safeguard against allegations of fraud or malpractice.


Ultimately, fostering a culture that prioritizes meticulous documentation contributes significantly to both financial sustainability and high-quality patient care delivery. As healthcare evolves with increasing complexity in treatments and payer requirements, steadfast attention to documenting each facet of patient interaction is more crucial than ever before.


Thus, by emphasizing accurate and comprehensive documentation within healthcare settings, institutions not only improve their bottom line through reduced denial rates but also fortify trust with patients who rely on them for reliable care-a testament to commitment beyond mere transactions towards genuine healing partnerships rooted in transparency and accountability.

Key Differences Between Fee for Service and Value Based Care Payment Models —

In the complex world of healthcare, claim denials are a perennial challenge that can significantly impact the financial stability of medical practices. Among the myriad reasons for these denials, inadequate documentation stands out as a common culprit. Understanding and addressing this issue is essential for reducing denial rates and ensuring smooth operational workflows.


One primary cause of claim denials related to documentation is incomplete or missing information. In many cases, healthcare providers fail to include necessary details such as patient demographics, insurance information, or specific treatment codes. This oversight can lead to automatic rejections by insurers who require comprehensive data to process claims accurately. Ensuring that all fields in patient records are meticulously completed can mitigate this risk significantly.


Another frequent issue is the lack of specificity in clinical documentation. Medical procedures and diagnoses must be recorded with precise language and coding to align with insurance requirements. Vague descriptions or incorrect codes can result in discrepancies between what was performed and what was billed, leading insurers to deny claims due to perceived inaccuracies or inconsistencies.


Timeliness is also a critical factor in documentation-related denials. Delays in submitting claims often arise from procrastination or inefficient processes within medical offices. Many insurance companies have strict timelines for claim submissions, and missing these deadlines can lead to outright rejections. Implementing streamlined workflows and leveraging technology solutions such as electronic health records (EHR) systems can help ensure timely submission and reduce errors associated with manual entry.


Moreover, adherence to payer-specific guidelines is crucial for minimizing denials due to documentation errors. Each insurance company may have unique requirements concerning how services should be documented for reimbursement purposes. Failing to comply with these guidelines not only increases the likelihood of denial but also necessitates time-consuming appeals processes that could otherwise be avoided through proactive measures.


Improving provider education on proper documentation practices represents another pivotal strategy in reducing denial rates. Continuous training ensures that staff members stay updated on regulatory changes, coding updates, and best practices for accurate record-keeping. Encouraging communication between clinicians and billing teams fosters an environment where questions about appropriate documentation standards can be promptly addressed.


In conclusion, while claim denials due to inadequate documentation pose significant challenges for healthcare providers, they also present opportunities for improvement through targeted strategies aimed at enhancing accuracy and efficiency in record-keeping practices. By focusing on complete data capture, specificity in clinical notes, timely submissions, compliance with payer rules, and ongoing education initiatives-healthcare organizations can effectively reduce their denial rates while simultaneously fostering better relationships with patients by maintaining transparency throughout billing processes.

Impact of Fee for Service on Medical Coding Practices

Improving documentation practices is a pivotal strategy for healthcare providers aiming to reduce denial rates. In the complex landscape of medical billing and reimbursements, precise and comprehensive documentation is not just beneficial-it is essential. Denials can arise from various factors, including coding errors, incomplete information, or discrepancies in patient data. Therefore, implementing effective documentation strategies can significantly enhance the accuracy of claims and lead to better financial outcomes for healthcare institutions.


One fundamental approach is the adoption of standardized documentation templates. These templates help ensure consistency across all entries and make it easier for healthcare professionals to capture necessary details without omitting critical information. By having a structured format that prompts for specific information, clinicians can provide thorough accounts of patient interactions, which are crucial during the billing process.


Training programs for staff also play an integral role in improving documentation quality. Regular workshops and seminars on current best practices in medical coding and billing equip healthcare professionals with up-to-date knowledge about regulatory requirements and industry standards. This continuous education helps prevent errors that could lead to claim denials while fostering a culture of meticulous attention to detail.


Moreover, leveraging technology through electronic health records (EHR) systems enhances documentation efficiency and accuracy. EHRs streamline data entry processes by integrating clinical workflows with billing operations, thereby reducing the likelihood of human error. Advanced features such as automated reminders or alerts can prompt practitioners to complete missing information before finalizing documentation.


Collaboration among healthcare teams further supports robust documentation practices. Encouraging open communication between clinicians, coders, and billing specialists ensures that any ambiguities or potential issues in patient records are addressed promptly. Such collaborative efforts enable a holistic understanding of each patient's case, minimizing oversights that could result in claim denials.


Finally, regular audits of medical records are instrumental in identifying patterns or recurring issues in documentation that might contribute to higher denial rates. Through these audits, organizations can pinpoint specific areas for improvement and implement corrective measures swiftly.


In conclusion, reducing denial rates through better documentation involves a multifaceted approach encompassing standardized templates, ongoing training programs, technological advancements like EHRs, cross-departmental collaboration, and routine audits. By investing time and resources into enhancing these areas, healthcare providers can improve their financial performance while ensuring compliance with payer requirements-a win-win scenario that ultimately benefits both providers and patients alike.

Impact of Fee for Service on Medical Coding Practices

How Value Based Care Influences Medical Coding and Documentation Requirements

In the ever-evolving landscape of healthcare, the role of technology in enhancing documentation accuracy has become a cornerstone for reducing denial rates. As medical institutions strive to provide optimal patient care while maintaining financial viability, accurate documentation emerges as a critical factor in achieving these goals. Technology, with its transformative capabilities, offers a promising solution to the longstanding challenges associated with manual documentation processes.


At the heart of accurate documentation lies the need for precise and comprehensive records that reflect patient encounters and treatments accurately. Errors or omissions in these records can lead to significant issues, including claim denials by insurance companies. Such denials not only disrupt cash flow but also burden administrative staff with additional work as they attempt to rectify inaccuracies and resubmit claims. Herein lies the potential of technology: to streamline documentation processes, thereby minimizing errors and improving overall accuracy.


Electronic Health Records (EHRs) represent one of the most significant advancements in this domain. By digitizing patient information, EHRs eliminate many of the pitfalls associated with paper-based systems, such as illegible handwriting and misplaced files. They offer structured templates that guide healthcare providers through each step of patient interaction, ensuring that no critical information is overlooked. Moreover, EHRs enable real-time updates and access across multiple departments, fostering better communication and coordination among healthcare teams.


Artificial Intelligence (AI) further enhances documentation accuracy by automating repetitive tasks and providing predictive insights. AI-powered tools can scrutinize vast amounts of data quickly and identify patterns or anomalies that might escape human attention. For instance, natural language processing algorithms can analyze clinical notes to ensure they meet billing requirements before submission. This proactive approach reduces the likelihood of claim denials due to incomplete or inaccurate information.


