Knowledge Base Category -
This is the second article in a series of 2020 IPPS Proposed Rule Articles. Last week’s article provided details of the significant proposed changes to the CC and MCC severity designations. This week we take a look at proposed payment rate changes and the wage-index adjustment proposal being touted by CMS as a key priority of “Rethinking Rural Health.”
Proposed Payment Rate Changes by the Numbers
“By law, CMS is required to update payment rates for IPPS hospitals annually, and to account for changes in the prices of goods and services used by these hospitals in treating Medicare patients, as well as for other factors. This is known as the hospital “market basket.” The IPPS pays hospitals for services provided to Medicare beneficiaries using a national base payment rate, adjusted for a number of factors that affect hospitals’ costs, including the patient’s condition and the cost of hospital labor in the hospital’s geographic area.”
- 3.2% is the projected market basket update for general acute care hospitals paid under the IPPS that successfully participate in the Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting (IQR) Program and are meaningful electronic health record (EHR) users.
- 3.7% is the CMS estimated total increase in IPPS payments for FY 2020.
- $4.7 Billion is the increase in total Medicare spending on inpatient hospital services, including capital, projected by CMS for FY 2020.
Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP)
- 2,599 is the number of hospitals that CMS estimates will have base operating DRG payments reduced based on their hospital readmission rates.
- $550 Million the estimated amount CMS will save in FY 2020 as a result of decreased payments to the estimated 2,599 hospitals.
Hospital Inpatient Quality Report (IQR) Program
CMS estimates that proposed changes for this program will result in changes to the information collection burden compared to previously adopted requirements. Specifically, the proposal to adopt the Hybrid Hospital-Wide All-Cause Readmission (Hybrid HWR) measure. Estimated impact of this change:
- 2,211 hours in total collection burden increase, and
- $83,266 total cost increase for all participating IPPS hospitals annually.
Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program
This program is a budget neutral program because “by law, the amount available for value-based incentive payments under the program in a given year must be equal to the total amount of base operating MS-DRG payment amount reduction for that year.”
- $1.9 Billion is the estimated amount available for value-based incentive payments for FY 2020 discharges.
“Rethinking Rural Health:” Proposed Changes to the Inpatient Hospital Wage Index
Public Comments
In the FY 2019 IPPS Proposed Rule, CMS solicited comments, suggestions and recommendations for changes to the Medicare inpatient hospital wage index. Fast forward to the April 2019 release of the FY 2020 IPPS Proposed Rule where CMS shares that “many of the responses received…reflect a common concern that the current wage index system perpetuates and exacerbates the disparities between high and low wage index hospitals.” There was also a concern “that the calculation of the rural floor has allowed a limited number of States to manipulate the wage index system to achieve higher wages for many urban hospitals at the expense of hospitals in other states, which also contributes to wage index disparities.”
Inpatient Hospital Wage Index, What is it?
In the April 23, 2019 Press Release CMS Advances Agenda to Re-Think Rural Health and Unleash Medical Innovation, CMS notes the following about the Inpatient Hospital Wage Index:
- It specifies how inpatient payment rates are adjusted to account for local differences in wages that hospitals face in their respective labor markets,
- It is intended to measure differences in hospital wage rates across geographic regions,
- It is updated annually based on wage data reported by hospitals, and
- Hospitals located in areas with wages less than the national average receive a lower Medicare payment rate than hospitals located in areas with wages higher than the national average.
An example provided in the Press Release is that of hospital in a rural community receiving about $4000 in payment for treatment of a Medicare beneficiary with pneumonia while a hospital in a high wage area could receive nearly $6,000 for the same case due to differences in the wage index. CMS goes on to note that, “high wage index hospitals, by virtue of higher Medicare payments, can afford to pay their staff more, allowing the hospitals to continue operating as high wage index hospitals. Conversely, low wage index hospitals often cannot afford to pay wages that would allow them to climb to a higher wage index. Over time, this creates a downward spiral that increases the disparity in payments between high wage index and low wage index hospitals, and payment for rural hospitals and other low wage index hospitals decline.”
FY 2020 Inpatient Hospital Wage Index Proposals
Stopping the “Downward Spiral”
First, CMS is proposing to increase the wage index for hospitals with a wage index value below the 25th percentile wage index. For FY 2020, the 25th percentile wage index value across all hospitals is 0.8482.
Specifically, the increase would be equal to half the difference between the otherwise applicable final wage index value for a year for that hospital and the 25th percentile wage index value for that year across all hospitals.
To better understand what the increase would be, CMS provides the following example in the Proposed Rule:
- First, assume the wage index for a geographically rural Alabama hospital is 0.6663,
- Second, note the 25th percentile wage index value for FY 2020 is 0.8482.
- Third, determine half the distance between the hospital wage index and the 25th percentile (0.8482 – 0.6663/2) = 0.0910
- Fourth, add the Rural Alabama hospital wage index with half the difference to get the new FY 2020 wage index value for the hospital (0.6663 + 0.0910) = wage index 0.7573.
This proposal would be effective for at least 4 years beginning in FY 2020.
Budget Neutrality
Second, CMS believes that “it would be appropriate to maintain budget neutrality for the low wage index policy proposed…by adjusting the wage index for high wage index hospitals.” Specifically, CMS is proposing to identify high wage index hospitals as hospitals in the highest quartile. This would be hospitals above the 75th percentile wage index across all hospitals for a fiscal year.
The methodology would be analogous to methodology used for hospitals below the 25th percentile. Following is the example provided in the Proposed Rule:
- First, assume high wage index Hospital A has a wage index value of 1.7351,
- Second, CMS notes that based on data for the proposed rule, the 75th percentile wage index value is 1.0351.
