Knowledge Base Category -

Dilemma:

How do you know when to use plain radiography vs. fluoroscopy and which type of contrast should be used when coding coronary angiograms in ICD-10-PCS?

Solution:

Use fluoroscopy for the 3rd character (Root Type), per instructions in the ICD-10-PCS Coder Training Manual, 2016, Instructor’s Edition.  
The catheter is threaded into the heart using an x-ray machine that produces real time pictures which is fluoroscopy.  Then the catheter tip is moved into different positions such as the arteries and heart chambers while the physician is watching on a computer monitor.

The type of contrast dye will be low osmolar. Listed below are a few of the Low Osmolar Contrasts:

• Omnipaque
• Visipaque
• Isovue

Resource(s):

• ICD-10-PCS Coder Training Manual, 2016,
• Instructor’s EditionWikipedia 

When you hear the word compliance, what comes to mind? The word compliance can and does actually bring to mind a varying degree of answers depending on who you were to ask in the hospital. For Example:

• A Hospital Compliance Officer among other things thinks about the fall release of the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) annual Work Plan to guide compliance efforts for the coming year. .
• A Case Manager thinks about what is a compliant inpatient status order, does the Physician documentation support a 2-Midnight expectation, is my patient going to be compliant with his/her discharge plan instructions with a goal of preventing a 30-Day Readmission?
• For the Coder, with I-10 finally being implemented, he or she is dealing with compliance with the new coding system and I-10 Coding Clinics.
• A Clinical Documentation Specialist most likely thinks about a compliant query process.
• Infection control promotes compliance with best practices to prevent adverse outcomes for the patient.
• The billing department wants to be compliant while getting a “clean bill” out the door for payment for services rendered by the hospital.

While this is not an exhaustive list of healthcare providers who strive for compliance, it is clear that compliance is a very real concern and desired outcome and at the end of the day, each caregiver wants to “get it right” while providing the best care possible to the patient.

The Health Care Compliance Association (HCCA) defines compliance as being “the process of meeting the expectations of others. More specifically, it is the process of helping our health care professionals understand and meet the expectations of those who grant us money, pay for our services, regulate our industry, etc.” This is where MMP shines by living our mission of “Making HealthCare Make Sense.” This is what we enjoy. This is why when asked I tell people that my hobbies are my husband, my cats and reading the Federal Register.

Our Wednesday@One Newsletter already includes in our production schedule a coverage update the second week of the month and a Medical Review update the third week of each month. This week we are excited to debut a new monthly article the fourth week of each month to be known as The Making HealthCare Make Sense Spotlight. This month we begin by spotlighting free resources available to you on your compliance journey. The use of the term journey is very deliberate as the one thing that you can count on in healthcare is change and that is what makes your career a constant journey.

OIG Compliance Education Materials: Compliance 101:

The OIG developed the resources found on this web page to “help health care providers, practitioners, and suppliers understand the health care fraud and abuse laws and the consequences of violating them. These compliance education materials can also provide ideas for ways to cultivate a culture of compliance within your own health care organization” (http://oig.hhs.gov/compliance/101/).

Medicare Learning Network® (MLN) Provider Compliance page

The MLN Provider Compliance Page “contains educational products that inform health care professionals on how to avoid common billing errors and other improper activities when dealing with various CMS Programs. CMS’ claim review program’s overall goal is to reduce improper payment error by identifying and addressing coverage and coding billing errors. Since 1996, CMS has implemented several initiatives: to prevent improper payments before a claim is processed; and to identify, and recoup improper payments after the claim is processed” (https://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNProducts/ProviderCompliance.html).

Examples of useful resources on this web page include:

• Provider Compliance Educational Products pdf,
• Fraud and Abuse Educational Products pdf,
• Provider Compliance MLN Matters® Articles pdf; and
• Archive of Medicare Quarterly Provider Compliance Newsletters.

Office of Civil Rights

As a Business Associate we take our HIPAA responsibilities very seriously. The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) has an entire Web page devoted to Health Information Privacy. This web page provides you with information to understand HIPAA Privacy, current enforcement activities and much more. (http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/index.html).

As we begin this series of articles, we welcome feedback and recommendations for future articles by you our reader. I also encourage you to read the related article in this week’s newsletter, Resources for your Hospital Compliance Plan.