Moreover, decision support systems integrated within EHR platforms offer recommendations based on best practices and clinical guidelines. These systems assist healthcare providers in making informed decisions while documenting encounters, thus aligning clinical actions with reimbursement criteria set forth by payers.


The integration of mobile technology also plays a pivotal role in enhancing documentation accuracy. Mobile applications allow healthcare professionals to document care at the point-of-service using smartphones or tablets. This immediacy reduces reliance on memory recall for later entries-an often cited source of error-and ensures that documentation is contemporaneous with service delivery.


However, it is essential to acknowledge potential challenges accompanying technological integration into healthcare settings. Data security remains a paramount concern as digital records become increasingly vulnerable to breaches and cyberattacks. Ensuring compliance with regulations such as HIPAA is crucial to safeguarding patient confidentiality while reaping technological benefits.


In conclusion, technology holds immense promise in enhancing documentation accuracy within healthcare settings-a key strategy for reducing denial rates through better documentation practices. By leveraging EHRs, AI-driven tools, decision support systems, and mobile applications effectively; medical institutions can create robust frameworks that enhance both clinical outcomes and financial performance simultaneously while fostering an environment where precision becomes routine rather than exception

Challenges and Benefits of Transitioning from Fee for Service to Value Based Care in Medical Coding

In the complex world of healthcare, the accuracy and completeness of documentation play a critical role in ensuring that providers receive timely and appropriate reimbursement for their services. Denial rates, which refer to claims that are rejected by insurers for various reasons, remain a significant challenge for healthcare organizations. One of the most effective strategies for reducing denial rates is through better documentation, which requires targeted training and education for both healthcare providers and medical coders.


Healthcare providers are on the frontline of patient care and play a vital role in documenting each encounter accurately. Their notes form the basis upon which medical coders assign codes that determine billing and reimbursement. However, without proper training, even well-intentioned providers can make documentation errors or omissions that lead to claim denials. Education programs designed specifically for healthcare professionals can emphasize the importance of comprehensive medical records and highlight common pitfalls that result in denials.


For instance, workshops or seminars can focus on teaching providers how to document diagnoses with precision, ensure all relevant patient information is included, and understand payer-specific requirements. Providers should be encouraged to adopt a mindset where thorough documentation is viewed not merely as an administrative task but as an integral part of patient care. This approach not only enhances compliance but also supports continuity of care by providing future caregivers with complete patient histories.


On the other hand, medical coders must be adept at interpreting clinical notes accurately to assign appropriate codes based on current coding guidelines such as ICD-10-CM/PCS or CPT codes. Coders who are well-trained in these systems can bridge potential gaps between clinical language used by providers and coding requirements demanded by payers. Regular training sessions on updates in coding standards or payer policies help ensure coders remain proficient in translating clinical documentation into billable codes without errors.


Furthermore, fostering communication between healthcare providers and coders is essential. Creating opportunities for collaboration allows both parties to clarify ambiguities before claims are submitted. For example, implementing regular review meetings where difficult cases are discussed can improve understanding and reduce preventable denials.


Investing in ongoing education tailored towards enhancing documentation skills also has long-term economic benefits for healthcare institutions. Fewer denied claims mean reduced administrative costs associated with appeals processes and increased revenue from successful reimbursements. Moreover, it leads to improved relationships with patients who might otherwise face delays or complications due to unresolved billing issues.


Ultimately, reducing denial rates through better documentation hinges on cultivating a culture of continuous learning among both healthcare providers and coders. By equipping them with the necessary tools and knowledge through comprehensive training programs, organizations can significantly lower denial rates while simultaneously improving patient outcomes and financial health-a win-win scenario for all stakeholders involved in the intricate web of modern healthcare delivery systems.

Case Studies Highlighting the Effects of Different Payment Models on Medical Coding Efficiency

In the ever-evolving landscape of healthcare, reducing denial rates has become a critical focus for many organizations striving to optimize their revenue cycle management. One of the most effective strategies in achieving this goal is through better documentation, backed by robust monitoring and auditing processes for continued improvement.


Denials often stem from inadequate or inaccurate documentation, which can lead to significant financial losses for healthcare providers. To mitigate these issues, it is essential to establish a comprehensive documentation process that ensures all necessary information is accurately recorded and easily accessible. This process should be integrated into the daily workflow of healthcare professionals, emphasizing the importance of precise and thorough record-keeping at every stage of patient care.


However, implementing a strong documentation system alone is not enough. Continuous monitoring and auditing are vital components in maintaining and improving the quality of documentation over time. Monitoring involves regularly reviewing current practices to identify any gaps or inconsistencies in documentation that could lead to denials. This proactive approach allows healthcare organizations to address potential issues before they result in denied claims.


Auditing complements monitoring by providing an in-depth analysis of past performance. Through systematic audits, organizations can evaluate the effectiveness of their documentation practices and determine areas that require improvement. Audits should be conducted regularly and involve a review of both clinical and administrative records to ensure comprehensive compliance with regulatory standards and payer requirements.


Moreover, feedback from monitoring and auditing processes should be used constructively to foster a culture of continuous improvement within the organization. Healthcare providers must be open to adapting their practices based on audit findings and industry trends. Regular training sessions can equip staff with up-to-date knowledge on best practices for documentation, ultimately leading to more accurate claims submissions.


By focusing on enhancing documentation through meticulous monitoring and auditing, healthcare organizations can significantly reduce denial rates. This not only improves financial outcomes but also enhances overall operational efficiency and patient satisfaction. As such, investing in these processes is not just about immediate gains; it's about building a resilient system capable of adapting to future challenges in the dynamic field of healthcare.


In conclusion, reducing denial rates through better documentation requires more than just initial improvements; it demands ongoing commitment through rigorous monitoring and auditing processes. By embracing this continuous cycle of evaluation and refinement, healthcare providers can ensure sustainable improvements that benefit both their financial health and the quality of care they deliver.

Future Trends: The Evolving Role of Medical Coders in a Value-Based Healthcare Environment

In the complex world of healthcare, one persistent challenge that providers face is managing claim denials. Denial rates can significantly impact a healthcare organization's revenue cycle, adding unnecessary burdens to administrative staff and potentially affecting patient care. However, through strategic improvements in documentation practices, many organizations have successfully reduced their denial rates, enhancing both operational efficiency and financial stability. Here are some insightful case studies and examples illustrating how better documentation has played a pivotal role in achieving this goal.


Consider the case of St. Mary's Hospital, a mid-sized community hospital that was struggling with high denial rates primarily due to insufficient and inaccurate documentation. By implementing a comprehensive training program for their clinical staff focused on accurate record-keeping and coding practices, St. Mary's witnessed a remarkable turnaround. The program emphasized the importance of precise language in clinical notes and the necessity for complete documentation of all patient interactions and treatments.