- Third, determine the distance between the hospital wage index and the 75th percentile (1.7351 – 1.0351) = 0.7000,
- Fourth, CMS would estimate the uniform multiplicative budget neutrality factor needed to reduce those distances for all high wage index hospitals so the estimated decreased payments offset the estimated increased aggregate payments to low wage index hospitals. For FY 2020 the estimated factor is 3.4 percent. Therefore, Hospital A’s wage index would be reduced by 0.0238 (Prior distance of 0.7000 x 0.034) = 0.0238.
- Fifth, the new wage index for Hospital A would be 1.7113 (that is, current value 1.7351 – wage reduction of 0.0238) = 1.7113.
To help mitigate any significant wage index decreases, CMS is “proposing to place a 5-percent cap on any decrease in a hospital’s wage index from the hospital’s final wage index in FY 2019. In other words, we are proposing that a hospital’s final wage index for FY 2020 would not be less than 95 percent of its final wage index for FY 2019.”
Rural Floor Calculation Change
Commenters to the FY 2019 Proposed Rule “indicated that another contributing systemic factor to wage index disparities is the rural floor….for discharges on or after October 1, 1997, the area wage index applicable to any hospitals that is located in an urban area of a State may not be less than the area wage index applicable to hospitals located in rural areas in that State.”
CMS is proposing to remove the urban to rural reclassifications from the calculation of the rural floor beginning in FY 2020. You can read a detailed discussion about this on pages 19396 – 19398 of the FY 2020 IPPS Proposed Rule in the Federal Register.
April 29, 2019 CMS.Gov Newsroom Article: “What they are Saying / CMS Advances Agenda to Re-Think Rural Health and Unleash Medical Innovation”
Less than a week after the FY 2020 IPPS Proposed Rule was released, CMS posted a CMS.Gov Newsroom Article with reaction from key healthcare stakeholders to the Proposed Rule. Since I live in Alabama and work for a company located in Birmingham, I wanted to share what Alabama leaders are saying about “Rethinking Rural Health.”
Executive Vice President and Chief Policy Officer Danne Howard
Alabama Hospital Association
“We could not be more grateful to CMS Administrator Seema Verma and her staff for listening to our concerns and taking action,” Howard said. “Alabama has been penalized for decades by this flawed formula, which has resulted in some states being paid three times as much as Alabama’s hospitals for the exact same procedure. Alabama’s entire congressional delegation worked tirelessly in a non-partisan manner to make this happen, and we specifically would like to acknowledge Sens. Richard Shelby and Doug Jones and Rep. Bradley Byrne for leading the charge.”
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala)
“The Medicare Wage Index has negatively affected Alabama hospitals for over 20 years,” said. [sic], who wrote a letter last month signed by the state’s congressional delegation to Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Seema Verma requesting a change to the index. After two decades of working to address a problem that significantly contributes to heightened hospital closures throughout our state, I am glad to see Administrator Verma and CMS taking steps to solve this dire issue. I look forward to continuing my work with the agency to make sure that this sort of careless imbalance is eliminated moving forward.”
Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala)
“The decision by CMS to propose a new reimbursement formula is welcome news and a great first step for the health care providers across our state who have struggled for years with an inexplicably low reimbursement rate,” the senator said. “These hospitals provide care to all Alabamians, regardless of their insurance status, and they have to absorb the costs when that care isn’t reimbursed. That puts the entire system on slippery financial footing and can hurt the broader community if a hospital is forced to close its doors.”
CMS is accepting comments to the Proposed Rule no later than 5 p.m. EDT on June 24, 2019.
Resources:
CMS 2020 IPPS Proposed Rule Home Page: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/FY2020-IPPS-Proposed-Rule-Home-Page.html
CMS Fact Sheet Announcing Release of 2020 Proposed Rule: https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/fiscal-year-fy-2020-medicare-hospital-inpatient-prospective-payment-system-ipps-and-long-term-acute
CMS April 23, 2019 Press Release: CMS Advances Agenda to Re-think Rural Health and Unleash Medical Innovation: https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/cms-advances-agenda-re-think-rural-health-and-unleash-medical-innovation
Beth Cobb
MEDICARE TRANSMITTALS – RECURRING UPDATES
July 2019 Quarterly Average Sales Price (ASP) Medicare Part B Drug Pricing Files and Revisions to Prior Quarterly Pricing Files
Changes to the Laboratory National Coverage Determination (NCD) Edit Software for July 2019
Quarterly Update to the National Correct Coding Initiative (NCCI) Procedure-to-Procedure (PTP) Edits, Version 25.2 Effective July 1, 2019
OTHER MEDICARE TRANSMITTALS
Billing for Hospital Part B Inpatient Services
Provides billing instructions for hospital Part B inpatient services.
Evaluation and Management (E/M) When Performed with Superficial Radiation Treatment – REVISED
Revised to clarify that providers need to bill the 25 modifier when performing E/M services with CPT code 77401.
Pub. 100-04, Chapter 29 – Appeals of Claims Decisions – Revisions
Incorporates the following policy updates to the Medicare Claims Processing Manual:
- The policy on use of electronic signatures
- Timing of signatures on transfer of appeal rights and the appointment of representative forms
- Tolling an adjudication timeframe when trying to cure a defective appointment form
- Limiting scope of redetermination review in certain instances
- Application of good cause for late filing involving beneficiary accessibility
- Application of good cause where there is a declared disaster
New Waived Tests
Informs MACs of new Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) waived tests approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
MEDICARE SPECIAL EDITION ARTICLES
Activation of Systematic Validation Edits for OPPS Providers with Multiple Service Locations
Claim information for Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) providers that have multiple service locations.