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.

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.

‍ Resource

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

October 1st has seen its share of historical events. Before looking forward, let’s take a look back at a few highlights from this date in history.

October 1, 1800: Spain ceded Louisiana to France in a secret treaty.

October 1, 1851: First Hawaiian stamp is issued.

October 1, 1880: First electric lamp factory opened by Thomas Edison.

October 1, 1890: Yosemite National Park forms.

October 1, 1908: Ford puts the Model T car on the market at a price of US$825.

October 1, 1942: Little Golden Books (children books) begins publishing.

October 1, 1955: “Honeymooners” premieres.

October 1, 1982: Sony launches the first consumer compact disc player (model CDP-101).

October 1, 1989: U.S. issues a stamp, labeling an Apatosaurus as a brontosaurus.

October 1, 2013: U.S. federal government shuts down non-essential services after it is unable to pass a budget measure.

As we are now 29 days from October 1st, it appears that the transition to ICD-10 won’t be shut down. While ICD-10 is and should be a main focus for hospitals right now, a gentle reminder that October 1st is also the start of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) fiscal year and the implementation of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) Final Rule. This article highlights some of the key MS-DRG changes finalized in the Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) 2016 Final Rule that will also begin on October 1, 2015.

Documentation and Coding Adjustment

CMS is required to recover $11 billion by 2017 to fully recoup documentation and coding overpayments related to the transition to the MS-DRG system that began in FY 2008. CMS finalized another -0.8 percent adjustment as begun in FY 2014 to continue the recoupment process.

Changes to Preventable Hospital Acquired Conditions (HACs), Including Infections for FY 2016

CMS finalized the proposal to implement the ICD-10-CM/PCS Version 33 HAC list to replace the ICD-9-CM Version 32 HAC list. The HAC code list translations from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM/PCS are located in Appendix I of the ICD-10-CM/PCS MS-DRG Version 32 Definitions Manual that can be located in the Downloads section of the ICD-10 MS-DRG Conversion Project Web site at: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coding/ICD10/ICD-10-MS-DRG-Conversion-Project.html

Finalized Changes to Specific MS-DRG Classifications for FY 2016

MDC 5: Diseases and Disorders of the Circulatory System

The CMS created 2 New MS-DRGs to classify Percutaneous Intracardiac Procedures.

Major Cardiovascular Procedures have been moved from MS-DRGs 237 and 238 to five new MS-DRGs as outlined in the following table.

‍MDC 8: Diseases and Disorders of the Musculoskeletal System and Connective Tissue

Revision of Hip or Knee Replacements ICD-10-PCS Version 32 Logic

The CMS finalized the proposal to add code combinations which capture the joint revision procedure. These combination codes will be the same for MS-DRGs 466,467, 468 as well as MS-DRGs 628, 629, and 630 (Other Endocrine, Nutritional, and Metabolic Operating Room Procedures with MCC, with CC, and without CC/MCC) as the joint procedures are also included in this MS-DRG group. The table of code combinations can be found on pages 49,390 thru 49,406 of the Final Rule.

Spinal Fusion

The CMS finalized the proposal to change the title of MS-DRGs 456, 457 and 458. They indicated that by changing the reference of “9+ Fusions” to “Extensive Fusions,” this more appropriately identifies the procedures classified under these groupings. The final title revisions are as follows:

• MS-DRG 456: Spinal Fusion Except Cervical with Spinal Curvature/Malignancy/Infection or Extensive Fusion with MCC,
• MS-DRG 457: Spinal Fusion Except Cervical with Spinal Curvature/Malignancy/Infection or Extensive Fusion with CC; and
• MS-DRG 458: Spinal Fusion Except Cervical with Spinal Curvature/Malignancy/Infection or Extensive Fusion without CC/MCC.