In addition to training, St. Mary's invested in advanced electronic health records (EHR) systems with built-in prompts that guided clinicians through the documentation process, ensuring completeness before submission for billing. Within six months of these initiatives, the hospital reported a 30% reduction in claim denial rates. This improvement not only eased administrative workloads but also accelerated cash flow by reducing delays caused by resubmissions and appeals.


Another compelling example is seen in Sunshine Health Group, an integrated health system comprising multiple clinics and specialty services. They faced frequent denials related to medical necessity due to vague or incomplete clinical justifications in patient files. To combat this issue, Sunshine Health Group adopted a multidisciplinary approach involving collaboration between physicians, coders, and billing specialists.


The organization established regular workshops where teams reviewed denied claims together to identify patterns and areas needing improvement in their documentation processes. As part of this collaborative effort, they developed standardized templates tailored for specific diagnoses that ensured all necessary information was captured consistently across different departments.


This initiative paid off handsomely as it fostered an environment where clinicians became more aware of how their notes impacted billing outcomes directly. Consequently, Sunshine Health Group achieved a 40% reduction in denial rates within the first year after implementing these changes.


Lastly, we look at Riverbend Medical Center's innovative use of technology to enhance documentation accuracy-a crucial factor in reducing denials related to coding errors or missing information. By integrating natural language processing (NLP) tools into their EHR systems, Riverbend enabled automatic extraction of relevant data from physician notes directly into billing codes.


This seamless integration minimized human error associated with manual data entry while allowing physicians more time to focus on patient care rather than administrative tasks. The adoption of such cutting-edge technology resulted not only in significant reductions-upwards of 50%-in denials but also improved overall clinician satisfaction due to decreased clerical burdens.


These case studies highlight that while challenges around claim denials are multifaceted; targeted interventions centered on improving documentation can yield substantial benefits for healthcare organizations looking to optimize their revenue cycles effectively. Whether through enhanced training programs like at St. Mary's Hospital or leveraging technology solutions as demonstrated by Riverbend Medical Center-improving documentation is indeed a powerful strategy for reducing denial rates successfully across diverse healthcare settings.

This article is about accounting at the entity level. For national accounting, see System of National Accounts.
  • v
  • t
  • e
Part of a series on
Accounting
Early 19th-century German ledger
  • Constant purchasing power
  • Historical cost
  • Management
  • Tax
Major types
  • Audit
  • Budget
  • Cost
  • Forensic
  • Financial
  • Fund
  • Governmental
  • Management
  • Social
  • Tax
Key concepts
  • Accounting period
  • Accrual
  • Constant purchasing power
  • Economic entity
  • Fair value
  • Going concern
  • Historical cost
  • Matching principle
  • Materiality
  • Revenue recognition
  • Unit of account
Selected accounts
  • Assets
  • Cash
  • Cost of goods sold
  • Depreciation / Amortization (business)
  • Equity
  • Expenses
  • Goodwill
  • Liabilities
  • Profit
  • Revenue
Accounting standards
  • Generally-accepted principles
  • Generally-accepted auditing standards
  • Convergence
  • International Financial Reporting Standards
  • International Standards on Auditing
  • Management Accounting Principles
Financial statements
  • Annual report
  • Balance sheet
  • Cash-flow
  • Equity
  • Income
  • Management discussion
  • Notes to the financial statements
Bookkeeping
  • Bank reconciliation
  • Debits and credits
  • Double-entry system
  • FIFO and LIFO
  • Journal
  • Ledger / General ledger
  • Trial balance
Auditing
  • Financial
  • Internal
  • Firms
  • Report
  • Sarbanes–Oxley Act
People and organizations
  • Accountants
  • Accounting organizations
  • Luca Pacioli
Development
  • History
  • Research
  • Positive accounting
  • Sarbanes–Oxley Act
Misconduct
  • Creative
  • Earnings management
  • Error account
  • Hollywood
  • Off-balance-sheet
  • Two sets of books
 

A chart of accounts (COA) is a list of financial accounts and reference numbers, grouped into categories, such as assets, liabilities, equity, revenue and expenses, and used for recording transactions in the organization's general ledger. Accounts may be associated with an identifier (account number) and a caption or header and are coded by account type. In computerized accounting systems with computable quantity accounting, the accounts can have a quantity measure definition. Account numbers may consist of numerical, alphabetic, or alpha-numeric characters, although in many computerized environments, like the SIE format, only numerical identifiers are allowed. The structure and headings of accounts should assist in consistent posting of transactions. Each nominal ledger account is unique, which allows its ledger to be located. The accounts are typically arranged in the order of the customary appearance of accounts in the financial statements: balance sheet accounts followed by profit and loss accounts.

The charts of accounts can be picked from a standard chart of accounts, like the BAS in Sweden. In some countries, charts of accounts are defined by the accountant from a standard general layouts or as regulated by law. However, in most countries it is entirely up to each accountant to design the chart of accounts.

Administration

[edit]

A chart of accounts is usually created for an organization by an accountant and available for use by the bookkeeper.

Each account in the chart of accounts is typically assigned a name. Accounts may also be assigned a unique account number by which the account can be identified. Account numbers may be structured to suit the needs of an organization, such as digit/s representing a division of the company, a department, the type of account, etc. The first digit might, for example, signify the type of account (asset, liability, etc.). In accounting software, using the account number may be a more rapid way to post to an account, and allows accounts to be presented in numeric order rather than alphabetic order.

Accounts are used in the generation of a trial balance, a list of the active general ledger accounts with their respective debit and credit balances used to test the completeness of a set of accounts: if the debit and credit totals match, the indication is that the accounts are being correctly maintained. However, a balanced trial balance does not guarantee that there are no errors in the individual ledger entries.

Accounts may be added to the chart of accounts as needed; they would not generally be removed, especially if any transaction had been posted to the account or if there is a non-zero balance.

International aspects and accounting information interchange – Charts of accounts and tax harmonisation issues

[edit]

While some countries define standard national charts of accounts (for example France and Germany) others such as the United States and United Kingdom do not. In the European Union, most countries codify a national GAAP (consistent with the EU accounting directives) and also require IFRS (as outlined by the IAS regulation) for public companies. The former often define a chart of accounts while the latter does not. The European Commission has spent a great deal of effort on administrative tax harmonisation, and this harmonization is the main focus of the latest version of the EU VAT directive, which aims to achieve better harmonization and support electronic trade documents, such as electronic invoices used in cross border trade, especially within the European Union Value Added Tax Area. However, since national GAAPs often serve as the basis for determining income tax, and since income tax law is reserved for the member states, no single uniform EU chart of accounts exists.

