Knowledge Base Category -

The last Wednesday@One of each month includes an article highlighting Medicare Transmittals and Other Updates released by CMS during that month. This month brings the addition of a new standing article highlighting offerings from the Medicare Administrative Contractors or MACs. More specifically, highlights from MAC daily e-newsletters and alerts that provide useful information even when it is not the MAC for your hospitals.  

Background

MACs are multi-state, regional contractors responsible for administering both Medicare Part A and Medicare Part B claims. MACs perform many activities including:

• Process Medicare FFS claims
• Make and account for Medicare FFS payments
• Enroll providers in the Medicare FFS program
• Handle provider reimbursement services and audit institutional provider cost reports
• Handle redetermination requests (1st stage appeals process)
• Respond to provider inquiries
• Educate providers about Medicare FFS billing requirements
• Establish local coverage determinations (LCD’s)
• Review medical records for selected claims
• Coordinate with CMS and other FFS contractors

Currently there are 12 A/B MACs who serve more than 1.5 million health care providers enrolled in the Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) program. Collectively, the MACs process more than 1.2 billion Medicare FFS claims annually. You can learn more about the MACs on the CMS MAC webpage at https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Contracting/Medicare-Administrative-Contractors/MedicareAdministrativeContractors.

It is in the spirit of provider inquiries, education, and medical reviews that prompted the addition of this monthly article to our newsletter.

January 6, 2020 WPS GHA Medicare eNews: Major Joint Replacement (Hip and Knee) CERT Reviews

The Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT) contractor has noted error findings for joint replacement services. In most cases, the CERT contractor found the documentation for these services to be insufficient to support the service(s) according to Medicare guidelines.

 Documentation Reminders

• Physical examination should document the specific patient condition(s), past and present, and plan of care
• Investigation through radiology reports
• Documentation of tried and failed conservative (non-surgical) treatments
• Signed and dated operative report 

For more information, see the MLN Matters article SE1236.

Link to website: https://www.wpsgha.com/wps/portal/mac/site/claim-review/news-and-updates/major-joint-replacement-hip-knee-cert-reviews/!ut/p/z0/fYzNDoIwEISfaLOAkXBVoyGGBk8GejEbWKX8bJtS8fWtL-BtJt98gxob1EKbeVEwVmiOvdX541aWeZkWSVVnKkkO6nLfnYvqWKd7vKL-P4gPmVcn9ULtKAxg5GmxEf6sQNLD2_UUeMVmodF6GK2RAJ7dTB0vHPNgHEzCDB37H9lMVNFNuv0CArAQCg!!/

January 8, 2020 First Coast Service Options, Inc. eNews

Appeals News: Q&A’s to questions regularly received by the First Coast contact center regarding general information about appeals, overpayment appeals, and re-openings. https://medicare.fcso.com/Appeals/0410177.asp

January 8, 2020: Palmetto GBA Provider Contact Center (PCC) FAQs:

Oct – December 2019 FAQs published were based upon data analytics identifying topics generating a high volume of telephone enquiries. Following is an example of one FAQ that MMP gets asked on occasion also:

• Question: When did CMS begin to require one calendar years as timely filing?
• Answer: All claims for services furnished on or after Jan 1, 2010, must be filed to the Medicare contractor no later than one calendar year (12 months) from the date of service or Medicare will deny those claims. You may refer to MM6960, (PDF, 74 KB) MM7080   (PDF, 78 KB) and New Maximum Period for the Submission of Medicare Claims podcast  .

https://www.palmettogba.com/palmetto/providers.nsf/ls/JJ%20Part%20A"BKLSNF7223?opendocument

January 9, 2020 NGS Urgent News: [Update} NCD ICD-10 Diagnosis Code Changes for 2020

Date Reported: 12/19/2019

Date Modified: 1/8/2020

Status: Open
Provider Type(s) Impacted: Part A, including home health and hospice (HHH) and federally qualified health centers (FQHCs)
Reason Code(s): Part A RCs, see below
Claim Coding Impact: Multiple ICD-10 codes to be added to the listed national coverage determinations (NCDs).
Description of Issue
On 11/1/2019, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued Change Request (CR) 11491 and accompanying MLN11491 with an effective date of 4/1/2020. CMS has now issued additional instructions impacting the following NCDs, for which new ICD-10 diagnosis codes will not be systematically implemented until 4/6/2020. Local editing will be temporarily implemented for the following, allowing claims to process:

• NCD 20.9 Artificial Hearts and Related Devices – RC 59242-59243
• NCD 20.34 Percutaneous Left-Atrial Appendage Closure – RC 59267
• NCD 190.11 Home PT/INR – RC 59079-59080
• NCD 260.9 Heart Transplants – RC 59180-59181

Editing will remain in place for the following, and denied claims subject to the standard appeal process:

• NCD 110.4 Extracorporeal Photophoresis RC59019-59020, 59023-59024
• NCD 210.3 Colorectal Cancer Screening RC 59099-59100

National Government Services Action
For NCDs 20.9, 20.34, 190.11 and 260.9, National Government Services (NGS) will now modify internal editing to allow processing for claims with the new ICD-10 diagnosis codes. For NCDs 110.4 and 210.3, denials relative to new ICD-10 codes may be submitted as appeals. In addition, NGS will adjust claims already denied since 10/1/2019 relative to this issue when brought to our attention.