MDC 14: Pregnancy, Childbirth and the Puerperium

The CMS finalized the proposal to modify the logic for several ICD-10 procedure codes where the current logic did not result in the appropriate MS-DRG assignment. Specifically, the codes should not be designated as O.R. codes. Specific Codes where the logic was modified include:

• 3E0P7GC (Introduction of other therapeutic substance into female reproductive, via natural or artificial opening);
• 3E0P76Z (Introduction of nutritional substance into female reproductive, via natural or artificial opening);
• 3E0P77Z (Introduction of electrolytic and water balance substance into female reproductive, via natural or artificial opening);
• 3E0P7SF (Introduction of other gas into female reproductive, via natural or artificial opening);
• 3E0P83Z (Introduction of anti-inflammatory into female reproductive, via natural or artificial opening endoscopic);
• 3E0P86Z (Introduction of nutritional substance into female reproductive, via natural or artificial opening endoscopic);
• 3E0P87Z (Introduction of electrolytic and water balance substance into female reproductive, via natural or artificial opening endoscopic);
• 3E0P8GC (Introduction of other therapeutic substance into female reproductive, via natural or artificial opening endoscopic); and
• 3E0P8SF (Introduction of other gas into female reproductive, via natural or artificial opening endoscopic).

Finalized Changes to the Postacute Care Transfer MS-DRGs

Per the 2015 OPTUM DRG Expert, “CMS established a postacute care transfer policy effective October 1, 1998. The purpose of the IPPS postacute care transfer payment policy is to avoid providing an incentive for a hospital to transfer patients to another hospital early in the patient’s stay in order to minimize costs while still receiving the full DRG payment. The transfer policy adjusts the payments to approximate the reduced costs of transfer cases.”

The CMS finalized the proposal to update the list of MS-DRGs that are subject to the Postacute Care Transfer Policy to include:

• MS-DRG 273: Percutaneous Intracardiac Procedures with MCC; and
• MS-DRG 274: Percutaneous Intracardiac Procedures without MCC.

Note: MS-DRGs 273 and 274 met the criteria for the special payment methodology and therefore are also subject to the MS-DRG special payment methodology.

Please be aware that this article highlights some of the key changes. For those closely involved with coding in your facility be on the lookout for our Annual Fall Inpatient webinar.

In the meantime, the FY 2016 Final Rule can be accessed at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-08-17/pdf/2015-19049.pdf.

I love reading, writing and the English language – I am such a grammar geek that I actually belong to a “grammar” blog. In writing, you want to make sure you are choosing your words wisely and appropriately – in other words, definitions matter. As we see in this quarter’s Medicare Compliance Newsletter, definitions also matter when billing for your services to Medicare, especially the definitions related to procedure and diagnosis codes.

Last week we addressed a couple of CERT issues from the January Medicare Quarterly Provider Compliance Newsletter that affected hospital inpatient claims. This week we will look at some deficiencies with outpatient records identified by the Recovery Auditors.

Extracorporeal Photopheresis – CPT 36522

Medicare covers extracorporeal photopheresis (drug and UVA light treatment of white blood cells) only for certain conditions per National Coverage Determination 110.4. This procedure is covered by Medicare for:

• Palliative treatment of skin manifestations of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma that has not responded to other therapy
• Patients with acute cardiac allograft rejection whose disease is refractory to standard immunosuppressive drug treatment
• Patients with chronic graft versus host disease whose disease is refractory to standard immunosuppressive drug treatment

Medicare claims for CPT 36522 must contain one of the following ICD-9 diagnosis codes for the above covered conditions to support medical necessity and be eligible for Medicare payment: 202.10-202.18 and 202.20-202.28, 996.83, or 996.85. A RAC automated review identified overpayments for claims with this service that did not contain an appropriate diagnosis code.

Facet Joint Injections

According to the newsletter, “Medicare will consider facet joint blocks to be reasonable and necessary for chronic pain (persistent pain for three (3) months or greater) suspected to originate from the facet joint.” Due to findings from RAC reviews, Medicare reminds providers about the following facts of facet joint injections:

• It is expected that facet injections reported with CPT codes 64490-64495 will be performed under fluoroscopic guidance.
• Multiple nerves innervate each facet joint, but injections are to be reported per facet joint level, not per nerve. Facet joint levels refer to the joints that are blocked and not the number of medial branches that innervate them. For example, CPT codes 64490 and 64493 are used to report all of the nerves that innervate the first level paravertebral facet joint and not each nerve; CPT codes 64491, 64492, and 64494, 64495 report all nerves at the second and third additional levels and not each additional nerve.
• Codes 64490-64495 are unilateral procedures.
• Use modifier 50 to report bilateral injections (facet joint injections on both the right and left sides of one level of the spine). If multiple bilateral injections are performed, modifier 50 should accompany each facet CPT joint injection code that was performed on both sides of one level.
• Only one facet injection code should be reported at a specific level and side injected (e.g., right L4-5 facet joint), regardless of the number of needle(s) inserted or number of drug(s) injected at that specific level.