Types of accounts

[edit]

There are various types of accounts:[1]

  1. Asset accounts are used to identify assets. An asset is a present right of an entity to an economic benefit (CF [2] E16). Common examples of asset accounts include cash on hand, cash in bank, receivables, inventory, pre-paid expenses, land, structures, equipment, patents, copyrights, licenses, etc. Goodwill is different from other assets in that it is not used in operations and cannot be sold, licensed or otherwise transferred.
  2. Liability accounts are used to recognize liabilities. A liability is a present obligation of an entity to transfer an economic benefit (CF E37). Common examples of liability accounts include accounts payable, deferred revenue, bank loans, bonds payable and lease obligations.
  3. Equity accounts are used to recognize ownership equity. The terms equity [for profit enterprise] or net assets [not-for-profit enterprise] represent the residual interest in the assets of an entity that remains after deducting its liabilities (CF E61). Equity accounts include common stock, paid-in capital, and retained earnings. Equity accounts can vary depending where an entity is domiciled as some jurisdictions require entities to keep various sub-classifications of equity in separate accounts.
  4. Revenue accounts are used to recognize revenue. Revenues are inflows or other enhancements of assets of an entity or settlements of its liabilities (or a combination of both) from delivering or producing goods, rendering services, or carrying out other activities (CF E80).
  5. Expense accounts are used to recognize expenses. Expenses are outflows or other using up of assets of an entity or incurrences of its liabilities (or a combination of both) from delivering or producing goods, rendering services, or carrying out other activities (CF E81).
  6. Gain accounts are used to recognize gains. Gains are increases in equity (net assets) from transactions and other events and circumstances affecting an entity except those that result from revenues or investments by owners (CF E82). In practice, changes in the market value of assets (positive) or liabilities (negative) are recognized as gains while, for example, interest, dividends, rent or royalties received are recognized as other revenue.
  7. Loss accounts are used to recognize losses. Losses are decreases in equity (net assets) from transactions and other events and circumstances affecting an entity except those that result from expenses or distributions to owners (CF E83). In practice, changes in the market value of assets (negative) or liabilities (positive) are recognized as losses while, for example, interest or charitable contributions are recognized as other expenses.
  8. Income is the term generally used when referring to revenue and gains together. A separate term for the aggregation of expenses and losses does not exist.
  9. Contra-accounts are accounts with negative balances that offset other balance sheet accounts. Examples are accumulated depreciation (offset against fixed assets), and the allowance for bad debts (offset against accounts receivable). Deferred interest is also offset against receivables rather than being classified as a liability. Contra accounts are also often referred to as adjustments or adjusting accounts.

Example Chart of Accounts

[edit]

Sample Chart of Accounts

[edit]

A chart of accounts compatible with IFRS and US GAAP includes balance sheet (assets, liabilities and equity) and the profit and loss (revenue, expenses, gains and losses) classifications. If used by a consolidated or combined entity, it also includes separate classifications for intercompany transactions and balances.

Account Number—Account Title[3]—Balance: Debit (Dr) / Credit (Cr)

1.0.0 Assets (Dr)

  • 1.1.0 Cash And Financial Assets (Dr)
    • 1.1.1 Cash and Cash Equivalents (Dr)
    • 1.1.2 Financial Assets (Investments) (Dr)
    • 1.1.3 Restricted Cash and Financial Assets (Dr)
    • 1.1.4 Additional Financial Assets and Investments (Dr)
  • 1.2.0 Receivables And Contracts (Dr)
    • 1.2.1 Accounts, Notes And Loans Receivable (Dr)
    • 1.2.2 Contracts (Dr)
    • 1.2.3 Nontrade And Other Receivables (Dr)
  • 1.3.0 Inventory (Dr)
    • 1.3.1 Merchandise (Dr)
    • 1.3.2 Raw Material, Parts And Supplies (Dr)
    • 1.3.3 Work In Process (Dr)
    • 1.3.4 Finished Goods (Dr)
    • 1.3.5 Other Inventory (Dr)
  • 1.4.0 Accruals And Additional Assets (Dr)
    • 1.4.1 Prepaid Expense (Dr)
    • 1.4.2 Accrued Income (Dr)
    • 1.4.3 Additional Assets (Dr)
  • 1.5.0 Property, Plant And Equipment (Dr)
    • 1.5.1 Land And Land Improvements (Dr)
    • 1.5.2 Buildings, Structures And Improvements (Dr)
    • 1.5.3 Machinery And Equipment (Dr)
    • 1.5.4 Furniture And Fixtures (Dr)
    • 1.5.5 Right Of Use Assets (Classified As PP&E) (Dr)
    • 1.5.6 Other Property, Plant And Equipment (Dr)
    • 1.5.7 Construction In Progress (Dr)
  • 1.6.0 Property, Plant And Equipment Accumulated Depreciation And Depletion (Cr)
    • 1.6.1 Accumulated Depletion (Cr)
    • 1.6.2 Accumulated Depreciation (Cr)
  • 1.7.0 Intangible Assets (Excluding Goodwill) (Dr)
    • 1.7.1 Intellectual Property (Dr)
    • 1.7.2 Computer Software (Dr)
    • 1.7.3 Trade And Distribution Assets (Dr)
    • 1.7.4 Contracts And Rights (Dr)
    • 1.7.5 Right Of Use Assets (Dr)
    • 1.7.6 Crypto Assets (Dr)
    • 1.7.7 Other Intangible Assets (Dr)
    • 1.7.8 Acquisition In Progress (Dr)
  • 1.8.0 Intangible Assets Accumulated Amortization (Cr)
  • 1.9.0 Goodwill (Dr)

2.0.0 Liabilities (Cr)

  • 2.1.0 Payables (Cr)
    • 2.1.1 Trade Payables (Cr)
    • 2.1.2 Dividends Payable (Cr)
    • 2.1.3 Interest Payable (Cr)
    • 2.1.4 Other Payables (Cr)
  • 2.2.0 Accruals And Other Liabilities (Cr)
    • 2.2.1 Accrued Expenses (Including Payroll) (Cr)
    • 2.2.2 Deferred Income (Unearned Revenue) (Cr)
    • 2.2.3 Accrued Taxes (Other Than Payroll) (Cr)
    • 2.2.4 Other (Non-Financial) Liabilities (Cr)
  • 2.3.0 Financial Liabilities (Cr)
    • 2.3.1 Notes Payable (Cr)
    • 2.3.2 Loans Payable (Cr)
    • 2.3.3 Bonds (Debentures) (Cr)
    • 2.3.4 Other Debts And Borrowings (Cr)
    • 2.3.5 Lease Obligations (Cr)
    • 2.3.6 Derivative Financial Liabilities (Cr)
    • 2.3.7 Other Financial Liabilities (Cr)
  • 2.4.0 Provisions (Contingencies) (Cr)
    • 2.4.1 Customer Related Provisions (Cr)
    • 2.4.2 Ligation And Regulatory Provisions (Cr)
    • 2.4.3 Other Provisions (Cr)