Provider Action
Rejected claims (59267) will be reprocessed. Any claim with a LINE LEVEL denial can be resubmitted instead of filing an appeal (please refer to Submit an Adjustment to Correct Claims Partially Denied by Automated LCD/NCD Denials). Fully denied claims may be submitted as appeals. When submitting associated appeals, providers may identify CR 11491 as a reference.

Proposed Resolution/Fix
Will be systematically implemented on 4/6/2020.

January 9, 2020: Palmetto GBA Daily Newsletter: Medicare Beneficiary Identifier (MBI) Q&A

The following Q&A appeared in Palmetto’s Thursday January 9, 2020 Daily e-Newsletter:

• Question: Can I obtain an MBI for a deceased beneficiary using the eServices MBI Lookup tool?
• Answer: Yes. Users may obtain an MBI as long as the Medicare beneficiary information entered is valid and the beneficiary's date of death is less than 13 months prior to the date the MBI Lookup inquiry is performed.

If the Medicare beneficiary information submitted in the MBI Lookup is valid, but the beneficiary's recorded date of death is more than 13 months prior to the date the MBI Lookup inquiry is performed, the user will receive a message advising that the date of death exceeds the timely claim filing requirement. The MBI will not be returned.

https://www.palmettogba.com/palmetto/providers.nsf/ls/JJ%20Part%20A"BJ9RJ40743?opendocument

January 13, 2020: WPS GHA Medicare Review (MR) Targeted Probe & Educate (TPE) Quarterly Update – J5A

Throughout quarter four of 2019, the MR clinical staff identified the following common errors:

• Inpatient Psychiatric Hospital Services (IPS):
• Reviews identify the psychiatric evaluations are incomplete. The CMS Internet-Only Manual (IOM) Publication 100-02, Chapter 2, Section 30.2 lists the components of the psychiatric evaluation. These include the following:
• a medical history,
• record of mental status,
• onset of illness and circumstances leading to admission,
• description of attitudes and behaviors, intellectual functioning, memory functioning and orientation, and
• an inventory of the patient's assets.
• Reviews continue to identify errors related to certification requirements. For more information related to certification requirements review our Inpatient Psychiatric Facility (IPF) Certification/Recertification Review Results resource.
• Wound Care: Reviews identify the documentation is incomplete and not meeting the requirements of WPS Local Coverage Determination (LCD) L37228. The documentation should support evidence of improvement, which includes measurable changes. Measurable changes include the amount of drainage, inflammation, swelling, pain, wound dimensions, and necrotic tissue. If there is no wound improvement the documentation should support a modification to the treatment plan.
• Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities (IRF): The results of the Round 2 reviews support improvement of the documentation on the pre-admission screening and post admission evaluation. Five providers completed Round 2 and are no longer undergoing review.

January 13, 2020: WPS GHA Medicare Review (MR) Targeted Probe & Educate (TPE) Quarterly Update – J8A

Throughout quarter four of 2019, the MR clinical staff identified the following common errors:

• Malnutrition: Twelve providers completed Round 1 of TPE and were successful in their reviews. The diagnosis of severe malnutrition was evident in the documentation.  
• Outpatient Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy (HBO-T): Reviews identify incomplete documentation to support the HBO-T condition. When providers treat a patient for multiple diagnoses, it is important to state clearly which diagnosis necessitated the need for HBO-T, and to include the prior history and treatment for support. The CMS National Coverage Determination (NCD) 20.29 outlines the covered conditions.

January 13, 2020: Palmetto GBA Daily Newsletter: Medical Necessity of Therapeutic Exercise

In this edition of their Daily Newsletter, Palmetto GBA posted a module focused on the medical necessity of therapeutic exercises. The following topics are covered in this module:

• Therapeutic Exercise Overview,
• Therapy Billing,
• Requirements for Medical Necessity,
• Documentation Requirements, and
• Reminders.
• At the top of the list of reminders list is the reminder that beginning January 1, 2020 a new modifier is required on claims for physical and occupational therapy services provided in whole or in part by a therapy assistant.