IV Infusion Units

Providers are to report only one “initial” intravenous infusion code for chemotherapy and therapeutic infusions (CPT codes 96413, 96365, and 96369) per day unless the patient has two different infusion sites or more than one visit on the same day. In the case of two infusion sites or multiple encounters, it is appropriate to append a -59 modifier to the second “initial” service. An initial infusion code is defined in MLN Matters Article MM3818 as the code that “best describes the key or primary reason for the encounter and should always be reported irrespective of the order in which the infusions or injections occur." Also be sure to follow the CPT reporting hierarchy for drug administration codes in selecting the initial service.

Hospitals need to bear in mind that for drug administrations, observation services spanning more than one day are considered one encounter as explained in the Medicare Claims Processing Manual, Chapter 4, section 230:

“Drug administration services are to be reported with a line item date of service on the day they are provided. In addition, only one initial drug administration service is to be reported per vascular access site per encounter, including during an encounter where observation services span more than 1 calendar day.”

As always, it benefits providers to pay attention to the details when billing Medicare – such as the definitions of “initial” infusion and facet joint “level” versus nerve. In coding and billing, definitions matter!

Updated January 29, 2015

Motivational speakers like catchy words and phrases – remember such terms as “synergy” and “apples to apples”. Sometimes we hear these terms so much that they become irritating, but with this year’s code changes, providers have to be careful or they will be trying to correlate things that don’t go together – it’s like “apples to oranges”. Here are just a few examples.

Radiation Oncology – CPT Codes for Hospitals; HCPCS Codes for Physicians

The CPT code changes for radiation oncology for 2015 represent significant changes in how radiation therapy services and associated image guidance are reported. Since CMS decided not to pursue proposed cuts to physician radiation oncology payments, CMS created new HCPCS codes for physicians to use in reporting services for 2015 that crosswalk from the 2014 CPT codes. These codes are not for hospital reporting. The HCPCS codes G6001-G6017 are assigned a status indicator of B for OPPS. Hospitals are to report the new CPT codes for radiation oncology services.

Drug Screening Codes – HCPCS Codes for Medicare; CPT Codes for Non-Medicare Payers

Another area with major CPT code changes for 2015 is the Laboratory Drug Screening Codes. CPT deleted old codes and developed new codes based mainly on the testing methods used for analysis. Since Medicare’s HCPCS codes for drug screen tests were already based on the complexity of the laboratory testing methods, you would think these would match. Unfortunately, a direct crosswalk from CPT codes to HCPCS codes is not possible. CPT is based on the type of method (optical observation, immuno- or enzyme assay, or more complex methods). Medicare’s G codes (G0431 and G0434) are based on the testing complexity assigned by the FDA to the testing kit or analyzer – methods may fit into different complexities depending on the type of analyzer. Most hospitals are finding that selecting the new codes takes both clinical and coding expertise for correct assignment.

New Modifiers – Continue to Use 59 Modifier or Use New Modifiers

Due to concerns about the overuse and misuse of modifier 59, CMS developed new more specific modifiers available for use beginning January 1, 2015. These new X {ESPU} modifiers are a subset of modifier 59 with more specific descriptions:

• XE –separate encounter
• XS – separate structure
• XP – different practitioner
• XU – Unusual, non-overlapping service

The confusion here is whether to go ahead and use the new modifiers now or wait for further CMS guidance. There have been conflicting statements from CMS concerning this:

• “As a default, at this time CMS will initially accept either a -59 modifier or a more selective - X{EPSU} modifier as correct coding, although the rapid migration of providers to the more selective modifiers is encouraged.” (MLN MM8863)
• Beginning on January 1, 2015, providers canuse the X modifiers if they are currently using modifier59 for a reason within the published definition of the X modifiers. Providers also have the option to continue using modifier59 until CMS issues examples of circumstances in which the X modifiers are or are not appropriate.” (October 23rd Provider Connects eNews)

There are probably many more examples in the world of Medicare coding and billing of “apples to oranges” comparisons. If you think of some good examples, please share them with MMP at info@mmplusinc.com .