3.0.0 Equity (Cr)

  • 3.1.0 Owners Equity (Attributable To Owners Of Parent) (Cr)
    • 3.1.1 Equity At par (Issued Capital) (Cr)
    • 3.1.2 Additional Paid-in Capital (Cr)
  • 3.2.0 Retained Earnings (Dr / Cr)
    • 3.2.1 Appropriated (Cr)
    • 3.2.2 Unappropriated (Cr)
    • 3.2.3 Deficit (Dr)
    • 3.2.4 In Suspense Zero
  • 3.3.0 Accumulated OCI (Dr / Cr)
    • 3.3.1 Exchange Differences On Translation (Dr / Cr)
    • 3.3.2 Cash Flow Hedges (Dr / Cr)
    • 3.3.3 Gains And Losses On Remeasuring Available-For-Sale Investments (Dr / Cr)
    • 3.3.4 Remeasurements Of Defined Benefit Plans (Dr / Cr)
    • 3.3.5 Revaluation Surplus (IFRS only) (Cr)
  • 3.4.0 Other Equity Items (Dr / Cr)
    • 3.4.1 ESOP Related Items (Dr / Cr)
    • 3.4.2 Subscribed Stock Receivables (Dr)
    • 3.4.3 Treasury Stock (Not Extinguished) (Dr)
    • 3.4.4 Miscellaneous Equity (Cr)
  • 3.5.0 Noncontrolling (Minority) Interest (Cr)

4.0.0 Revenue (Cr)

  • 4.1.0 Recognized Point Of Time (Cr)
    • 4.1.1 Goods (Cr)
    • 4.1.2 Services (Cr)
  • 4.2.0 Recognized Over Time (Cr)
    • 4.2.1 Products (Cr)
    • 4.2.2 Services (Cr)
  • 4.3.0 Adjustments (Dr)
    • 4.3.1 Variable Consideration (Dr)
    • 4.3.2 Consideration Paid (Payable) To Customers (Dr)
    • 4.3.3 Other Adjustments (Dr)

5.0.0 Expenses (Dr)

  • 5.1.0 Expenses Classified By Nature (Dr)
    • 5.1.1 Merchandise, Material, Parts And Supplies (Dr)
    • 5.1.2 Employee Benefits (Dr)
    • 5.1.3 Services (Dr)
    • 5.1.4 Rent, Depreciation, Amortization And Depletion (Dr)
    • 5.1.5 Increase (Decrease) In Inventories Of Finished Goods And Work In Progress (Dr / Cr)
    • 5.1.6 Other Work Performed By Entity And Capitalized (Cr)
  • 5.2.0 Expenses Classified By Function (Dr)
    • 5.2.1 Cost Of Sales (Dr)
    • 5.2.2 Selling, General And Administrative (Dr)
    • 5.2.3 Credit Loss (Reversal) On Receivables (Dr / Cr)

6.0.0 Other (Non-Operating) Income And Expenses (Dr / Cr)

  • 6.1.0 Other Revenue And Expenses (Dr / Cr)
    • 6.1.1 Other Revenue (Cr)
    • 6.1.2 Other Expenses (Dr)
  • 6.2.0 Gains And Losses (Dr / Cr)
    • 6.2.1 Foreign Currency Transaction Gain (Loss) (Dr / Cr)
    • 6.2.2 Gain (Loss) On Investments (Dr / Cr)
    • 6.2.3 Gain (Loss) On Derivatives (Dr / Cr)
    • 6.2.4 Crypto Asset Gain (Loss) (Dr / Cr)
    • 6.2.5 Gain (Loss) On Disposal Of Assets (Dr / Cr)
    • 6.2.6 Debt Related Gain (Loss) (Dr / Cr)
    • 6.2.7 Impairment Loss (Dr)
    • 6.2.8 Other Gains And Losses (Dr / Cr)
  • 6.3.0 Taxes (Other Than Income And Payroll) And Fees (Dr)
    • 6.3.1 Real Estate Taxes And Insurance (Dr)
    • 6.3.2 Highway (Road) Taxes And Tolls (Dr)
    • 6.3.3 Direct Tax And License Fees (Dr)
    • 6.3.4 Excise And Sales Taxes (Dr)
    • 6.3.5 Customs Fees And Duties (Not Classified As Sales Or Excise) (Dr)
    • 6.3.6 Non-Deductible VAT (GST) (Dr)
    • 6.3.7 General Insurance Expense (Dr)
    • 6.3.8 Administrative Fees (Revenue Stamps) (Dr)
    • 6.3.9 Fines And Penalties (Dr)
    • 6.3.10 Miscellaneous Taxes (Dr)
    • 6.3.11 Other Taxes And Fees (Dr)
  • 6.4.0 Income Tax Expense (Benefit) (Dr / Cr)

7.0.0 Intercompany And Related Party Accounts (Dr / Cr)

  • 7.1.0 Intercompany And Related Party Assets (Dr)
    • 7.1.1 Intercompany Balances (Eliminated In Consolidation) (Dr)
    • 7.1.2 Related Party Balances (Reported Or Disclosed) (Dr)
    • 7.1.3 Intercompany Investments (Dr)
  • 7.2.0 Intercompany And Related Party Liabilities (Cr)
    • 7.2.1 Intercompany Balances (Eliminated In Consolidation) (Cr)
    • 7.2.2 Related Party Balances (Reported Or Disclosed) (Cr)
  • 7.3.0 Intercompany And Related Party Income And Expense (Dr / Cr)
    • 7.3.1 Intercompany And Related Party Income (Cr)
    • 7.3.2 Intercompany And Related Party Expenses (Dr)
    • 7.3.3 Income (Loss) From Equity Method Investments (Dr)

French GAAP Chart of Accounts Layout

[edit]

The French generally accepted accounting principles chart of accounts layout is used in France, Belgium, Spain and many francophone countries. The use of the French GAAP chart of accounts layout (but not the detailed accounts) is stated in French law.

In France, liabilities and equity are seen as negative assets and not account types in themselves, just balance accounts.

Profit and Loss Accounts

[edit]
  • Class 6 Costs Accounts
  • Class 7 Revenues Accounts

Special Accounts

[edit]
  • Class 8 Special Accounts

Spanish GAAP Chart of Accounts Layout

[edit]

The Spanish generally accepted accounting principles chart of accounts layout is used in Spain. It is very similar to the French layout.

  • Class 3 Stocks Accounts
  • Class 4 Third-Party Accounts
  • Class 5 Bank & Cash

Profit and Loss Accounts

[edit]
  • Class 6 Costs Accounts
  • Class 7 Revenues Accounts

Special Accounts

[edit]
  • Class 8 Expenses Recognised In Equity
  • Class 9 Income Recognised In Equity

Swedish BAS chart of accounts layout

[edit]

The complete Swedish BAS standard chart of about 1250 accounts is also available in English and German texts in a printed publication from the non-profit branch BAS organisation. BAS is a private organisation originally created by the Swedish industry and today owned by a set general interest groups like, several industry organisations, several government authorities (incl GAAP and the revenue service), the Church of Sweden, the audits and accountants organisation and SIE (file format) organisation, as close as consensus possibly (a Swedish way of working without legal demands).

The BAS chart use is not legally required in Sweden. However, it is politically anchored and so well developed that it is commonly used.