Palmetto advises you to share this with appropriate staff.

https://www.palmettogba.com/internet/eLearn3.nsf/MedicalNecessityPartB/story_html5.html

January 14, 2020: Palmetto GBA Daily Newsletter: Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy Module

Just a day after the Therapeutic Exercise Module, Palmetto posted an Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) Module which includes information about covered conditions, billing and coding guidelines, multileaf collimator and medical necessity.

https://palmettogba.com/internet/eLearn3.nsf/IntensityModulatedRadiationTherapy/story_html5.html

Fiscal Year 2019 Estimated Improper Payment Rates

In mid-November, CMS published a CMS.gov Fact Sheet detailing the estimated improper payment rates for CMS Programs for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019. Approximately 50,000 claims were sampled and included claims submitted from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. The following tables highlights an improper payment rate compare of FY 2018 to FY 2019.

Audit findings are used to calculate a Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) program improper payment rate. “The CERT program considers any claim that was paid when it should have been denied or paid at another amount (including both overpayments and underpayments) to be an improper payment.”

CMS reminds the reader in the Fact Sheet that improper payment rates are not necessarily indicative of or are measures of fraud. Instead, improper payments are payments that did not meet statutory, regulatory, administrative, or other legally applicable requirements and may be overpayments or underpayments.”

Fiscal Year 2019 Supplemental Improper Payment Data

A month later on December 12, 2019, CMS released the Supplemental Improper Payment Data Report that delves into the details behind the final Improper Payment Rate and Improper Payments. This report includes a review of claims submitted from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018.

Common Causes of Improper Payments

Below is a table comparing the common causes of improper payments broken out by the type of error. The biggest shift from 2018 to 2019 was an increase in incorrect coding.  

‍“0 or 1 Day” LOS Claims Continued Outlier

The CERT Program has reported Projected Improper Payments by Length of Stay (LOS) since the 2014 Report. Unlike the past three years where the Improper Payment Rate dropped for “0 or 1 day” LOS claims, for 2019 the improper payment rate increased.  

‍Compliance with Short Stays

‍In addition to the CERT, the two Beneficiary and Family Centered Care Quality Improvement Organizations (BFCC-QIOs) (KEPRO and LIVANTA) have historically been tasked with performing Short Stay Reviews. However, on May 8, 2019 BFCC-QIO Short Stay Reviews were stopped while CMS took action to procure a new BFCC-QIO contractor to perform Short Stay Reviews on a national basis. CMS anticipated issuing a contract award by the 3rd quarter of calendar year 2019. To date, CMS has yet to announce a contract awardee. In the meantime, have you tracked your short stay volume overall, by MS-DRG or Physician over time? Do you know if your hospital is an outlier? Where can you look to find these answers?  
PEPPER

‍One resource available to hospitals is the Short-Term Acute Care PEPPER (Program for Evaluating Payment Patterns Electronic Report). The PEPPER is made available to hospitals on a quarterly basis and compares your hospital to your state, MAC Jurisdiction and the nation. One-day Stays for Medical and Surgical MS-DRGs are two of the “Target Areas” at risk for improper payments included in this report.
The PEPPER provides the following suggested interventions for high One-day Stays Hospitals: “This could indicate that there are unnecessary admissions related to inappropriate use of admission screening criteria or outpatient observation. A sample of same- and/or one-day stay cases should be reviewed to determine if inpatient admission was necessary or if care could have been provided more efficiently on an outpatient basis (e.g., outpatient observation). Hospitals may generate data profiles to identify same- and/or one-day stays sorted by DRG, physician or admission source to assist in identification of any patterns related to same- and/or one-day stays. Hospitals may also wish to identify whether patients admitted for same- and/or one- day stays were treated in outpatient, outpatient observation or the emergency department for one or more nights prior to the inpatient admission. Hospitals should not review same- and/or one- day stays that are associated with procedures designated by CMS as “inpatient only.”

‍RealTime Medicare Data

‍Another source that can help assist you is our sister company, RealTime Medicare Data (RTMD). RTMD collects over 800 million Medicare Fee-for-Service paid claims annually from 38 states and the District of Columbia, and allows for searching of over 9 billion historical claims. In response to the “Two-Midnight” Policy, RTMD has available in their suite of Inpatient Hospital reports a One Day Stay Report. To give you a true picture of your “at risk” volume, this report excludes claims with a discharge status for Expired (20), left against medical advice (07), hospice (50 & 51) and /or were transferred to another Acute care facility (02). This report enables a hospital to view one day stay paid claims data by DRG and Physician to direct where audits should be focused. For further information on all that RTMD has to offer you can visit their website at www.rtmd.org.

In an October 21, 2019 CMS Blog, Seema Verma, Administrator for the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services, outlined CMS’s vision to modernize “program integrity methods to better protect taxpayers from fraud, waste and abuse in Medicare.” In the blog, program integrity is defined as “pay it right.”

Government watchdog, “the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has designated Medicare as a High Risk program since 1990 because of its size, complexity and susceptibility to improper payments.” One recommendation by the GAO has been for Congress to expand prior authorization in Fee-For-Service (FFS).

