Archive for December, 2008
Although coding denials did not remain the focus by the end of the demonstration project, and medically unnecessary settings appeared to have taken its place, accurate coding will continue to be one of the areas the permanent RACs will review as part of their continuing audits. Therefore, a good proactive program that ensures accurate coding and appropriate medical settings and services is essential.
The DRGs/procedure codes listed below were the most frequently cited for coding errors:
-
DRG 186–187—Pleural effusion with complication/comorbidities(CC) or major CC (MCC)
-
86.22—Debridement
-
DRG 813—Coagulation disorders
-
DRG 870–871—Septicemia
-
54.51 and 54.50—Lysis of adhesions
-
DRGs 981–989—For operating room procedures unrelated to the principal diagnosis
The DRGs listed below were most frequently associated with medical necessity and one-, two-, and three-day admissions denials:
-
DRG 551—Medical back problems
-
DRG 313—Chest pain
-
DRGs 377–379—Gastrointestinal hemorrhage with MCC, CC or without CC/MCC
-
DRGs 640–641—Nutritional and miscellaneous metabolic disorders with MCC or without MCC (e.g. dehydration)
-
DRG 291–293—Heart failure and shock with MCC, with CC or without CC/MCC (e.g. congestive heart failure)
-
DRG 689–690—Kidney and urinary tract infections with MCC or without MCC
-
DRG 682–684—Renal failure with MCC, with CC or without CC/MCC
-
DRG 811–812—Red blood cell disorders with MCC or without MCC
-
DRG 286–287—Circulatory disorders except AMI, with cardiac catheterization with MCC or without MCC
-
DRG 264—Other circulatory system operating room procedures
-
DRG 190–192—Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with MCC, with CC or without CC/MCC
-
DRG 166–168—Other respiratory system operating room.procedures with MCC, with CC or without CC/MCC (e.g. transbronchial lung biopsy)
-
DRG 222–227—Cardiac defibrillator implantations with or without cardiac catheterization
This list is not all-inclusive. Any DRGs, diagnoses, procedure codes, or medical necessity issues that have been identified as problems for the hospital should be included in proactive reviews for documentation improvement and consistent coding compliance.
Editor’s note: This tip is excerpted from HCPro, Inc.’s new book, The HIM Director’s Guide to Recovery Audit Contractors, by Jean S. Clark, RHIA. For more information on the book, click here.
By Barbara Aubry, RN, CPC, CHCQM, FAIHQ
As mentioned in the previous issue of the RAC Report Medicare recently released a RAC Q&A. However, on of the Q&A left me a bit puzzled, and I imagine I’m not the only one.
Here’s the original question and response from CMS:
Q: If I receive a demand letter from a RAC because a service didn’t meet Medicare’s medical necessity criteria for an inpatient level of service, can we re-bill all the services on an outpatient claim?
A: Providers can re-bill for Inpatient Part B services, also known as ancillary services, but only for the services on the list in the Benefit Policy Manual. That list can be found in chapter 6, section 10: www.cms.hhs.gov/manuals/Downloads/bp102c06.pdf.
Rebilling for any service will only be allowed if all claim processing rules and claim timeliness rules are met. There are no exceptions to the rules in the national program. The time limit for re-billing claims is 15–27 months from the date of service. These normal timely filing rules can be found in the Claims Processing Manual, chapter 1, section 70: www.cms.hhs.gov/manuals/downloads/clm104c01.pdf.
After reviewing the citation in the Medicare Benefit Policy Manual (chapter 6, section 10), I wonder why the policy manual citation in the CMS answer makes no mention of the Condition Code 44 requirements for converting inpatient services to outpatient (see Transmittal 299, CR 3444)? The conversion of an inpatient admission that has been determined to be medically unnecessary requires that the conversion take place while the patient is still in the hospital. Plus, the hospital is responsible to ensure that when there is a question regarding the medical necessity of an inpatient admission, the required utilization review (UR) review of that patient’s status is conducted as stated in 42 CFR 482.30. The UR committee’s responsibilities and functions may be conducted by the hospital’s quality improvement organization (QIO) that has assumed binding UR review. However, the hospital is responsible to either have a UR committee or have a QIO that carries out the UR activities as described in 42 CFR 482.30, including the review for medical necessity of an inpatient admission and continued stay.
Without this required UR review, it seems unlikely that the hospital’s billing department can arbitrarily resubmit RAC inpatient denials as ‘billable’ outpatient services—especially if it can not substantiate the appropriateness of the previously denied services. I look forward to CMS’s clarification of their statement above to assist provider’s understanding of their existing medical necessity requirements.
Creating a process to accurately determine the medical necessity of services provided to outpatients can reduce their loss to a RAC for inappropriate inpatient admissions. Most of the problem admissions begin as unscreened outpatients (e.g., ED, clinics, observation) that result in medically unnecessary short stays. Proper management of outpatient medical necessity will significantly reduce ‘inpatient’ medical necessity losses.
Editor’s note: Thanks to Barbara Aubry, RN, CPC, CHCQM, FAIHQ, regulatory analyst for 3M Health Information Systems, Inc, in Rockleigh, NJ, for providing this response.