We may not know if the testing method for drug screening is classified as moderate or high complexity without looking it up, but I bet everyone will agree that the process of selecting the correct CPT/HCPCS codes for drug screen billing is highly complex.

CPT made a lot of changes to drug assays, specifically drug screening and definitive testing of non-therapeutic drugs, for 2015. And to complicate things even further, Medicare is not accepting the new CPT codes and has established some new HCPCS codes for drug identifications. Medical Management Plus will be covering the drug assay code changes in our coding webinar on December 4, 2014 in more detail, but here is a summary of the major changes.

Instead of classifying drug assays by qualitative versus quantitative, CPT now has three types of drug assays:

1. Presumptive drug assays to detect the possible presence of a drug by simpler testing methods,
2. Definitive drug assays that provide specific identification of individual drugs using complex testing methods, and
3. Therapeutic drug assays to monitor clinical response to a known, prescribed medication.

The assignment of CPT codes for presumptive drug assays are based on the drug classification into one of two drug class lists developed by CPT and the complexity of the testing methods. Drug class list A includes drugs generally considered drugs of abuse and identified by simpler testing methods such as optical observation and chemistry analyzer immunoassay or enzyme assay. Drug class list B includes drugs such as acetaminophen, salicylates, etc. and involves most complex immunoassay analyzer or chromatography methods. The CPT codes for drug screening are:

• CPT 80300 - Drug screen, any number of drug classes from Drug Class List A; any number of non-TLC devices or procedures, (eg immunoassay) capable of being read by direct optical observation, including instrumented-assisted when performed (eg, dipsticks, cups, cards, cartridges), per date of service
• CPT 80301 - Drug screen, any number of drug classes from Drug Class List A; single drug class method, by instrument test systems (eg, discrete multichannel chemistry analyzers utilizing immunoassay or enzyme assay), per date of service
• CPT 80302 - Drug screen, presumptive, single drug class from Drug Class List B, by immunoassay (eg, ELISA) or non-TLC chromatography without mass spectrometry (eg, GC, HPLC), each procedure
• CPT 80303 - Drug screen, any number of drug classes, presumptive, single or multiple drug class method; thin layer chromatography procedure(s) (TLC) (eg, acid, neutral, alkaloid plate), per date of service
• CPT 80304 - Drug screen, any number of drug classes, presumptive, single or multiple drug class method; not otherwise specified presumptive procedure (eg, TOF, MALDI, LDTD, DESI, DART), each procedure

For Medicare, drug screening codes are the same as last year. Although the description for high complexity lists immunoassay and enzyme assay, most immunoassay and enzyme assay methods are actually moderate complexity tests. Test complexity is determined by the FDA and is listed on their website. Laboratory personnel can help in determining the complexity of drug screen tests that your hospital performs. Medicare’s HCPCS code definitions are:

• HCPCS G0431 - Drug screen, qualitative; multiple drug classes by high complexity test method (e.g., immunoassay, enzyme assay), per patient encounter
• HCPCS G0434 - Drug screen, other than chromatographic; any number of drug classes, by CLIA waived test or moderate complexity test, per patient encounter

Both CPT and Medicare developed new codes for individual non-therapeutic drug assays. The new CPT codes are CPT codes 80320 – 80377. CPT clarifies that these codes are to be used for complex definitive methods such as those involving mass spectrometry and specifically excludes immunoassay and enzyme assay testing methods. The new HCPCS codes describing individual drug assays accepted by Medicare for 2015 are HCPCS codes G6030 – G6058. So far Medicare has not provided any guidance on the use of these codes, such as if they are limited to particular testing methodologies.

Because of differences in the basis of the code descriptions, it will not be easy to cross-walk the CPT codes and the Medicare HCPCS codes. We also will have to wait and see if Medicare issues any guidance, particularly for the use of the individual drug codes. The chart below provides some suggestions on cross-walking the drug screening codes.

 

 

As high complexity is a determining factor in drug testing, it also appropriately describes the process of determining which codes to use for billing. This year, it just seems to become even more complex and even worse, Medicare is packaging the payment for all drug screening codes. All of this work and brain drain for no reward!!