Outpatient Department Prior Authorization Requirement

A step in this direction can be found in the CY 2020 OPPS Final Rule in which CMS states that, “as part of our responsibility to protect the Medicare Trust Funds, we routinely analyze data associated with all facets of the Medicare program.” Analysis of 1.1 billion outpatient claims over an 11-year period of data from 2007 through 2011 identified a significant increase in the utilization volume of some covered Outpatient Department services. Most of these services fell within the following five categories:

• Blepharoplasty,
• Botulinum toxin injections,
• Panniculectomy,
• Rhinoplasty, and
• Vein ablation.

Procedures in these categories are often considered cosmetic and would not be covered by Medicare. CMS indicates “we are unaware of other factors that might contribute to clinically valid increased in volume. Therefore, these above-average increases in volume suggest an increase in unnecessary utilization.”  In the Final Rule CMS implemented prior authorization requirements for these five services when performed in an outpatient department. This new requirement has an implementation date of July 1, 2020.  You can learn more about this new requirement in a related article in next week’s Wednesday@One.

CMS Modernizing Their Approach to Program Integrity

Although Medicare’s improper payment rates have declined, Administrator Verma notes they remain too high. In response, CMS “is developing a five-pillar program integrity strategy to modernize out approach and protect Medicare for future generations.”

Pillar 1: Stopping Bad Actors

CMS partners with the Office of Inspector General (OIG), Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Unified Program Integrity Contractors (UPICs) to “deliberate on potential healthcare fraud cases, quickly direct them to law enforcement, and take appropriate administrative action such as payment suspensions and revocations.”

Pillar 2: Preventing Fraud

CMS is focused on moving away from the “pay and chase” model by “improving infrastructure that prevents fraud, waste and abuse on the front end.” Once a bad actor and his or her scheme is identified system changes are made to avoid future activities. One example cited by Administrator Verma was the September 2019 takedown of defendants in an orthotic braces scam.

Pillar 3: Mitigating Emerging Programmatic Risks

Administrator Verma likens mitigating risk to “playing the world’s largest game of whack-a-mole.” In keeping with this theme, the prior authorization requirement for a list of high-risk durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics and supplies (DMEPOS) items, is “whacking” one mole in the game.

Pillar 4: Reducing Provider Burden

Provider education is a large part of the Targeted Probe and Educate (TPE) program. “Since its inception in 2009, the program has played a major role in reducing improper payments, recouping more than $10 billion for the Medicare program.”

The TPE program has also highlighted provider burden and confusing policies. In response CMS is working on developing a prototype Medicare FFS Documentation Requirement Lookup Service. You can read more about this effort on the CMS Documentation Requirement Lookup Service Initiative webpage. 

Administrator Verma described additional ways that CMS is focusing on reducing provider burden and noted “cumulatively, these efforts are defining a new approach to program integrity that reduces burden and increased education to achieve a better shared understanding of how the programs operate.”

Pillar 5: Leveraging New Technology

CMS looks to adopt cutting edge technology – “such as AI and machine learning tools,” to save taxpayers more money and enable them to review more claims.  

The Future of Medicare Program Integrity

Administrator Verma aptly summarizes the vision for the future of program integrity in one sentence. “CMS must elevate program integrity, unleash the power of modern private sector innovation, prevent rather than chase fraud waste and abuse through smart, proactive measures, and unburden our provider partners so they can do what they do best – put patients first.”

This week I have started seeing Christmas decorations pop up in yards on my daily commute to work. While I am a firm believer in celebrating Thanksgiving before putting up Christmas decorations, I have been known to watch a Christmas movie before Black Friday. Ranked high among my favorite Christmas movies is A Christmas Carol, whether it is George C. Scott as Ebenezer Scrooge or the more modern take on the tale where Bill Murray stars in Scrooged.

Palmetto GBA recently posted information on the final resolution to Medicare Plan Overpayments on their website. The plan for resolving payments includes three letters. The first letter can be likened to the Ghost of Christmas past. The second letter serves as the Ghost of Christmas present as hospitals find out which Medicare Advantage (MA) plans have agreed to waive its claims filing deadline. Last but not least is the third letter or the Ghost of Christmas Future as it is set to be issued next year in early January and it will be up to each provider to decide their future road to a final resolution.

Background: Potential Overpayments

By the end of February 2018 the Jurisdiction J (JJ) Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) contract had transitioned from Cahaba GBA to Palmetto GBA. In May of 2018, Palmetto GBA identified potential overpayments related to Part A claims for Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) claims paid for beneficiaries covered under a Medicare Advantage (MA) plan on the date of service.

The potential overpayments had been under Cahaba GBA’s watch and occurred due to the fact that Cahaba did not have the required edits in place to reject claims if a beneficiary was identified as being enrolled in an MA plan at the time of service rather than Medicare FFS.  