The BAS chart is not an SIS national standard because SIS is organised on pay documentation and nobody in the computer world are paying for standard documents[citation needed]. BAS were SIS standard but left. SIS Swedish Standards Institute is the Swedish domestic member of ISO. This is not a government procurement problem due to the fact all significant governmental authorities are significant members/part owners of BAS.

An almost identical chart of accounts is used in Norway.

Balance Sheet Accounts

[edit]
Asset accounts
[edit]
  • 1150 Buildings and land assets
  • 1200 Inventories, Machines
  • 1210 Alterna
  • 1220 IngDirect Savings
  • 1230 Tangerine chequing
  • 1240 Account Receivable
Liability accounts
[edit]
  • 2300 Loans
  • 2400 Short debts (payables 2440)
  • 2500 Income Tax Payable
  • 2600 VAT Payable
  • 2700 Wages Payable
  • 2800-2999 other liabilities

Profit & Loss accounts

[edit]
Revenue accounts
[edit]
  • 3000 Revenue Accounts
Expense accounts
[edit]
  • 4000 Costs directly related to revenues
  • 5000-7999 General expense Accounts
  • 8000 Financial Accounts
  • 9000 Contra-accounts

See also

[edit]
  • General ledger
  • Financial statement
  • BAS Swedish standard chart of accounts, Version in English
  • French generally accepted accounting principles
  • Metadata, or "data about data." The Chart of accounts is in itself Metadata. It's a classification scheme that enables (intelligent) aggregation of individual financial transactions into coherent, and hopefully informative, financial statements.
  • XBRL eXtensible Business Reporting Language, and the related, required encoding (or "tagging") of public company financial statement data in the U.S. by the Securities and Exchange Commission. In those instances The Chart of accounts must support the required encodings.
  • Regulation S-X, Regulation S-K and Proxy statement In the U.S. the Securities and Exchange Commission prescribes and requires numerous quarterly and annual financial statement disclosures. A large portion of the required disclosures are numeric and must be supported by the Chart of accounts.

References

[edit]
  1. ^ "Understanding Asset, Liability, Equity, Income and Expenses | Part-3 Accounting Series". YouTube. 15 April 2022.
  2. ^ "Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts No. 8, Chapter 4".
  3. ^ "Chart of Accounts | IFRS and US GAAP".
 

 

For other uses of "Compliance", see Compliance (disambiguation).
"Compliance monitoring" redirects here. For third party monitoring services, see Managed service provider § Compliance monitoring.

In general, compliance means conforming to a rule, such as a specification, policy, standard or law. Compliance has traditionally been explained by reference to deterrence theory, according to which punishing a behavior will decrease the violations both by the wrongdoer (specific deterrence) and by others (general deterrence). This view has been supported by economic theory, which has framed punishment in terms of costs and has explained compliance in terms of a cost-benefit equilibrium (Becker 1968). However, psychological research on motivation provides an alternative view: granting rewards (Deci, Koestner and Ryan, 1999) or imposing fines (Gneezy Rustichini 2000) for a certain behavior is a form of extrinsic motivation that weakens intrinsic motivation and ultimately undermines compliance.

Regulatory compliance describes the goal that organizations aspire to achieve in their efforts to ensure that they are aware of and take steps to comply with relevant laws, policies, and regulations.[1] Due to the increasing number of regulations and need for operational transparency, organizations are increasingly adopting the use of consolidated and harmonized sets of compliance controls.[2] This approach is used to ensure that all necessary governance requirements can be met without the unnecessary duplication of effort and activity from resources.

Regulations and accrediting organizations vary among fields, with examples such as PCI-DSS and GLBA in the financial industry, FISMA for U.S. federal agencies, HACCP for the food and beverage industry, and the Joint Commission and HIPAA in healthcare. In some cases other compliance frameworks (such as COBIT) or even standards (NIST) inform on how to comply with regulations.

Some organizations keep compliance data—all data belonging or pertaining to the enterprise or included in the law, which can be used for the purpose of implementing or validating compliance—in a separate store for meeting reporting requirements. Compliance software is increasingly being implemented to help companies manage their compliance data more efficiently. This store may include calculations, data transfers, and audit trails.[3][4]

Standards

[edit]

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and its ISO 37301:2021 (which deprecates ISO 19600:2014) standard is one of the primary international standards for how businesses handle regulatory compliance, providing a reminder of how compliance and risk should operate together, as "colleagues" sharing a common framework with some nuances to account for their differences. The ISO also produces international standards such as ISO/IEC 27002 to help organizations meet regulatory compliance with their security management and assurance best practices.[5]

Some local or international specialized organizations such as the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) also develop standards and regulation codes. They thereby provide a wide range of rules and directives to ensure compliance of the products to safety, security or design standards.[6]

By nation

[edit]

Regulatory compliance varies not only by industry but often by location. The financial, research, and pharmaceutical regulatory structures in one country, for example, may be similar but with particularly different nuances in another country. These similarities and differences are often a product "of reactions to the changing objectives and requirements in different countries, industries, and policy contexts".[7]

Australia

[edit]

Australia's major financial services regulators of deposits, insurance, and superannuation include the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA), the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA), the Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC), and the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC).[8] These regulators help to ensure financial institutes meet their promises, that transactional information is well documented, and that competition is fair while protecting consumers. The APRA in particular deals with superannuation and its regulation, including new regulations requiring trustees of superannuation funds to demonstrate to APRA that they have adequate resources (human, technology and financial), risk management systems, and appropriate skills and expertise to manage the superannuation fund, with individuals running them being "fit and proper".[8]

Other key regulators in Australia include the Australian Communications & Media Authority (ACMA) for broadcasting, the internet, and communications;[9] the Clean Energy Regulator for "monitoring, facilitating and enforcing compliance with" energy and carbon emission schemes;[10] and the Therapeutic Goods Administration for drugs, devices, and biologics;[11]

Australian organisations seeking to remain compliant with various regulations may turn to AS ISO 19600:2015 (which supersedes AS 3806-2006). This standard helps organisations with compliance management, placing "emphasis on the organisational elements that are required to support compliance" while also recognizing the need for continual improvement.[12][13]

Canada

[edit]

In Canada, federal regulation of deposits, insurance, and superannuation is governed by two independent bodies: the OSFI through the Bank Act, and FINTRAC, mandated by the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, 2001 (PCMLTFA).[14][15] These groups protect consumers, regulate how risk is controlled and managed, and investigate illegal action such as money laundering and terrorist financing.[14][15] On a provincial level, each province maintain individuals laws and agencies. Unlike any other major federation, Canada does not have a securities regulatory authority at the federal government level. The provincial and territorial regulators work together to coordinate and harmonize regulation of the Canadian capital markets through the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA).[16]

Other key regulators in Canada include the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) for food safety, animal health, and plant health; Health Canada for public health; and Environment and Climate Change Canada for environment and sustainable energy.[17]