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.

November is Lung Cancer Awareness Month and annually the American Cancer Society has designated the third Thursday of November as the Great American Smokeout “by encouraging smokers to use the date to make a plan to quit, or to plan in advance and quit smoking that day.” We at MMP would also like to use this date to encourage our readers to make a plan and be prepared for the documentation changes for smoking in ICD-10.

In record reviews I have seen doctors note a patient has never smoked, is a smoker, is a reformed smoker, patient has cut back to 2-3 cigarettes a day. While all of this is interesting, currently in ICD-9 physicians simply need to document when a patient smokes or uses tobacco.

However, in ICD-10, physicians will need to provide more detailed documentation. Physicians will need to document the following additional information for the coder to most accurately report a patient’s tobacco use:

• The physician should document the type of tobacco a person uses (e.g. cigarettes, chewing tobacco, pipe, and/or gum).

• To further specify the type of tobacco dependence that a patient has, the physician will need to document the frequency of use.
• The patient uses nicotine, or
• The patient abuses nicotine, or
• The patient has a nicotine dependence or
• The patient is in remission from nicotine.

• Also, when it is applicable, the physician should document the type of second hand smoke experienced by the patient (e.g. from parent, at work, perinatal, etc.).

Take a look at what your physicians are currently documenting about tobacco use and begin to educate your physicians on what needs to be documented for the accurate reporting of tobacco use.

I enjoy what I do. For some weird reason, I like to read and do my best to interpret the Medicare regulations. I hope my efforts make it easier for hospitals to receive the appropriate reimbursement for the healthcare services they provide by helping them to follow Medicare’s documentation, coding and billing requirements. But unfortunately, the news I share is not always the best news or even fun. So before I get into the “not so fun” part of this article, I want to acknowledge National Radiologic Technology Week.

As in many areas of healthcare, radiology includes many different types of services, such as plain x-rays, computed tomography (CT), magnetic imaging resonance (MRI), ultrasound, nuclear medicine, interventional radiology, radiation oncology, and others. Radiologic technologists provide a valuable contribution to healthcare. How many times over the past year have you, your family or friends received radiologic services? How would your care have been affected without this technology? Within my own circle of family and friends – an x-ray for a broken wrist, annual mammogram, Dexa scan, MRI for spinal stenosis, and CT to rule out a pulmonary embolism. So thanks to all our radiology friends!

A few weeks ago an article reviewed some of the National Correct Coding Initiative (NCCI) guidance for respiratory services for their recognition week. Continuing that theme for National Radiology Week, let’s look at some of the NCCI instructions that apply to Medicare coding and billing for radiology services.

A recent NCCI edit (July 2014) bundled spinal myelography procedures (72240-72270) into procedures for CT neck, chest and lumbar studies (72125-72133). The code pairs may be reported together with the appropriate modifier when warranted. If both tests are medically necessary, distinctly ordered, and there is a separate interpretation for each procedure, then it is appropriate to append modifier 59 to the CT of the spine with contrast code to identify that it is a separate and distinct procedure. (CPT Assistant September 2014)

The following are selected excerpts from the Radiology chapter of the NCCI manual. For complete information regarding these topics and other radiologic issues, please see Chapter IX of the NCCI Policy Manual found in the downloads section of the Medicare NCCI Website.