MEDICARE COVERAGE UPDATES
CMS Proposes Updates to Coverage Policy for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR)
CMS is updating the coverage criteria for hospitals and physicians to begin or maintain a TAVR program.
MEDICARE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
Medicare Fast Facts
Medicare Fast Facts resources this month include:
- Proper Coding for Specimen Validity Testing Billed in Combination with Urine Drug Testing
- Provider Minute Video: The Importance of Proper Documentation
OTHER MEDICARE UPDATES
April 2019 Patients Over Paperwork Newsletter
Updates on ongoing work to reduce administrative burden and improve the customer experience for hospitals.
GAO Report for Medicare and Medicaid:
CMS Should Assess Documentation Necessary to Identify Improper Payments
GAO examined: (1) Medicare and Medicaid documentation requirements and factors that contribute to improper payments due to insufficient documentation; and (2) the extent to which Medicaid reviews provide states with actionable information.
The kicker to the saying that “time flies when you’re having fun,” is that time also flies when you are not. However, I have been extremely fortunate over the past 10 years to actually enjoy my job. Last October marked my 10-year anniversary as an employee of Medical Management Plus, Inc. (MMP). Yes, it is nerdy that I actually enjoy reading Medicare regulations, but I do. I enjoy even more writing articles, such as this one, which I hope share Medicare and related guidance in an easy-to-read and understandable format and help our readers do their own challenging healthcare jobs better. The rapid passing of time is relevant because the very first article I wrote at MMP over ten years ago was about the 2008 AHIMA (American Health Information Management Association) article, “Managing an Effective Query Process.”
In February of this year, the Association of Clinical Documentation Improvement Specialists (ACDIS) and the American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA) jointly produced “Guidelines for Achieving a Compliant Query Practice (2019 Update).” This Practice Brief is the recommended industry standard for provider queries and describes best practices for coding and clinical documentation improvement (CDI) professionals performing query functions. It supersedes the 2016 and all prior versions.
Coders and CDI professionals should carefully review and follow the practices described in this Brief, but other healthcare team members also need to be aware of this guidance. For example, case management, quality management professionals, and infection control clinicians educate physicians to document a certain way. Since these interactions could ultimately affect coding, these healthcare professionals need to be aware of and comply with query compliance standards. Other healthcare professionals, such as compliance, revenue cycle, patient financial services, physician groups, facility leaders, and any who work with documentation and coding also need to be familiar with this guidance. The Brief also points out that it serves as a resource for external reviewers, such as the Office of Inspector General (OIG), government contractors, payor review agencies, and others.
According to the Brief, a query is a communication tool “used to clarify documentation in the health record for documentation integrity and accurate code assignment.” In addition to ensuring a medical record that accurately reflects patient complexity and the facts of the encounter, an effective query process ensures appropriate reimbursement and accurate risk-adjustment and quality of care statistics derived from claims data.
The Practice Brief states, “The objective of a query is to ensure the reported diagnoses and procedures derived from the health record documentation accurately reflect the patient’s episode of care.” Among other functions, some of the main uses of queries are to:
- Determine if a clinical condition is present when supported by clinical indicators within the record,
- Clarify conflicting documentation,
- Add specificity in certain situations,
- Establish “cause and effect” relationships, and
- Clarify when a documented diagnosis does not appear to be clinically supported.
I am not going to list all of the requirements of a compliant query and encourage those affected to read the entire Practice Brief for all the guidance provided. Here are some of the main points from the Brief that caught my attention.
Leading Queries
Bearing in mind that my background is compliance, I will start with the rule that queries should not be leading – they should not “lead” the physician or other practitioner to the preferred answer or to a specific diagnosis or procedure. Multiple choice queries are acceptable, but be sure to include options that allow the provider to explain other clinical options or to reply that the answer may be clinically undetermined. In the words of the Brief, “the choices provided as part of the query must reflect reasonable conclusions specific to the clinical scenario of the individual patient.”
Impact on Reimbursement
At one time, reimbursement seemed to be the major driver of the query process. This should not be – querying is about obtaining accurate documentation and coding, which often can affect a facility’s payment. However, keep your focus on accuracy and completeness and never include the impact on reimbursement or on quality measures in the query. It is best not to even discuss the effects of querying on reimbursement or quality measures with your physicians or others. If your records are accurate and complete, your facility will receive the appropriate reimbursement and accurate quality measures.
Specificity
Queries can be helpful for determining a more specific code in some situations. However, bear in mind “that code accuracy is not the same as code specificity.” Although some payors resist unspecified codes, there are times when unspecified codes are appropriate based on the clinical situation.
Clinical Indicators
When querying for documentation of medical diagnoses or conditions that are clinically evident, be sure to include clinical indicators that:
- “Are specific to the patient and episode of care
- Support why a more complete or accurate diagnosis or procedure is sought
- Support why a diagnosis requires additional clinical support to be reportable”
Clinical indicators can be such things as the physical exam and assessment, diagnostic findings, and treatments. Clinical indicators should be relevant and clearly support the clinical condition. More is not always better, as the Brief states, “The quality of clinical indicators—how well they relate to the condition being clarified—is more important than the quantity of clinical indicators.”
Patient History and Prior Encounters
Coding from prior encounters without documentation in the current record is not allowed, but generating a query based on information from a prior encounter may be acceptable, but only if the information is clinically pertinent to the current encounter. The Brief includes a list of example situations where information from a prior encounter could be used to query, such as specificity, baseline status, present on admission (POA) status, cause and effect, and etiology. The Brief cautions that “it is inappropriate to “mine” a previous encounter’s documentation to generate queries not related to the current encounter.”