Affected hospitals were sent a letter in June 2018 providing them a claims listing of potential overpayments. At that time Palmetto noted “if overpayments exist and result in financial hardship,” several options for returning overpayments including an extended repayment plan would be provided to hospitals.

November 2019: Final Plan for Resolving Erroneous Payments

Last week Palmetto GBA posted information on their website letting providers know that in late November they will begin sending out the first of three letters. The first letter will be purely informational. If a hospital receives the second and or third letter provider follow-up will be required.

• First Letter, Late November: When CMS made companies that sponsor MA plans aware of the overpayments “several dozen MAOs, which collectively sponsor 195 MA plans, on a purely voluntary basis agreed to make repayments to the Medicare FFS program.” Voluntary repayments totaled $26 million, resolved 133,000 erroneous claims, and benefited nearly 2,000 providers. This letter is “purely informational…and providers will not have to take any follow-up actions on the claims referenced in the first letter.”

• Second Letter, Early December: In this phase, CMS will require repayment of about $2.7 million in FFS payments. The letters will identify MA plans that have agreed to waive their claim filing deadlines and give consideration to claims involving these enrollees. This means hospitals have to repay the “overpayments” to Medicare FFS, but they can also submit new claims to these MA plans for the services erroneously billed to Medicare FFS.

• Third Letter: Settlement Offers to be issued early January 2020: CMS will make offers to resolve any remaining overpayments. “Settlement offers will identify the total potential MA overpayment, and will provide for 40 percent of the total to be repaid to Medicare and 60 percent of the total to be retained by providers.” This offer must be accepted within 60 days, otherwise a demand letter will be sent for the total potential MA overpayment amount.

Next Steps

Palmetto has advised reading the following three documents posted on their website and sharing this information with your staff:

• Medicare Advantage (MA) Plan Overpayments - Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) 
• Medicare Advantage (MA) Plan Overpayments - Update 
• Medicare Advantage (MA) Plan Overpayments: Update 

In addition to reading these documents, Palmetto GBA has included the following sentence in all caps and bolded in third documented listed above:

PALMETTO GBA ADVISES ALL PROVIDERS TO LOOK FOR ENVELOPES FROM MEDICARE WITH “ATTN: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER” STAMPED IN RED UNDERNEATH THE PROVIDER’S BUSINESS ADDRESS.”

The Calendar Year (CY) 2020 Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) and Ambulatory Surgical Center (ASC) Payment System Final Rule was released Friday November 1st. This week MMP highlights finalized changes to the Inpatient Only (IPO) List, a related change to medical review guidance for review contractors, and additions to the ASC Covered Procedures List (CPL). 

Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) Removed from the IPO List

For several years now, CMS has discussed the removal of total hip arthroplasty (THA) as well as partial hip arthroplasty (PHA) from the IPO List. In response to the CY 2018 Proposed Rule, several surgeons and other stakeholders believe that, “given thorough preoperative screening by medical teams with significant experience and expertise involving hip replacement procedures, the THA procedure could be provided on an outpatient basis for some Medicare beneficiaries.”

CMS finalized their proposal to remove CPT code 27130 (Arthroplasty, acetabular and proximal femoral prosthetic replacement (total hip arthroplasty) with or without autograft or allograft) from the IPO List. This procedure will be assigned to C-APC 5115 (Level 5 Musculoskeletal Procedures) with a status indicator of “J1.” Note, CMS is also removing anesthesia code 01214 (anesthesia for open procedure involving hip joint; total hip arthroplasty) as a conforming change.

Similar to when the Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) procedure was removed from the IPO list, CMS has no plans to establish patient selection criteria for THA or any procedure. They do reiterate findings that may “likely (but not necessarily)” make a good candidate and who may not be a strong candidate for outpatient THA.

 “Likely” Candidate for Outpatient THA

• A patient with a relatively low anesthesia risk, and
• No significant comorbidities, and
• Has family members at home to assist with post-operative care.

Unlikely Candidate for Outpatient THA

• “A patient requiring a revision of a prior hip replacement, and/or
• Has other complicating clinical conditions including multiple co-morbidities such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease.”

All Procedure Codes being removed from IPO List for CY 2020 page 675

In addition to THA, CMS received several comments regarding procedures believed to meet the criterion for removal from the IPO list. The following table reflects the changes to the IPO list for CY 2020.

‍Short Inpatient Hospital Stays

The Two-Midnight Rule, as finalized in the FY 2014 IPPS Final Rule, clarified when an inpatient admission is considered reasonable and necessary for purposes of Medicare Part A payment. This policy established a benchmark for when a patient is considered appropriate for inpatient hospital admission and payment.

CMS also clarified that “when a beneficiary enters a hospital for a surgical procedure not designated as an inpatient-only (IPO) procedure as described in 42 CFR 419.22(n), a diagnostic test, or any other treatment, and the physician expects to keep the beneficiary in the hospital for only a limited period of time that does not cross 2 midnights, the services would be generally inappropriate under Medicare Part A.”