• CPT code descriptors that specify a minimum number of views include additional views if there is no more comprehensive code specifically including the additional views.
• CPT Manual instructions state that in the presence of a clinical history suggesting urinary tract pathology complete ultrasound evaluation of the kidneys and urinary bladder constitutes a complete retroperitoneal ultrasound study (CPT code 76770). A limited retroperitoneal ultrasound (CPT code 76775) plus limited pelvic ultrasound (CPT code 76857) should not be reported in lieu of the complete retroperitoneal ultrasound (CPT code 76770).
• When a central venous catheter is inserted, a chest radiologic examination is usually performed to confirm the position of the catheter and absence of pneumothorax. Similarly when an emergency endotracheal intubation procedure (CPT code 31500), chest tube insertion procedure (e.g., CPT codes 32550, 32551, 32554, 32555), or insertion of a central flow directed catheter procedure (e.g., Swan Ganz)(CPT code 93503) is performed, a chest radiologic examination is usually performed to confirm the location and proper positioning of the tube or catheter. The chest radiologic examination is integral to the procedures, and a chest radiologic examination (e.g., CPT codes 71010, 71020) should not be reported separately.
• CPT code 75635 describes computed tomographic angiography of the abdominal aorta and bilateral iliofemoral lower extremity runoff. This code includes the services described by CPT codes 73706 (computed tomographic angiography, lower extremity...) and 74175 (computed tomographic angiography, abdomen...). CPT codes 73706 and 74175 should not be reported with CPT code 75635 for the same patient encounter. CPT code 73706 plus CPT code 74175 should not be reported in lieu of CPT code 75635.
• Diagnostic angiography (arteriogram/venogram) performed on the same date of service by the same provider as a percutaneous intravascular interventional procedure should be reported with modifier 59. If a diagnostic angiogram (fluoroscopic or computed tomographic) was performed prior to the date of the percutaneous intravascular interventional procedure, a second diagnostic angiogram cannot be reported on the date of the percutaneous intravascular interventional procedure unless it is medically reasonable and necessary to repeat the study to further define the anatomy and pathology. Report the repeat angiogram with modifier 59.
• Fluoroscopy reported as CPT codes 76000 or 76001 is integral to many procedures including, but not limited, to most spinal, endoscopic, and injection procedures and should not be reported separately. For some of these procedures, there are separate fluoroscopic guidance codes which may be reported separately.
• Computed tomography (CT) and computed tomographic angiography (CTA) procedures for the same anatomic location may be reported together in limited circumstances. If a single technical study is performed which is utilized to generate images for separate CT and CTA reports, only one procedure, either the CT or CTA, for the anatomic region may be reported. Both a CT and CTA may be reported for the same anatomic region if they are performed at separate patient encounters or if two separate and distinct technical studies, one for the CT and one for the CTA, are performed at the same patient encounter. The medical necessity for the latter situation is uncommon.
• If a breast biopsy, needle localization wire, metallic localization clip, or other breast procedure is performed with mammographic guidance (e.g., 19281,19282), the physician should not separately report a post procedure mammography code (e.g., 77051, 77052, 77055-77057, G0202-G0206) for the same patient encounter. The radiologic guidance codes include all imaging by the defined modality required to perform the procedure.
• CPT codes 76942, 77002, 77003, 77012, and 77021 describe radiologic guidance for needle placement by different modalities. CMS payment policy allows one unit of service for any of these codes at a single patient encounter regardless of the number of needle placements performed. The unit of service for these codes is the patient encounter, not number of lesions, number of aspirations, number of biopsies, number of injections, or number of localizations.
• The code descriptor for CPT code 77417 states “Therapeutic radiology port film(s)”. The MUE value for this code is one (1) since it includes all port films.
• An MRI study of the brain (CPT codes 70551-70553) and MRI study of the orbit (CPT codes 70540-70543) are separately reportable only if they are both medically reasonable and necessary and are performed as distinct studies. An MRI of the orbit is not separately reportable with an MRI of the brain if an incidental abnormality of the orbit is identified during an MRI of the brain since only one MRI study is performed.

There are more rules on coding and reporting radiology services on a claim than there are slices of a CT scan. And that is not so fun!

Coding Kwashiorkor has been and continues to be a hot topic for contractors (e.g., Recovery Auditors and the Office of Inspector General (OIG)). In fact, auditing claims including a diagnosis of Kwashiorkor to determine if the record adequately supports the diagnosis was a new scope of work in the FY 2014 OIG Work Plan and is a continued scope of work in the FY 2015 OIG Work Plan. In the Work Plan the OIG indicates that “a diagnosis of Kwashiorkor on a claim substantially increases the hospitals’ reimbursement from Medicare.”

What is Kwashiorkor?

According to the National Institutes of Health, “Kwashiorkor is a form of malnutrition that occurs when there is not enough protein in the diet. Kwashiorkor is most common in areas where there is:

• Famine
• Limited food supply
• Low levels of education (when people do not understand how to eat a proper diet)
• Dates of service of records reviewed ranged from 2010 – 2013 with most records being prior to 2013.

This disease is more common in very poor countries. It often occurs during a drought or other natural disaster, or during political unrest.”