Canadian organizations seeking to remain compliant with various regulations may turn to ISO 19600:2014, an international compliance standard that "provides guidance for establishing, developing, implementing, evaluating, maintaining and improving an effective and responsive compliance management system within an organization".[18] For more industry specific guidance, e.g., financial institutions, Canada's E-13 Regulatory Compliance Management provides specific compliance risk management tactics.[19]

The Netherlands

[edit]

The financial sector in the Netherlands is heavily regulated. The Dutch Central Bank (De Nederlandsche Bank N.V.) is the prudential regulator while the Netherlands Authority for Financial Markets (AFM) is the regulator for behavioral supervision of financial institutions and markets. A common definition of compliance is:'Observance of external (international and national) laws and regulations, as well as internal norms and procedures, to protect the integrity of the organization, its management and employees with the aim of preventing and controlling risks and the possible damage resulting from these compliance and integrity risks'.[20]

India

[edit]

In India, compliance regulation takes place across three strata: Central, State, and Local regulation. India veers towards central regulation, especially of financial organizations and foreign funds. Compliance regulations vary based on the industry segment in addition to the geographical mix. Most regulation comes in the following broad categories: economic regulation, regulation in the public interest, and environmental regulation.[21] India has also been characterized by poor compliance - reports suggest that only around 65% of companies are fully compliant to norms.[22]

Singapore

[edit]

The Monetary Authority of Singapore is Singapore's central bank and financial regulatory authority. It administers the various statutes pertaining to money, banking, insurance, securities and the financial sector in general, as well as currency issuance.[23]

United Kingdom

[edit]

There is considerable regulation in the United Kingdom, some of which is derived from European Union legislation. Various areas are policed by different bodies, such as the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA),[24] Environment Agency,[25] Scottish Environment Protection Agency,[26] Information Commissioner's Office,[27] Care Quality Commission,[28] and others: see List of regulators in the United Kingdom.

Important compliance issues for all organizations large and small include the Data Protection Act 2018[29] and, for the public sector, Freedom of Information Act 2000.[30]

Financial compliance

[edit]

The U.K. Corporate Governance Code (formerly the Combined Code) is issued by the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) and "sets standards of good practice in relation to board leadership and effectiveness, remuneration, accountability, and relations with shareholders".[31] All companies with a Premium Listing of equity shares in the U.K. are required under the Listing Rules to report on how they have applied the Combined Code in their annual report and accounts.[32] (The Codes are therefore most similar to the U.S.' Sarbanes–Oxley Act.)

The U.K.'s regulatory framework requires that all its publicly listed companies should provide specific content in the core financial statements that must appear in a yearly report, including balance sheet, comprehensive income statement, and statement of changes in equity, as well as cash flow statement as required under international accounting standards.[33] It further demonstrates the relationship that subsists among shareholders, management, and the independent audit teams. Financial statements must be prepared using a particular set of rules and regulations hence the rationale behind allowing the companies to apply the provisions of company law, international financial reporting standards (IFRS), as well as the U.K. stock exchange rules as directed by the FCA.[34] It is also possible that shareholders may not understand the figures as presented in the various financial statements, hence it is critical that the board should provide notes on accounting policies as well as other explanatory notes to help them understand the report better.

Challenges

[edit]

Data retention is a part of regulatory compliance that is proving to be a challenge in many instances. The security that comes from compliance with industry regulations can seem contrary to maintaining user privacy. Data retention laws and regulations ask data owners and other service providers to retain extensive records of user activity beyond the time necessary for normal business operations. These requirements have been called into question by privacy rights advocates.[35]

Compliance in this area is becoming very difficult. Laws like the CAN-SPAM Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act in the U.S. require that businesses give people the right to be forgotten.[36][37] In other words, they must remove individuals from marketing lists if it is requested, tell them when and why they might share personal information with a third party, or at least ask permission before sharing that data. Now, with new laws coming out that demand longer data retention despite the individual’s desires, it can create some real difficulties.

Money laundering and terrorist financing pose significant threats to the integrity of the financial system and national security. To combat these threats, the EU has adopted a risk-based approach to Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) that relies on cooperation and coordination between EU and national authorities. In this context, risk-based regulation refers to the approach of identifying and assessing potential risks of money laundering and terrorist financing and implementing regulatory measures proportional to those risks. However, the shared enforcement powers between EU and national authorities in the implementation and enforcement of AML/CFT regulations can create legal implications and challenges. The potential for inconsistent application of AML regulations across different jurisdictions can create regulatory arbitrage and undermine the effectiveness of AML efforts. Additionally, a lack of clear and consistent legal frameworks defining the roles and responsibilities of EU and national authorities in AML enforcement can lead to situations where accountability is difficult to establish.

United States

[edit]

Corporate scandals and breakdowns such as the Enron case of reputational risk in 2001 have increased calls for stronger compliance and regulations, particularly for publicly listed companies.[1] The most significant recent statutory changes in this context have been the Sarbanes–Oxley Act developed by two U.S. congressmen, Senator Paul Sarbanes and Representative Michael Oxley in 2002 which defined significantly tighter personal responsibility of corporate top management for the accuracy of reported financial statements; and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is an agency of the United States Department of the Treasury under the auspices of the Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. OFAC administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on U.S. foreign policy and national security goals against targeted foreign states, organizations, and individuals.

Compliance in the U.S. generally means compliance with laws and regulations. These laws and regulations can have criminal or civil penalties. The definition of what constitutes an effective compliance plan has been elusive. Most authors, however, continue to cite the guidance provided by the United States Sentencing Commission in Chapter 8 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.[38][39]

On October 12, 2006, the U.S. Small Business Administration re-launched Business.gov (later Business.USA.gov and finally SBA.Gov)[40] which provides a single point of access to government services and information that help businesses comply with government regulations.

The U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) was created by Congress to assure safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women by setting and enforcing standards and by providing training, outreach, education, and assistance. OSHA implements laws and regulations regularly in the following areas, construction, maritime, agriculture, and recordkeeping.[41]

The United States Department of Transportation also has various laws and regulations requiring that prime contractors when bidding on federally funded projects engage in good faith effort compliance, meaning they must document their outreach to certified disadvantaged business enterprises.[42]

See also

[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Regulatory compliance.
  • Business Motivation Model - A standard for recording governance and compliance activities
  • Chief compliance officer
  • Corporate social responsibility
  • Environmental compliance
  • Governance, risk management, and compliance
  • International regulation
  • Professional ethics
  • Regulatory technology