Documentation and Retention of Queries
Sometimes it is easier to explain a situation to a provider in person. Verbal queries are acceptable, but the exchange, including the provider’s response, should be documented and maintained. And like written queries, conversations should not be leading. When documenting these interactions, be sure to include the same components you would include in a written query – the details of the discussion, the reason for the query, the clinical indicators, options discussed and the provider’s decision. Also, date, time, and sign your documentation.
It is recommended the query be part of the permanent medical record. Another option is to keep queries as part of the business record. They should be easily retrievable for auditing, monitoring, and compliance. Facilities should have a policy that addresses query retention and it should apply to all queries, regardless of provider response.
Clinical Validation and Escalation
Sometimes it may appear that a documented diagnosis is not clinically supported. These clinical validation queries can be more challenging than other types of queries. AHIMA has developed a separate Practice Brief to address these concerns titled “Clinical Validation: The Next Level of CDI.” AHIMA members can view this Brief in the AHIMA HIM Body of Knowledge at http://bok.ahima.org.
Clinical validation may be a good time to involve a physician advisor or the chief medical officer. Facilities should have a documented escalation policy for certain situations, which may include clinical validation situations, failure to respond, or other issues. There should also be policies defining the role and expectations of those issuing the queries and the responders.
Again, this is a high-level overview of the Practice Brief on Compliant Queries. The Brief contains much more information, including query examples in Appendix B, which I found to be particularly enlightening. Be sure to read the entire Brief carefully – study it, discuss it with other stakeholders within your facility, and use it to develop your policies, procedures and practices. Be sure to include initial training for new employees and on-going education for all employees. Also, watch for updated guidance - I will not promise to be around in another 10 years to share the information.
Debbie Rubio
On March 26, 2019 CMS published a Proposed Decision Memo for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) (CAG-00430R). In a related CMS Press Release CMS noted they would continue to cover TAVR under Coverage with Evidence Development (CED) when furnished according to an FDA-approved indication.
TAVR Background
CMS first released National Coverage Determination (NCD) 20.32 Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) with an effective date of May 1, 2012. At that time, TAVR was considered a new technology for use in treating patients with aortic stenosis where a biprosthetic valve is inserted percutaneously using a catheter and implanted in the orifice of the native aortic valve.
TAVRs are performed in a cardiac catheterization lab or a hybrid operating room/cardiac catheterization lab with advanced quality imaging and with the ability to safely accommodate complicated cases that may require conversion to an open surgical procedure. The interventional cardiologist and cardiothoracic surgeon jointly participate in the intra-operative technical aspects of TAVR.
NCD 20.32 allows for coverage of the TAVR Procedure under Coverage with Evidence Development (CED) with specific conditions being met, appropriate volume requirements and a heart team and hospitals participation in a prospective, national, audited registry. For indications not approved by the FDA, CMS covers TAVR under CED when a patient is enrolled in a qualifying clinical study.
Registry and Clinical Study Approvals by CMS can be found on the CMS Coverage with Evidence Development TAVR webpage. https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coverage/Coverage-with-Evidence-Development/TAVR.html
TAVR Hospital Volumes
TAVR procedures are on the Medicare Inpatient Only Procedure List and sequence to the MS-DRG Pair 266 and 267 (Endovascular Cardiac Valve Replacement with MCC and without MCC respectively). In CMS Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 through 2017, this MS-DRG pair also included ICD-10-PCS codes for replacement of pulmonary valves. In FY 2018 an additional 4 mitral valve codes and 8 new tricuspid valve codes were also added to this MS-DRG pair.
To provide you with a glimpse into these types of procedures, I utilized Medicare Fee-for-Service paid claims data from our sister company RealTime Medicare Data (RTMD) for CMS FY 2015 through 2018. The following table highlights an increase in volumes and average charges and a decrease in actual average payment and average length of stay (ALOS) for Medicare Fee-for-Service paid claims in Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee.
Proposed Decision Memo: Changes and CMS’ Request for Comments
The Decision Memo proposes to update “the coverage criteria for hospitals and physicians to begin or maintain a TAVR program. The proposed decision provides more flexibility in how providers can meet the requirements performing TAVR, while continuing to ensure good health outcomes for patients receiving the procedure.”
The CMS Press Release notes they are also seeking to gather additional information and specifically proposed “a question regarding the relationship between other metrics and patient health outcomes, which could inform a future change to replace the volume criteria with a different metric.”
Key stakeholders at your hospital should take the time to read the Proposed Decision Memo and provide public comments. There is a 30-day public comment period ending April 25th and a final decision will be issued no later than 60 days after the conclusion of the 30-day public comment period. All public comments may be submitted at https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/indexes/nca-open-for-public-comment-index.aspx.
Link to NCD 20.32: https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/details/ncd-details.aspx?NCDId=355&ncdver=1&bc=AAAAgAAAAAAAAA%3d%3d&
Beth Cobb
MEDICARE TRANSMITTALS – RECURRING UPDATES
Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) Codes Subject to and Excluded from Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) Edits
The new HCPCS codes for 2019 that are subject to and excluded from Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) edits.
April 2019 Integrated Outpatient Code Editor (I/OCE) Specifications Version 20.1
Remittance Advice Remark Code (RARC), Claims Adjustment Reason Code (CARC), Medicare Remit Easy Print (MREP) and PC Print Update
April 2019 Update of the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS)
Describes changes to, and billing instructions for, various payment policies implemented in the April 2019 OPPS update.