In the CY 2016 OPPS/ASC Final Rule CMS “finalized a proposal to allow for case-by case exceptions to the 2-midnight benchmark, whereby Medicare Part A payment may be made for inpatient admissions where the admitting physician does not expect the patient to require hospital care spanning 2 midnights, if the documentation in the medical record supports the physician’s determination that the patient nonetheless requires inpatient hospital care.” The following criteria are relevant to making this determination:

• Complex medical factors such as history and comorbidities;
• The severity of signs and symptoms;
• Current medical needs; and
• The risk of an adverse event.

Medical Review of Certain Inpatient Hospital Admissions under Medicare Part A for CY 2020 and Subsequent Years

When a procedure is removed from the IPO list, documentation in the record must support the need for the inpatient admission. These surgical claims are also subject to initial medical reviews of claims for short-stay inpatient admissions conducted by the Beneficiary and Family-Centered Care Quality Improvement Organization (BFCC-QIO).

BFCC-QIO’s may “refer a provider to the Recovery Audit Contractors (RACs) for further medical review due to exhibiting persistent noncompliance with Medicare payment policies, including, but not limited to:

• Having high denial rates;
• Consistently failing to adhere to the 2-midnight rule; or
• Failing to improve their performance after QIO educational intervention.”

For CY 2020 and subsequent years, CMS proposed a 1-year exemption from site-of-service claim denials, BFCC-QIO referrals to RACs, and RAC reviews for “patient status” (that is, site-of-service) for procedures that are removed from the IPO list under the OPPS beginning on January 1, 2020.

In response to public comments CMS finalized a two-year exemption rather than the proposed one year. CMS notes in a related Fact Sheet, “this two-year exemption period will allow providers time to update their billing systems and gain experience with respect to newly removed procedures eligible to be paid under either the Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) or OPPS, while avoiding potential adverse site of service determinations.”

As a provider, it is important to be mindful that this exemption is specific to site-of-service claim denials. This exemption does not include medical necessity based on a National or Local Coverage Determination meaning irrespective of site-of-service, a short stay claim can still be denied for lack of documentation supporting medical necessity of the procedure.

Total Hip Arthroplasty Moving Forward

“The removal of any procedure from the IPO list, including THA, does not require the procedure to be performed only on an outpatient basis. That is, when a procedure is removed from the IPO, it simply means that Medicare will pay for it in either the hospital inpatient or outpatient setting; it does not mean that the procedure must be performed on an outpatient basis.”

Following are a few things to think about as you plan for this change effective January 1, 2020:

• Make sure your Medical Staff is aware of the changes made to the IPO List.
• Potentially, develop protocols for patient site-of-service selection (IP vs. OP)?
• Educate Clinical Documentation Specialists who can assist with capturing the complexity of these patients through record review and potential physician queries.

Additions to the List of Ambulatory Surgical Center (ASC) Covered Surgical Procedures

In the CY 2019 OPPS Final Rule, CMS finalized the revision to the definition of a surgical procedure under the ASC payment system to include “procedures that are described by Level II HCPCS codes or by Category I CPT codes or by Category III CPT codes that directly crosswalk or are clinically similar to procedures in the CPT surgical range that we have determined are not expected to pose a significant risk to beneficiary safety when performed in an ASC, for which standard medical practice dictates that the beneficiary would not typically be expected to require an overnight stay following the procedure, and are separately paid under the OPPS.”

For FY 2020, CMS conducted a review of HCPCS codes currently paid under the OPPS but are not included on the ASC CPL. Based on this review, the following table highlights the procedures to be added to the ASC Covered Procedure List (CPL) for CY 2020.

Specific to the proposal to add Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) to the ASC CPL, CMS noted in the Proposed Rule that “we agree with commenters that there is a small subset of Medicare beneficiaries who may be suitable candidates to receive TKA procedures in an ASC setting based on their clinical characteristics. For example, based on Medicare Advantage encounter data, we estimate over 800 TKA procedure were performed in an ASC on Medicare Advantage enrollees in 2016. We believe that beneficiaries not enrolled in an MA plan should also have the option of choosing to receive the TKA procedure in an ASC setting based on their physicians’ determinations.”

Further, CMS noted “TKA procedures are still predominantly performed in the inpatient hospital setting in CY 2018 (82 percent of the time) based on professional claims data, and we are cognizant of the fact that the majority of beneficiaries may not be suitable candidates to receive TKA in an ASC setting. We believe that appropriate limits are necessary to ensure that Medicare Part B payment will only be made for TKA procedures performed in an ASC setting when the setting is clinically appropriate. Therefore, we are soliciting public comment on the appropriate approach to provide safeguards for Medicare beneficiaries who should not receive the TKA procedure in an ASC setting.”

Inpatient, outpatient or ASC, documentation is crucial to accurately reflect the complexity of the patient and support the medical necessity for services provided.

