NOTE: All in-article links open in a new tab.

Kyphoplasty, Spotlight on Medical Necessity

Published on 

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

Fall has definitely arrived and with it comes memories of camping trips with Girl Scouts as well as family outings. A favorite part of these trips was the campfire, roasted marshmallows and ghost stories. Let the story begin. First, imagine sitting around a campfire huddled under a blanket on a cool fall night with a new moon and stars up above. Now, let the cautionary to some but scary to others plot unfold. The years were 2000 through 2008. The Department of Justice had alleged that hospitals were overcharging Medicare “when performing kyphoplasty, a minimally-invasive procedure used to treat certain spinal fractures that often are due to osteoporosis. In many cases, the procedure can be performed safely as a less costly outpatient procedure, but the government contends that the hospitals performed the procedure on an in-patient basis in order to increase their Medicare billings.”¹

The characters of this tale included the Department of Justice, a whistleblower (Mr. Charles Bates former regional sales manager for Kyphon in Birmingham, AL), the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of New York, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General and Office of Counsel to the Inspector General, Medtronic Spine LLC the corporate successor to Kyphon Inc., and twenty five hospitals that settled allegations of submitting false claims to Medicare.

After a lengthy investigation, this story ended with several hospitals returning millions of dollars back to the Medicare Trust Fund and it became clear that Kyphoplasty was an outpatient procedure.

Now, fast forward to 2015 when hospitals are continuing to perform these procedures just not with the beneficiary being a hospital inpatient. This story is specific to Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee. However, all of the Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) have a Kyphoplasty Local Coverage Determination (LCD) so all states need to be take heed of what is required to prove medical necessity of the procedure.

STORYLINE

January 7, 2015

This story begins January 7, 2015 with the MAC for Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee (Cahaba) posting a notification of an upcoming widespread probe review of CPT 22513 and/or CPT 22514 combined for Bill Type 13X.

  • CPT 22513 (Percutaneous vertebral augmentation, including cavity creation (fracture reduction and bone biopsy included when performed) using mechanical device (e.g., kyphoplasty), one vertebral body, unilateral or bilateral cannulation, inclusive of all imaging guidance; thoracic).
  • CPT 22514 (Percutaneous vertebral augmentation, including cavity creation (fracture reduction and bone biopsy included when performed) using mechanical device (e.g., kyphoplasty), one vertebral body, unilateral or bilateral cannulation, inclusive of all imaging guidance; lumbar).

July 6, 2015

The plot thickened when Cahaba posted widespread probe review results for review of CPT 22513 and/or CPT 22514 combined for Bill Type 13X on their website on July 6, 2015. The findings speak for themselves, not good.

CPT 22513 and/or CPT 22514
StateNumber of ProvidersError Rate
Alabama1461.72%
Georgia1762.10%
Tennessee1658.73%

Cahaba cited the following three key reasons for denials found in their widespread review:

  1. The documentation did not justify the medical necessity of the services: According to LCD: Surgery: Vertebral Augmentation Procedures (VAPs) (then L30062 – post October 1, 2015 LCD L34300); the performance of VAPs are considered to be medically reasonable and necessary for persistent debilitating pain caused by the recent pathologic fracture of noncervical vertebrae, painful non-unions of Vertebral Compression Fractures (VCF), back pain associated with osteolytic metastatic disease or multiple myeloma involving a vertebral body, or painful hemangiomas. Conservative management should be implemented prior to performing a VAP. Documentation must indicate that conservative medical management has been tried and has failed or why the patient meets the exceptions to conservative management which may include a high level of pain, disability and neurologic compromise.
  2. Lack of documentation: Claims were denied due to the lack of documentation to review for services provided on the claim. Claims either did not include physician orders, procedure reports, or progress notes to support the service was provided as submitted on the claim.
  3. Lack of timely submission of requested documentation: Claims were denied due to a lack of record submission in a timely manner. According to the Medicare Program Integrity Manual, PUB 100-8, Chapter 3, 3.2.3.8b, “During prepayment…or post payment…review, if no response is received within 45 calendar days after the date of the ADR, the MACs and ZPICs shall deny the claim.”