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b Compliance, Technology, and Modern Finance, 11 Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law 159 (2016)
  2. ^ Silveira, P.; Rodriguez, C.; Birukou, A.; Casati, F.; Daniel, F.; D'Andrea, V.; Worledge, C.; Zouhair, T. (2012), "Aiding Compliance Governance in Service-Based Business Processes", Handbook of Research on Service-Oriented Systems and Non-Functional Properties (PDF), IGI Global, pp. 524–548, doi:10.4018/978-1-61350-432-1.ch022, hdl:11311/1029233, ISBN 9781613504321
  3. ^ Norris-Montanari, J. (27 February 2017). "Compliance – Where does it fit in a data strategy?". SAS Blogs. SAS Institute, Inc. Retrieved 31 July 2018.
  4. ^ Monica, A.D.; Shilt, C.; Rimmerman, R.; et al. (2015). "Chapter 4: Monitoring software updates". Microsoft System Center Software Update Management Field Experience. Microsoft Press. pp. 57–82. ISBN 9780735695894.
  5. ^ Calder, A.; Watkins, S. (2015). IT Governance: An International Guide to Data Security and ISO 27001/ISO 27002. Kogan Page Publishers. pp. 39–40. ISBN 9780749474065.
  6. ^ Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspection According to ASME
  7. ^ Malyshev, N. (2008). "The Evolution of Regulatory Policy in OECD Countries" (PDF). OECD. Retrieved 27 July 2018.
  8. ^ a b Pearson, G. (2009). "Chapter 2: The regulatory structure". Financial Services Law and Compliance in Australia. Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–68. ISBN 9780521617840.
  9. ^ "Regulatory Responsibility". ACMA. 17 December 2012. Retrieved 31 July 2018.
  10. ^ "What we do". Clean Energy Regulator. 14 December 2016. Retrieved 31 July 2018.
  11. ^ Weinberg, S. (2011). "Chapter 13: International Regulation". Cost-Contained Regulatory Compliance: For the Pharmaceutical, Biologics, and Medical Device Industries. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 227–258. ISBN 9781118002278.
  12. ^ CompliSpace (14 April 2016). "Compliance Standards ISO 19600 and AS 3806 – Differences explained". Retrieved 31 July 2018.
  13. ^ "AS ISO 19600:2015". Standards Catalogue. Standards Australia. Retrieved 31 July 2018.
  14. ^ a b International Monetary Fund; Financial Action Task Force (December 2008). Canada: Report on Observance of Standards and Codes - FATF Recommendations for Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism.cite book: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  15. ^ a b International Monetary Fund (August 2016). Canada: Detailed Assessment Report on Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism. International Monetary Fund. ISBN 9781475536188.
  16. ^ Lee, R. (2003). "Chapter 6: Promoting Regional Capital Market Integration". In Dowers, K.; Msci, P. (eds.). Focus on Capital: New Approaches to Developing Latin American Capital Markets. Inter-American Development Bank. p. 168. ISBN 9781931003490.
  17. ^ Smyth, S.J.; McHughen, A. (2012). "Chapter 2: Regulation of Genetically Modified Crops in USA and Canada: Canadian Overview". In Wozniak, C.A.; McHughen, A. (eds.). Regulation of Agricultural Biotechnology: The United States and Canada. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 15–34. ISBN 9789400721562.
  18. ^ International Organization for Standardization (December 2014). "ISO 19600:2014". Standards Catalogue. Retrieved 31 July 2018.
  19. ^ Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (14 November 2014). "Revised Guideline E-13 – Regulatory Compliance Management (RCM)". Government of Canada. Retrieved 31 July 2018.
  20. ^ The Handbook of Compliance & Integrity Management. Theory & Practice, Prof. S.C. Bleker-van Eyk & R.A.M. Houben (Eds.), 2017 Kluwer Law International.
  21. ^ "Regulatory Management and Reform in India" (PDF). OECD.
  22. ^ "India Inc has poor record in regulatory compliance | Latest News & Updates at Daily News & Analysis". 2014-10-12. Retrieved 2016-09-18.
  23. ^ "Who We Are". www.mas.gov.sg. Retrieved 2024-08-19.
  24. ^ "Do you need to be FCA authorsied? | FCA application process". Harper James. Retrieved 2024-08-19.
  25. ^ "Check if you need an environmental permit". GOV.UK. 2020-10-23. Retrieved 2024-08-19.
  26. ^ "Waste management licence (Scotland) - GOV.UK". www.gov.uk. Retrieved 2024-08-19.
  27. ^ "Information Commissioner's Office". GOV.UK. 2021-06-28. Retrieved 2024-08-19.
  28. ^ "Care Quality Commission". GOV.UK. 2024-06-25. Retrieved 2024-08-19.
  29. ^ "Data Protection Act 2018". August 19, 2024.
  30. ^ "Freedom of Information Act 2000". August 19, 2024.
  31. ^ "UK Corporate Governance Code". Financial Reporting Council. Retrieved 31 July 2018.
  32. ^ "LR 1.5 Standard and Premium Listing". FCA Handbook. Financial Conduct Authority. Retrieved 31 July 2018.
  33. ^ "LR 9.8 Annual financial report". FCA Handbook. Financial Conduct Authority. Retrieved 31 July 2018.
  34. ^ "FCA Handbook". Financial Conduct Authority. Retrieved 31 July 2018.
  35. ^ "Compliance Challenge: Privacy vs. Security". Dell.com. Archived from the original on 2011-02-26. Retrieved 2012-06-19.
  36. ^ Francis, L.P.; Francis, J.G. (2017). Privacy: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford University Press. p. PT102. ISBN 9780190612283.
  37. ^ Dale, N.; Lewis, J. (2015). Computer Science Illuminated. Jones & Bartlett Publishers. p. 388. ISBN 9781284055924.
  38. ^ "Special Reports and Discussions on Chapter Eight". USSC.gov. Archived from the original on November 23, 2010.
  39. ^ The Ethics and Compliance Initiative (ECI). "Principles and Practices of High Quality Ethics & Compliance Programs". pp. 12–13. Retrieved 31 August 2016.
  40. ^ "Explore Business Tools & Resources". Business.USA.gov.
  41. ^ "OSHA Law & Regulations | Occupational Safety and Health Administration". www.osha.gov. Retrieved 2017-04-07.
  42. ^ "Compliance with Diversity Goals Remain Lacking". Archived from the original on June 3, 2024.

 

Frequently Asked Questions

The primary cause of claim denials often stems from incomplete or inaccurate documentation. This can include missing patient information, incorrect coding for procedures, or lack of necessary supporting documentation.
Better documentation ensures that all necessary details are accurately captured and coded, which reduces errors and omissions. This leads to fewer claims being denied due to insufficient information or discrepancies between clinical notes and billing codes.
Healthcare providers can implement regular training sessions on proper documentation practices, utilize electronic health records (EHR) systems effectively, perform routine audits for accuracy, and encourage clear communication between coders and clinicians.
Staying updated with current coding guidelines is crucial because medical codes frequently change due to new treatments, technologies, and regulations. Up-to-date knowledge helps ensure that the correct codes are used, reducing the likelihood of denials due to outdated or incorrect coding.
Collaboration between medical staff—including physicians, nurses, and coders—ensures that all parties understand the importance of accurate documentation. This teamwork facilitates precise data capture during patient encounters and improves overall compliance with billing requirements.