The first possible cases of a vaping related illness were reported to the CDC on August 1st, 2019. In response to reports of illness, the CDC, FDA, State and Local Health Departments, Clinical and Public Health Partners have been actively investigating a multi-state outbreak of lung injury associated with use of e-cigarettes, or vaping, products. The vaping related illness has been named EVALI (E-cigarette, or Vaping, Product Use-Associated Lung Injury). Information for the Public, Health Care Providers, and Health Departments is available on the CDC webpage Outbreak of Lung Injury Associated with E-Cigarette Use, or Vaping.

CDC Weekly EVALI Updates

Currently information about EVALI is being updated on this CDC webpage every Thursday. The following table recaps information made available over the last three weeks:

‍

• What the CDC Knows: About Patient Exposure
• All EVALI patients have reported history of using e-cigarette, or vaping, products.
• THC is present in most of the samples tested by the FDA to date, and most patients report a history of using THC-containing products.
• Findings suggest products containing THC, particularly when obtained off the street or informal sources, are linked to the most cases and play a major role in the outbreak.

• What the CDC Does Not Know:
• The FDA and CDC has not identified the cause(s) of lung injuries in these 1,479 cases. The only commonality is patient’s reporting e-cigarettes, or vaping, products.
• No one compound or ingredient has emerged as the cause of these illnesses.
• The specific chemical exposure(s) causing lung injuries associated with e-cigarette product use, or vaping, remains unknown.

• What the CDC is Recommending You Should NOT do:
• Use e-cigarette, or vaping, products containing THC.
• Buy any e-cigarette, or vaping, products off the street – particularly those containing THC
• Modify or add any substances to e-cigarettes, or vaping, products that are not intended by the manufacturer, including products purchased through retail establishments.

• What the CDC is Recommending You Should do:
• The CDC recommends considering refraining from use of all e-cigarette and vaping products. If you do not choose to refrain from use, they go on to advise careful monitoring of yourself for symptoms and to see a healthcare provider immediately if you develop the following symptoms that have been reported in this outbreak:
• Cough, shortness of breath, or chest pain,
• Nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain or diarrhea,
• Fever, chills, or weight loss.

Update: Interim Guidance for Health Care Providers Evaluating and Caring for Patients with Suspected EVALI

On October 17th, a Clinician Outreach and Communication Activity (COCA) Webinar was held to discuss what the CDC has learned to date about EVALI and explain their updated interim guidance for healthcare providers. Following is a list of commonalties related to EVALI shared during the webinar:  

Common Clinical Characteristics of Patients as of October 3, 2019:

• 95% of patients initially experienced respiratory symptoms (e.g., cough, chest pain, and shortness of breath).
• 77% of patients had gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms (e.g., abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea). Note, GI symptoms preceded respiratory symptoms in some patients.
• 85% of patients had symptoms accompanied by constitutional symptoms (e.g., fever, chills, and weight loss).
• Vital Signs in cases of EVALI reported to the CDC included:
• 55% had tachycardia (HR>100 beats/min),
• 45% had tachypnea (respiratory rate >20 breaths/min), and
• 57% has an O2 saturation <95% at rest on room air.
• Pulmonary findings in cases of EVALI reported to the CDC were that on auscultation the exam has been unremarkable, even among patients with severe lung injury.
• Specialized Care
• 47% of patients admitted to ICU, and
• 22% required endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation.

EVALI Official Coding Guidelines

On October 17, 2019, the CDC released a supplement to the ICD-10-CM Official Coding Guidelines. This supplement:

• Provides guidance related to the 2019 health care encounters and deaths related to EVALI.
• Is intended to be used in conjunction with current ICD-10-CM classifications and the ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting effective October 1, 2019.
• May not represent all possible reasons for health care encounters related to e-cigarette, or vaping, product use.

The introduction to the supplement highlights that this guidance is consistent with what is currently known about this disease and will be updated as new clinical information becomes available. Further, clinical scenarios described in the General Guidance “may not represent all possible reasons for health care encounters that  may be related to e-cigarette, or vaping, product use.”

General guidance focuses on scenarios related to the following:  

• Lung-related complications
• For patients with documented EVALI, assign the code for the specific condition. (i.e. ICD-10-CM code J680.0, (Bronchitis and pneumonitis due to chemicals, gases, fumes and vapors; includes chemical pneumonitis), and
• For patients with acute lung injury but without further documentation identifying a specific condition (pneumonitis, bronchitis), assign code: J68.9, Unspecified respiratory condition due to chemicals, gases, fumes, and vapors.
• Poisoning and toxicity,
• Substance use, abuse, and dependence, and
• Signs and Symptoms.

As mentioned previously, this guidance is consistent with current clinical knowledge. With the CDC posting weekly updates, there is a high probability there will be changes to the guidance in the future.