OTHER MEDICARE TRANSMITTALS
Evaluation and Management (E/M) When Performed with Superficial Radiation Treatment
Allows providers to bill E/M codes 99211, 99212, and 99213 for Levels I through III, when performed with superficial radiation treatment delivery.
MEDICARE SPECIAL EDITION ARTICLES
Medicare Part B Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule: Revised Information for Laboratories on Collecting and Reporting Data for the Private Payor Rate-Based Payment System
Assist the laboratory community in meeting the requirements under Section 1834A of the Social Security Act (the Act) for the Medicare Part B Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS). Includes clarifications for determining
- whether a hospital outreach laboratory meets the requirements to be an “applicable laboratory,”
- the applicable information (that is, private payor rate data) that must be collected and reported to CMS,
- the entity responsible for reporting applicable information to CMS,
- the data collection and reporting periods, and
- the schedule for implementing the next private payor-rate based CLFS update.
New Medicare Beneficiary Identifier (MBI) Get It, Use It
MEDICARE COVERAGE UPDATES
National Coverage Determination (NCD90.2): Next Generation Sequencing (NGS)
CMS covers diagnostic laboratory tests using next generation sequencing when performed in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments- certified laboratory when ordered by a treating physician and when specific requirements are met.
MEDICARE PRESS RELEASES
CMS Updates Consumer Resources for Comparing Hospital Quality
CMS updated hospital performance data on the Hospital Compare website and on data.medicare.gov. This data includes specific measures of hospitals’ quality of care, many of which are updated quarterly, and the Overall Hospital Star Ratings, which were last updated in December 2017. The data are collected through CMS’s Hospital Quality Initiative programs.
CMS Updates Drug Dashboards with Prescription Drug Pricing and Spending Data
Updated with 2017 data.
MEDICARE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
Medicare Fast Facts
Medicare Fast Facts resources this month include:
- Bill Correctly for Device Replacement Procedures
OTHER MEDICARE UPDATES
KEPRO Winter 2019 Care Review Connections Newsletter
A quarterly e-newsletter from your Beneficiary and Family Centered Care Quality Improvement Organization (BFCC-QIO).
https://www.keproqio.com/providers/winter-2019-acute-newsletter/
Guidelines for Achieving a Compliant Query Practice—2019 update
“Guidelines for Achieving a Compliant Query Practice” was produced through the joint effort of the Association of Clinical Documentation Improvement Specialists (ACDIS) and the American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA). Both associations collaborated on the creation of this practice brief and approved its contents, and as such it represents the recommended industry standard for provider queries.
This practice brief supercedes one published in 2016 and all previous versions.
https://acdis.org/resources/guidelines-achieving-compliant-query-practice%E2%80%942019-update
In keeping with March being National Social Work Month, this article focuses on CMS’s Transfer Policy. Medicare’s Transfer policy applies to transfers from an IPPS hospital to another hospital. It also applies to transfers from an IPPS hospital to specific post-acute care settings for specific MS-DRGs, which is known as the Post-Acute Care Transfer (PACT) Policy. This article focuses on the PACT policy, the addition of two new discharge dispositions to the policy and the potential financial implication for hospitals.
Background
CMS’s PACT Policy was implemented to prevent Medicare from paying for the same care twice. This policy reduces reimbursement to a hospital when:
- A hospitalization codes to an MS-DRG designated as a Transfer MS-DRG,
- The patient’s length of stay (LOS) is at least 1 day less than the geometric mean LOS (GMLOS) for the MS-DRG, and
- The patient is discharged to one of the “qualified discharges” in the following table.
Annually, CMS publishes a list of MS-DRGs subject to the PACT policy in Table 5 of the applicable Fiscal Year IPPS Final Rule. For FY 2019 there are 280 transfer DRGs.
The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 required the addition of discharges/transfers to Hospice Home (Discharge Disposition Code 50) and discharges/transfers to Hospice, General Inpatient Care or Inpatient Respite (Discharge Disposition Code 51) be added to the list of qualified discharge dispositions included in the Post-Acute Transfer (PACT) Policy. This change was finalized in the FY 2019 IPPS Final Rule with an effective date of October 1, 2018. CMS actuaries estimated this change in the PACT policy will “generate an annual savings of approximately $240 million in Medicare payments in FY 2019, and up to $540 million annually by FY 2028.”
Transfer MS-DRG Payment
A transferring hospital is generally paid based on a graduated per diem rate for each day of stay, not to exceed the full MS-DRG payment that would have been made if the patient had been discharged without being transferred. A per diem rate is calculated for each transfer DRG based on the following formula:
- MS-DRG Payment ÷ GMLOS = Per Diem Rate
For Transfer MS-DRGs, a hospital is reimbursed twice the per diem amount for the first day of the hospitalization and an additional single per diem rate for subsequent days up to the full MS-DRG payment.
CMS noted in the 2019 IPPS Final Rule, “(t)he rational for per diem payment as part of our transfer policy is that the transferring hospital generally provided only a limited amount of treatment. Therefore, payment of the full prospective payment rate would be unwarranted.” (49 FR 244)… Our longstanding view is the policy addresses the appropriate level of payment once clinical decisions about the most appropriate care in the most appropriate setting have been made.”
Special Payment MS-DRGs
To account for MS-DRGs subject to the PACT Policy that have exceptionally higher shares of costs very early in the hospital stay, CFR 412.4(f) also includes a special payment methodology. For these MS-DRGs hospitals receive 50 percent of the full MS-DRG payment, plus the single per diem payment, for the first day of the stay, as well as a per diem payment for subsequent days (up to the full MS-DRG payment).
PACT Policy Payment Examples
To help understand the policy payment, following are examples of a Transfer MS-DRG and a Special Pay Transfer MS-DRG.