“Kwashiorkor is very rare in children in the United States. There are only isolated cases. However, one government estimate suggests that as many as 50% of elderly people in nursing homes in the United States do not get enough protein in their diet.

When Kwashiorkor does occur in the United States, it is usually a sign of child abuse and severe neglect.”

Kwashiorkor and the OIG Work Plan

In fulfillment of the Work Plan, the OIG has completed several hospital audits that found that hospitals had incorrectly billed Medicare inpatient claims with Kwashiorkor.

In the audit reports, the OIG indicates that Kwashiorkor generally affects children and the Medicare program is primarily provided to people age 65 or older. Yet, “for calendar years (CYs) 2010 and 2011, Medicare paid hospitals $711 million for claims that included a diagnosis for Kwashiorkor. Therefore, we are conducting a series of reviews of hospitals with claims that include this diagnosis code.”

Key Takeaways from 2014 OIG Reports:

• Consistent in the findings for all of the hospitals was that almost all claims reviewed did not comply with Medicare requirements for billing Kwashiorkor in that they used code 260 but should have used codes for other forms of malnutrition. In several instances removing code 260 did not result in a DRG change. When it did result in a DRG change it resulted in overpayments being made to the hospital.
• The combined overpayment by Medicare was $2,074,341. This is staggering when you consider that this amount is overpayment for one single secondary diagnosis code at only twelve hospitals.
• The reasons for coding errors sited by the hospitals included:
• Lack of clarity in the coding guidelines,
• Issues with the medical coding software program used to code the diagnosis; and
• Incorrect guidance from a third party consultant.

What Guidance is Available to Hospitals?

To answer the “lack of clarity in coding guidelines” for coding Kwashiorkor here are two resources that hospitals can look to for malnutrition coding guidance.

Coding Clinic

Volume 3, Issue 1 , page 3 of the October 2012 Medicare Quarterly Compliance Newsletter, provides an example of a Recovery Auditor findings where Kwashiorkor had been coded as a secondary major comorbidity incorrectly and refers the reader to Coding Clinic, Third Quarter 2009.

Specifically, Coding Clinic, Third Quarter 2009, p. 6 advises hospitals to only code 263.0 for moderate protein malnutrition as this category also includes protein-calorie malnutrition. Coding Clinic further advises that unless the physician specifically documents Kwashiorkor Code 260 should not be used.

Consensus Statement

The American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (the Academy) and the American Society for Parental and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) published a Consensus Statement in the May 2012 Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

This article acknowledges that “the diagnosis of malnutrition in a patient is an undeniably complicating condition that in many cases significantly increased resource utilization in the acute care setting beyond that experienced by the patient in nutritional health.”

While hospitals have historically looked to serum albumin and prealbumin levels as an indicator of malnutrition, the Academy’s Evidence Analysis Library (EAL) analysis found that “acute-phase proteins do not consistently or predictably change with weight loss, calorie restriction, or nitrogen balance. They appear to better reflect severity of the inflammatory response rather than poor nutritional status.”

This article also notes that “CMS has also questioned the use of acute-phase serum proteins as primary diagnostic criteria for malnutrition since studies increasingly suggest limited correlation of these proteins with nutritional status.”

The Academy and Aspen state that two of the following six characteristics should be identified in a patient when diagnosing malnutrition:

• Weight loss;
• Loss of muscle mass;
• Loss of subcutaneous fat;
• Localized or generalized fluid accumulation that sometimes mask weight loss; and
• Diminished functional status as measure by hand grip strength
• Insufficient energy intake;

It is advised that these characteristics be assessed at the time of the hospital admission and “at frequent intervals throughout the patient’s stay in an acute, chronic, or transitional care setting.”

The article goes on to site a study by Fry and colleagues that “showed that preexisting “malnutrition and/or weight loss” was a positive predictive variable for all eight major surgery-associated “never events” (inexcusable outcomes in a health care setting.”

Assessment, diagnosis and treatment of malnutrition are critical for the wellbeing of our patients. Equally important is identifying the characteristics that need to be assessed in formulating the correct type of malnutrition (e.g. moderate or severe) diagnosis. This article contains a table with detailed clinical criteria to assist in determining the severity levels of malnutrition and I strongly encourage you to read this article.