Editorial Policy

We publish only what is real and verifiable. If a fact, figure, credential, or claim cannot be sourced, it is left out rather than guessed at.

We do not fabricate statistics, benchmarks, testimonials, case studies, certifications, reviewers, client names, awards, or dates. Numbers appear with their source and, where relevant, their definition; where we cannot show that, we describe the concept qualitatively instead of quoting a figure.

Every page is authored against a structured content model. A page becomes public only when it is explicitly marked published; drafts and in-progress material are not shown at all — a request for one returns a normal “not found” response, never a “coming soon” placeholder.

Because pages are generated from that model, their navigation, breadcrumbs, and structured data are derived from the same source rather than hand-written — so what a reader sees, what a search engine reads, and what the page actually contains stay consistent.

For factual claims we rely on authoritative primary sources, in roughly this order of weight:

1. Statute and federal regulation, and the rules and manuals of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
2. Payer-published medical and reimbursement policy, cited with its effective date.
3. Published definitions and code lists from standards bodies — HFMA's MAP Keys, the X12 code sets, and the AMA's CPT.
4. Peer-reviewed literature, where relevant.

Content on this site is written and published by US Medical Billing Company, and the organization is named as both its author and its publisher. Individual pages carry no personal “written by” byline, and that is deliberate: much of this material is drafted with the assistance of AI tools and then edited, and crediting a named individual as its writer would be precisely the fabricated byline this policy exists to prevent.

Review is a different claim, and we make it separately and by name. Where a named person has read a page and vouched for it, that page says so and says when — see Review below. A page with no review line has not been reviewed, and shows nothing rather than a decorative “medically reviewed” stamp.

The guidance published on this site is reviewed by Anwaar Tayyab, Director of Billing Operations at US Medical Billing. He has worked in medical billing for five years, across claims, denials and payer enrollment for physician practices.

Review here means he has read the page and checked it against how the work is actually done: whether the sequence is right, whether the terminology matches what a practice and a payer would use, and whether following the guidance would hold up in a real billing operation. It is not a clinical review, a legal review, or a coding audit, and it does not make a page a substitute for your payer’s own policy, your contract, or your own professional judgment.

Where a review has happened, the article shows it: his name and the date he read it appear under the article’s title, and that date is recorded against that individual article rather than asserted once across the site. So the claim ages with the page it belongs to — an article reviewed a long time ago says so, plainly, instead of inheriting a site-wide assurance that never gets older.

Review does not replace sourcing. Every factual claim still has to stand on the authoritative source cited for it; a reviewer’s name is not a substitute for a citation, and we do not treat it as one.

What we cover and how we describe it is decided on the basis of accuracy and usefulness, not payment. We do not sell coverage, we do not accept payment to feature or rank a product, and we do not present vendor products as endorsements. Where a named product or company is mentioned, it is an illustrative example, not a recommendation.

When we identify a substantive error, we correct it and note that a change was made, rather than silently rewriting the record. Because regulations, code sets, and payer policies change on their own schedules, we treat accuracy as ongoing maintenance, not a one-time event.

Much of the content on this site is drafted with the assistance of AI tools. However it is drafted, all content is held to the standards on this page: it is tied to cited authoritative sources, it carries no statistic, quote, credential, or source we cannot point to a primary reference for, and it is published under the organization's name rather than a fabricated byline. AI drafting is also the reason review is a named, dated, per-page record rather than a slogan — a human being reading the page and putting his name to the date he read it is the check that matters most on material assembled this way.