PACT Policy
MS-DRG 470 (Major hip and knee joint replacement or reattachment procedures of the lower extremity with MCC without MCC) has been designated as Transfer MS-DRGs. Below is an example of payment utilizing FY 2018 IPPS Final Rule data.
Special Pay MS-DRGs
MS-DRG 266 (Endovascular cardiac valve replacement with MCC) has been designated as Special Pay MS-DRGs. Below is an example of payment utilizing FY 2018 IPPS Final Rule data.
Case Study
With the addition of Hospice to the PACT Policy and the estimated savings by CMS actuaries, what could this mean for individual hospitals? MMP conducted this case study with the objective of answering this question.
How Case Study Conducted
The first step was to select a group of short term acute care hospitals in Alabama both urban and rural. The second step was to use paid claims data from our sister company RealTime Medicare Data (RTMD) RealHealth Analytics database. Specifically, MMP used a report available in the Inpatient Compliance-RAC-Quality options titled Your Post-Acute Care Transfer Risks.
Specific parameters selected to run the report included:
- Hospital Name,
- Dates of Service: FY 2018 (October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2018), and
- Discharge Status Codes for Hospice Only.
Data Elements utilized from the report to identify potential financial impact included:
- DRG and DRG Description,
- Identified if Transfer DRG was also a Special Pay DRG,
- GMLOS,
- National Average Reimbursement for the DRGs,
- Length of stay for each claim; and
- Hospital specific unadjusted reimbursement.
Case Study Findings:
The following table depicts Transfer MS-DRG Volumes for FY 2018 where the discharge was to hospice, the hospital actual unadjusted reimbursement, the national average reimbursement, what the new national average payment would be when applying PACT policy payment methodology and the payment reduction the hospital could anticipate in FY 2019.
Hospitals in this case study can anticipate a 25-40% reduction in reimbursement due to the addition of discharge to hospice to the PACT Policy. It is important to understand the potential shift in hospital revenue. However, I believe it is more important to ensure your patients receive the right care, at the right time and in the right setting.
Beth Cobb
On November 21, 2018, CMS issued Transmittal 211 regarding revisions made to the Implantable Cardiac Defibrillator (ICD) National Coverage Determination (NCD 20.4) through a February 15, 2018 Final Decision Memo. Transmittal 211 indicated the revisions effective date was February 15, 2018 and the implementation date was to be February 26, 2019.
New Implementation Date: March 26, 2019
Almost two weeks ago on February 15th, CMS rescinded Transmitted 211 and replaced it with Transmittal 213. The only change made in the Transmittal was to change the implementation date from February 26, 2019 to March 26, 2019 (for MAC local edits). All other information remained the same.
Summary of Significant NCD Revisions
The delay in implementation affords providers an opportunity to make last minute adjustments to their systems and/or provide additional education to key stakeholders to ensure compliance with the NCD revisions. Following is a summary review of the significant changes in the NCD revision:
- MRI has been added to the list of imaging studies that can be performed to evaluate left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF);
- At least three months of Optimal Medical Therapy (OMT) is a new requirement for patients who have severe non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy and no personal history of sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmia or cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation;
- A Shared Decision Making (SDM) interaction must happen prior to ICD implantation for certain patients. (Note: This includes all patients receiving an ICD for primary prevention);
- The Class IV heart failure requirement for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been removed,
- An exception to the waiting period has been added for patients meeting CMS coverage requirements for cardiac pacemakers, and who meet the criteria for an ICD;
- An exception to the waiting period has also been added for patients with an existing ICD and qualifying replacement; and
- There is no longer a data collection requirement (e.g. a registry).
Additional information about the NCD Revisions and Effective and Implementation dates can be found in related Wednesday@One articles (http://mmplusinc.com/news-articles/item/ncd-20-4-implantable-cardiac-defibrillators-icds and http://mmplusinc.com/news-articles/item/effective-dates-of-new-icd-ncd-rules).
Implantable Automatic Defibrillator – Coding and Billing Local Coverage Article
CMS A/B MACs have been instructed to implement the NCD at the local level. At the time information for this article was compiled, all but two MACs (WPS and CGS) had posted or announced their plan to post an Implantable Automatic Defibrillator – Coding and Billing Local Coverage Article. The following table provides links to the currently available Future Articles.
The Articles provide coding and billing instructions for the implementation of NCD 20.4, including the ICD-10-CM codes that must be billed for the now six covered indications. In addition to meeting one of the covered indications, there are additional criteria that must be met. The first one being, “patients must be clinically stable (e.g., not in shock, from any etiology).” Indications 2, 3 and 4 are for patients with a low LVEF (≤ 30 or ≤ 35%). Per the Coverage Articles, one of the heart failure codes in the following table must be billed.
Note this list of heart failure ICD-10-CM codes does not include I50.9 Heart failure, unspecified. From auditing records, physicians still have a tendency to document congestive heart failure without further clarification and CDI Professionals in turn continue to query to clarify the type of congestive heart failure. Without the clarification, unspecified heart failure would not meet the coding requirement outlined in the coverage article.
The next issue that raised a question for me was the “patients must be clinically stable” requirement. While ICD’s are not an inpatient only procedure and are in general performed as an outpatient, there are instances where an ICD is implanted during an inpatient admission. Can an inpatient undergoing ICD placement due in part to a low LVEF be in acute heart failure and clinically stable at the same time? Or, could the acute systolic heart failure inpatient admission be long enough for the patient to stabilize and be clinically stable at the time of ICD implant? At this time I have questions with no answers and a plan to seek clarification from Palmetto. Stay tuned for an answer……
Beth Cobb
MEDICARE TRANSMITTALS – RECURRING UPDATES
April 2019 Quarterly ASP Medicare Part B Drug Pricing Files and Revisions to Prior Quarterly Pricing Files
International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) and Other Coding Revisions to National Coverage Determination (NCDs)
NCD coding changes as the result of newly available codes, coding revisions to NCDs released separately, or coding feedback received.