Cahaba indicated that from this review finding they plan to “begin a prepayment widespread targeted review…Once selected, the claims will be reviewed for medical necessity (e.g. compliance with CMS’ guidelines, contractor LCD’s, correct billing and coding).

Will there be a Happy Ending?

 

Here at MMP we have been hearing from clients that they are receiving Additional Documentation Requests (ADRs) for records where the patient has undergone a kyphoplasty. To help ensure this story has a happy ending for your hospital, here are some suggestions of what you can do:

  • Timely submission of requested documentation is a must.
  • Read the LCD for your MAC to understand the Coverage Guidance (Indications and Limitations, ICD-10 codes that support medical necessity) and Documentation Requirements.
  • Work with your Physicians performing these procedures to ensure they are aware of the LCD requirements.

To help everyone get started, we are providing this table with a link to the current LCD for all of the MACs, post ICD-10 implementation.

MAC JurisdictionMACLCD NumberLCD TitleEffective DateRevision Effective DateEnd DateLast UpdatedStatus
5Wisconsin Physicians Service Insurance Corporation (WPS)L34592Vertebroplasty (Percutaneous) and Vertebral Augmentation including cavity creation10/1/201510/1/2015N/A10/9/2015Active
6National Government Services, Inc. (NGS)L33569Vertebroplasty and Vertebral Augmentation (Percutaneous)10/1/201510/1/2015N/A9/18/2015Active
8Wisconsin Physicians Service Insurance Corporation (WPS)L34592Vertebroplasty (Percutaneous) and Vertebral Augmentation including cavity creation10/1/201510/1/2015N/A10/9/2015Active
15CGS Administrators, LLCL34048Vertebroplasty and Vertebral Augmentation (Percutaneous)10/1/201510/1/2015N/A9/28/2015Active
ENoridian Healthcare Solutions, LLCL34184Percutaneous Vertebral Augmentation10/1/201510/1/2015N/A10/9/2015Active
FNoridian Healthcare Solutions, LLCL34106Percutaneous Vertebral Augmentation10/1/201510/1/2015N/A10/9/2015Active
HNovitas Solutions, Inc.L35130Vertebroplasty, Vertebral Augmentation (Kyphoplasty) Percutaneous10/1/201510/1/2015N/A8/31/2015Active
JCahaba Government Benefit Administrators, LLCL34300Surgery: Vertebral Augmentation Procedures (VAPs)10/1/201510/1/2015N/A1/21/2015Active
KNational Government Services, Inc. (NGS)L33569Vertebroplasty and Vertebral Augmentation (Percutaneous)10/1/201510/1/2015N/A9/18/2015Active
LNovitas Solutions, Inc.L35130Vertebroplasty, Vertebral Augmentation (Kyphoplasty) Percutaneous10/1/201510/1/2015N/A8/31/2015Active
MPalmetto GBA, LLCL33473Vertebroplasty/Vertebral Augmentation10/1/201510/1/2015N/A5/28/2015Active
NFirst Coast Service Options, Inc.L34976Vertebroplasty, Vertebral Augmentation; Percutaneous10/1/201510/1/2015N/A9/14/2015Active
Sources: CMS Coverage Determination Data base and MACs by State April 2015 pdf at: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Contracting/Medicare-Administrative-Contractors/MACJurisdictions.html

 Resource

¹http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/January/11-civ-006.html

Article Author: Beth Cobb, RN, BSN, ACM, CCDS
Beth Cobb, RN, BSN, ACM, CCDS, is the Manager of Clinical Analytics at Medical Management Plus, Inc. Beth has over twenty-five years of experience in healthcare including eleven years in Case Management at a large multi-facility health system. In her current position, Beth is a principle writer for MMP’s Wednesday@One weekly e-newsletter, an active member of our HIPAA Compliance Committee, MMP’s Education Department Program Director and co-developer of MMP’s proprietary Compliance Protection Assessment Tool.

This material was compiled to share information.  MMP, Inc. is not offering legal advice. Every reasonable effort has been taken to ensure the information is accurate and useful.