Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Imaging Collections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bordeaux Imaging Center shows early growth; board approves collections vendor amid payer‑enrollment delays
Summary
The board reviewed utilization and accreditation milestones for the Bordeaux Imaging Center, discussed slow payer enrollment that has limited collections, and approved a collections vendor for new‑facility receivables after debate about patient communications and reputational risk.
NASHVILLE — Board members heard a progress report on the Bordeaux Imaging Center and approved a collections agreement for the off‑campus facility after discussion about payer enrollment delays, aging receivables and protections for low‑income patients.
Tim Farmer (director of radiology) told the board the center received its license to operate as an independent diagnostic facility on Aug. 7, 2024, and saw its first patient on Aug. 8, 2024. The center achieved American College of Radiology accreditation across modalities during the succession of 2024–2025 inspections.
Farmer and board members discussed utilization and revenue. The imaging center’s monthly exam volume was reported in the low hundreds, with August trending above 200 exams; full physical capacity is roughly 30,000 exams a year (about 2,500 per month). Staff said the near‑term goal is 1,500 exams per month over time, with marketing, physician portal access and rapid turnaround times — routine reads within 24 hours and STAT reads within an hour — cited as competitive advantages.
Hospital presenters warned that payer enrollment is incomplete for some managed‑care organizations, which has delayed cash collections. For example, MRI charges over several months showed a lag between billed charges and payments while payer enrollments and denials were being processed; presenters said most aged items had been resubmitted and were moving through payer systems.
After the presentation the board considered a contract for a collections vendor that would handle unpaid bills after the billing company’s collections attempts. The proposed arrangement is a one‑year contract with a 70/30 split and a 90‑day termination clause. Board members pressed staff on patient outreach procedures before turning accounts over, and hospital staff described an approach that includes statements at 30/60/90 days, phone and digital outreach, text messaging options and a mechanism to remove accounts from collections if a payment plan is established.
Several board members emphasized caution in pursuing litigation against low‑income patients and requested that the collection vendor seek hospital approval before filing suit. Board members also noted that collection activity should avoid harming the hospital’s reputation given the patient population the center serves. Hospital staff said the contract requires the vendor to seek permission before filing lawsuits and that the agreement can be modified based on collection outcomes. The board approved the collections contract.
Ending: Hospital leaders said they will continue to pursue payer enrollments, expand referring‑physician outreach and monitor collection outcomes; staff will return metrics on aging receivables, payer enrollment status and imaging center volume at future meetings.