Healthcare Provider Taxonomy Codes (HPTCs) April 2019 Code Set Update
OTHER MEDICARE TRANSMITTALS
Processing Veterans Administration (VA) Inpatient Claims Exempt from Present on Admission (POA) Reporting
The HAC-POA payment provision required by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) applies only to Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) hospitals. Therefore, VA hospitals are exempt from reporting POA and End of POA Indicators.
Updates to Reflect Removal of Functional Reporting Requirements and Therapy Provisions of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018
Updates both the Medicare Benefit Policy Manual and Medicare Claims Processing Manual to reflect recent policy revisions including: (a) the repeal of the application of the outpatient therapy caps and the retention of the therapy cap amounts as thresholds of incurred expenses above which claims must include a modifier to confirm services are medically necessary as shown by medical record documentation; and, (b) the discontinuation of the functional reporting requirements.
Ensuring Organ Acquisition Charges Are Not Included in the Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) Payment Calculation
To prevent potential overpayments, Medicare’s Fiscal Intermediary Shared System (FISS) will deduct organ acquisition charges billed with revenue codes 081X from the total covered charges prior to sending an inpatient Type of Bill (TOB) 11X claim to the IPPS pricer for any date of service processed on or after July 1, 2019.
Revising the Remittance Advice Messaging for the 20-Hour Weekly Minimum for Partial Hospitalization Program Services
Common Working File (CWF) Provider Queries National Provider Identifier (NPI) Verification
The Common Working File (CWF) will require verification of the NPI similar to the HETS when Medicare Part A providers request Medicare beneficiary eligibility and entitlement data via the CWF provider inquiry screens.
Processing Instructions to Update the Standard Paper Remit (SPR)
Instructs MACs to update their systems to ensure that SPRs mailed after July 1, 2019, mask the Health Insurance Claim Number (HICN), so the Social Security Number (SSN) does not show.
Implementation to Exchange the List of Electronic Medical Documentation Requests (eMDR) for Registered Providers via the Electronic Submission of Medical Documentation (esMD) System
Makes the changes required to send Additional Documentation Request (ADR) letters to participating providers via the (esMD) system. A CR to effectuate the exchange of ADR letters to registered providers via the esMD system will be released at a later date.
Update to Mammography Editing
Modifies existing editing to ensure only revenue codes 0401, 0403, 0520, 0521, 096, 097, or 098 are billed on claims containing mammography codes 77065, 77066, or 77067.
https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Transmittals/2019Downloads/R4225CP.pdf
Implementation of the Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) Patient Driven Payment Model (PDPM)
Effectuates changes to the SNF Prospective Payment System (PPS) that were finalized in the FY 2019 SNF PPS Final Rule (83 FR 39162).
Local Coverage Determinations (LCDs) – REVISED
Multiple revisions of this transmittal that changes the LCD process.
Modification of the MCS Claims Processing System Logic for Modifier 59, XE, XS, XP, and XU Involving the National Correct Coding Initiative (NCCI) Procedure to Procedure (PTP) Column One and Column Two Codes
Medicare will allow modifiers 59, XE, XS, XP, or XU on column one and column two codes to bypass the edit.
Update to the Internet-Only-Manual (IOM) Publication (Pub.) 100-04, Chapter 32, Section 12.1
Removes diagnosis codes from and adds diagnosis codes to the list of valid diagnosis codes for Counseling to Prevent Tobacco Use.
https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Transmittals/2019Downloads/R4237CP.pdf
MEDICARE COVERAGE
Update to Intensive Cardiac Rehabilitation (ICR) Programs
Effective February 9, 2018, coverage in an ICR is expanded to include stable, chronic heart failure defined as patients with left ventricular ejection fraction of 35 percent or less and New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class II to IV symptoms despite being on optimal heart failure therapy for at least 6 weeks.
Supervised Exercise Therapy (SET) for Symptomatic Peripheral Artery Disease (PAD)—Clarification of Payment Rules and Expansion of International Classification of Diseases Tenth Edition (ICD-10) Diagnosis Codes
CMS proposes Coverage with Evidence Development for Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T-cell Therapy
Decision Memo for Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS) for Treatment Resistant Depression (TRD) (CAG-00313R2)
CMS will cover FDA approved vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) devices for treatment resistant depression (TRD) through Coverage with Evidence Development (CED) when offered in a CMS approved, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial with a follow-up duration of at least one year with the possibility of extending the study to a prospective longitudinal study when the CMS approved, double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial has completed enrollment, and there are positive interim findings.
National Coverage Determination (NCD) 20.4 Implantable Cardiac Defibrillators (ICDs) – REVISED
Implementation date changed from February 26, 2019 to March 26, 2019.
https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Transmittals/2019Downloads/R213NCD.pdf
MEDICARE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
Medicare Fast Facts
Medicare Fast Facts resources this month include:
- Medicare Hospital Claims: Avoid Coding Errors
- DME Proof of Delivery Documentation Requirements
OTHER MEDICARE UPDATES
New App Displays What Original Medicare Covers
Allows people with Original Medicare, caregivers and others to quickly see whether Medicare covers a specific medical item or service.
https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/new-app-displays-what-original-medicare-covers
Emergency Triage, Treat, and Transport (ET3) Model
A voluntary, five-year payment model that will pay participating ambulance suppliers and providers to 1) transport an individual to a hospital emergency department (ED) or other destination covered under the regulations, 2) transport to an alternative destination (such as a primary care doctor’s office or an urgent care clinic), or 3) provide treatment in place with a qualified health care practitioner, either on the scene or connected using telehealth.
https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/emergency-triage-treat-and-transport-et3-model
On January 31, 2019, Palmetto GBA, the Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) for Jurisdictions J and M, published the following instruction regarding coding for therapy records.