The Revenue Cycle Institute announces new and updated white papers available for download. In addition to a new white paper on physician queries by
Shannon McCall RHIA, CCS, CCS-P, CPC-I, director of coding and Health Information Management for HCPro, Inc., you will find an updated version of the whitepapers on the RAC demonstration project and the new ABN by
Kimberly Anderwood Hoy, JD, CPC, director of Medicare and Compliance at HCPro, Inc., on the Revenue Cycle Institute Web site (
www.revenuecycleinstitute.com).
Are you questioning a claim reviewed by a RAC during the demonstration project? If so, CMS announced an e-mail address to which you can send your inquires. According to a December 12 update to the
CMS Web site, you may e-mail your questions to
RAC@cms.hhs.gov.
In addition, CMS recently posted transcripts for the November 12 and 13 Special Open Door Forums (ODF) on RACs. To read the transcripts, click on the following links:
Dear readers,
On behalf of HCPro, Inc., and the members of the RAC Report Advisory Board, I would like to wish you a joyful holiday season and a safe and happy new year.
Best wishes,
Andrea Kraynak, CPC-A
Managing Editor
HCPro, Inc.
By Kimberly Anderwood Hoy, director of Medicare and compliance for HCPro
Happy holidays everyone! I thought I would do a follow-up to last week’s note by Hugh Aaron about physician supervision. One of the clarifications that I have discussed with many people recently is related to nurse practitioners (NP) or physician assistants (PA). CMS clarified that NPs/PAs may not provide the physician supervision in provider-based departments. This fact was not a surprise to most, but the impact for NP/PA rendered services should be considered.
These extension providers often provide care in hospital-based clinics, such as urgent care centers or fast track facilities, without a physician being present in the department; in fact, they sometimes “cover” when the physician is unable to be present. However, the facility portion of this service is a hospital service subject to direct supervision under the hospital regulations.[1] Therefore, in accordance with the direct supervision guidelines discussed in the most recent OPPS final rule, a physician must be present in the department for the hospital facility service to be covered by Medicare.
Some confusion has arisen because these visits are generally appropriate under most state laws that allow NPs/PAs to practice without a physician on the premises. Additionally, the professional service by a NP/PA need not be under direct supervision for the service to be billable as a covered professional service to Medicare. The NP/PA would simply bill under his or her own NPI and be paid at a lower rate. Because the service is provided within the NP/PA’s scope of service (and is generally thought of as a professional service), many providers have not considered that the hospital direct supervision requirements apply to the facility portion—and that without a physician present, the hospital facility service is not covered.
I encourage providers to review the guidance on NPs/PAs in the OPPS final rule and evaluate locations where these extension providers might be providing services without a physician present some or all of the time.
[1] The regulations exempt rural health clinics and federally qualified health centers from the direct supervision requirements.
CMS issues annual clotting factor furnishing fee update
On December 19, CMS issued its annual update to the furnishing fee for clotting factor.
Effective date: January 1, 2009
Implementation date: January 5, 2009
View the transmittal.
CMS announces new waived tests under CLIA
On December 19, CMS announced new waived tests under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA).
Effective date: January 1, 2009
Implementation date: January 5, 2009
View the transmittal.
CMS issues transmittal on the 2009 update for clinical laboratory fee schedule and laboratory services subject to reasonable charge payment
On December 19, CMS issued a transmittal providing instructions for the CY 2009 clinical laboratory fee schedule, mapping for new codes for clinical laboratory tests, and updates for laboratory costs subject to the reasonable charge payment.
Effective date: January 1, 2009
Implementation date: January 5, 2009
View the transmittal.
CMS rescinds and replaces previous transmittal on paying claims without passing through editors
On December 18, CMS rescinded and replaced its previous transmittal regarding paying claims without passing through the integrated outpatient code editor or the Medicare code editor. Most information remains the same.
Effective date: November 25, 2008
Implementation date: November 25, 2008
View the transmittal.
CMS adds codes covered under serum iron studies NCD
On December 18, CMS extended coverage under the serum iron studies NCD to ICD-9-CM codes 285.22 and 285.29.
View the decision memo.
OIG seeks suggestions on safe harbors, fraud alerts
On December 17, the OIG published a notice in the Federal Register to solicit proposals and recommendations for developing and modifying safe harbor provisions under the Federal anti-kickback statute (section 1128B(b) of the Social Security Act), as well as developing new OIG special fraud alerts.
View the Federal Register notice.
Submit a comment to the OIG.
OIG issues review of high-dollar payments for outpatient services processed by Palmetto GBA for the period January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2005
On December 17, the OIG issued a review of high-dollar payments for outpatient services processed by Palmetto GBA, a fiscal intermediary, for the period January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2005. The OIG determined that during this period, Palmetto made 22 inappropriate payments, including overpayments totaling $1.8 million.
View the OIG report.
OIG issues reports on adverse events
On December 16, the OIG issued two reports on adverse events in the hospital setting.
View the first report.
View the second report.
CMS launches annual provider satisfaction survey
On December 16, CMS announced the launch of its annual survey of providers’ satisfaction with Medicare contractors. CMS will send the survey to randomly selected providers.
View the CMS press release.