Yes, you may use the therapist intervention notes to help support your codes. You are allowed to do that for Medicare purposes. Make sure that the physician is informed on the therapist activities and you will still need to forward those notes to the physician at some point.
This is not the gift it may originally seem and I want to offer some cautions associated with this instruction. First, what would be the benefit of doing this? The MACs may have edits in place for therapy claims that require specific diagnoses in order to be paid. When physicians/practitioners order therapy services, they may list the medical diagnosis on the order, for example, “status post meniscectomy for left lateral meniscus tear.” But the therapist is not technically treating the meniscus tear or the meniscectomy, but the associated functional deficits caused by the repair. (I had one of these, so I know!) They are treating the joint pain, swelling, limited range of motion, gait issues, etc. associated with the surgery. The therapist describes these functional diagnoses in the evaluation and plan of care, with objective measures and subjective observations supporting these limitations. This makes it easy to see why coding from the therapist’s documentation makes sense to more accurately describe the “diagnosis” for the therapy services. And if edits are indeed in place for the payor, these diagnoses are more likely to “pass” the edits for a functional diagnosis and allow your claim to be paid.
But most state laws do not allow therapists to diagnose patients, so your coders will have some heartburn with this instruction. And do NOT let this instruction make your therapists think this makes it acceptable to delay obtaining the physician/practitioner’s signature on the plan of care. Medicare requires the patient to be under the care of a physician/practitioner and their certification of the plan of care. This certification shows the physician/NPP approves of the therapist’s plan and gives permission for the therapist to move forward with the approved plan. Therapists do not have to wait on the signature to begin treatment, but a signature certifying the plan is required for Medicare payment and Medicare expects this to be done in a timely manner, i.e. as soon as possible after the plan is established. This means that if the record is audited by a Medicare reviewer, there must be a plan of care certification signed by the patient’s physician/practitioner in the medical record. If this documentation is missing, Medicare will deny the claim.
How likely is it your therapy claim will be reviewed by Medicare? That is hard to know, but currently 7 of the 12 MAC Jurisdictions have therapy services as a topic of their Targeted Probe and Educate (TPE) reviews, and 8 of the 12 MACs have a Local Coverage Determination and/or Coverage Article addressing therapy services. I would say the odds are not looking good for escaping scrutiny.
Debbie Rubio
MEDICARE TRANSMITTALS – RECURRING UPDATES
January 2019 Update of the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS)
Describes changes to and billing instructions for various payment policies implemented in the January 2019 OPPS update.
Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule – Medicare Travel Allowance Fees for Collection of Specimens
Revises travel allowances payment amounts when billed on a per mileage basis using HCPCS code P9603 and when billed on a flat rate basis using HCPCS code P9604 for Calendar Year (CY) 2019.
Quarterly Update to the National Correct Coding Initiative (NCCI) Procedure-to-Procedure (PTP) Edits, Version 25.1 Effective April 1, 2019
Calendar Year (CY) 2019 Annual Update for Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule and Laboratory Services Subject to Reasonable Charge Payment
Provides instructions for the Calendar Year (CY) 2019 Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS), mapping for new codes for clinical laboratory tests, and updates for laboratory costs subject to the reasonable charge payment.
OTHER MEDICARE TRANSMITTALS
Medicare Claims Processing Manual Chapter 23 - Fee Schedule Administration and
Coding Requirements
Updates manual concerning National Correct Coding Initiative (NCCI) procedure-to-procedure (PTP) edits, medically unlikely edits (MUEs), and modifiers -59 and -91 usage.
https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Transmittals/2018Downloads/R4188CP.pdf
Local Coverage Determinations (LCDs) – REVISED
Added language to show that MACs have the discretion to host multi-jurisdictional CACs.
New Waived Tests
New Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) waived tests approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Medicare Claims Processing Manual, Chapter 30 Revisions
Chapter revised to provide improved formatting and readability – current policy is not changing.
New Electronic System for Provider Reimbursement Review Board Appeals
MEDICARE SPECIAL EDITION ARTICLES
Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) Removal from the Medicare Inpatient-Only (IPO) List and Application of the 2-Midnight Rule - Reissued
Addresses TKA procedures and application of the 2-Midnight Rule now that this procedure has been removed from Medicare’s inpatient-only (IPO) list.
MEDICARE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
Appropriate Use Criteria for Advanced Diagnostic Imaging MLN Fact Sheet
ICD-10-CM, ICD10-PCS, CPT, and HCPCS Code Sets MLN Fact Sheet
Medicare Fast Facts
Medicare Fast Facts resources this month include:
- Proper Coding for Specimen Validity Testing Billed in Combination with Urine Drug Testing
- Proper Use of the KX Modifier for Part B Immunosuppressive Drug Claims
OTHER MEDICARE UPDATES
Medicare Fee-for-Service Recovery Audit Program: Additional Documentation Limits for Medicare Institutional Providers (i.e. Facilities)
RAC ADR limits for facilities updated December 21, 2018
Yes! Help me improve my Medicare FFS business.
Please, no soliciting.
We are an environmentally conscious company, dedicated to living “green” both at work and as individuals.