One way to keep up with any changes is to frequent the CDC webpage Outbreak of Lung Injury Associated with E-Cigarette Use, or Vaping.  Also, for those of you reading this in Alabama, the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH) has a page dedicated to Vapes and E-Cigs that includes

Vape-Related Pulmonary Illnesses Alabama specific statistics.

For long time readers, you probably know that fall is my favorite season. How can it not be? By this time in October the college football season is in full swing, yards have been decorated for the Halloween season, and the Thanksgiving and Christmas seasons are just around the corner. Unfortunately, this time of year also brings the flu season.

Here in Alabama, part of the state is already experiencing significant influenza disease activity. Meaning, it’s also the season to get vaccinated.  At the national level, according to the CDC’s FluView Report, as of the week ending October 19th, seasonal influenza remains low in the United States. Regardless of how prevalent the flu may be where you live, you can add to the list of seasons, the “it’s time to get your vaccination season.”

It is also time to make sure Medicare beneficiaries get their annual vaccine. To help get you started, CMS provided the following information in the October 17, 2019 edition of the mlnconnects Newsletter:

Protect Your Patients from Influenza this Season

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends annual influenza vaccination for everyone 6 months and older. Influenza is a serious health threat, especially to vulnerable populations like people 65 and older, who are at high risk for hospitalization and developing serious complications. Vaccinate by the end of October – to help protect your patients, your staff, and yourself.

Medicare Part B covers:

• Influenza virus vaccine once per influenza season

• Additional influenza vaccines if medically necessary

For More Information:

• Medicare Preventive Services Educational Tool

• Influenza Resources for Health Care Professionals MLN Matters Article
• Influenza Vaccine Payment Allowances MLN Matters Article
• CDC Influenza website
• CDC Information for Health Professionals webpage
• CDC Fight Flu Toolkit webpage
• CDC Make a Strong Flu Vaccine Recommendation webpage

In the spirit of celebrating seasons, I wish each and every one of you a “Happy Fall Ya’ll.”

The Discharge Planning Conditions of Participation (CoPs) Final Rule was published September 30, 2019. A recent Wednesday@One included an article where MMP shared highlights from the Final Rule.

Overall, CMS seemed to have listened to the 299 comments to the Proposed Rule and subsequently several of the proposals were not finalized.

CMS indicates in the Final Rule that they believe the proposals finalized will empower patients to be active participants in the discharge planning process. One way of empowering the patient is through the finalized proposal requiring hospitals to assist patients, their families, or their caregivers/support persons in selecting a Post-Acute Care (PAC) provider by using and sharing data on quality measures and resource use measures, that includes, but is not limited to, the following PAC providers:

• Home Health Agencies (HHAs),
• Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNFs),
• Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities (IRFs), and
• Long Term Care Hospitals (LTCHs).

This article recaps several of the expectations CMS noted in the final rule regarding the provision of Quality Data and highlights the Compare websites.

CMS Expectations for providing Quality Measure Data

Following is a list of expectations CMS provided in the Final Rule regarding sharing Quality Measure Data. With that said, keep in mind that CMS also indicated more than once in the Final Rule that they will be providing sub-regulatory guidance after the Final Rule is published.

• Hospitals will have to ensure the PAC data on quality measures and data or resource use measures is relevant and applicable to the patient’s goals of care and treatment preferences,
• CMS expects hospitals to document in the medical record that the PAC data on quality and resource use measures was shared with the patient and used to assist the patient during the discharge planning process,
• CMS expects providers to make reasonable efforts to use the quality and resource use measure data that are currently available to them until all measures stipulated in the IMPACT Act are finalized and publicly reported.
• CMS indicates providers should use data available at the IRF Compare, HH Compare, Nursing Home Compare, and Long-Term Care Hospital Compare websites to assist patients as they choose a PAC provider that aligns with the patient’s goals and treatment preferences, and would expect providers to document all efforts regarding this requirement in the patient’s medical record.
• CMS notes additional explanations, resources, instructions and help on how to use the Compare Websites are available on the following pertinent websites:

• https://www.medicare.gov/inpatientrehabilitationfacilitycompare/.
• https://www.medicare.gov/homehealthcompare/search.html.
• https://www.medicare.gov/nursinghomecompare/search.html.
• https://www.medicare.gov/longtermcarehospitalcompare/.

• CMS believes providers have the ability and knowledge to interpret and discuss the publicly available data at the most basic levels. CMS does not expect providers to give overly detailed and complex analyses of the data as this may only confuse patients and/or caregivers. They also do not expect providers to attempt to provide patients and their caregivers with data that do not exist regarding PAC facilities.
• CMS does expect providers to answer questions to the best of their ability regarding the data.
• CMS encourages providers to refer to www.medicare.gov for additional resources and help and to consult the sub-regulatory interpretive guidance that will be available after publication of the final rule.
• Providers can use additional available information to assist patients as they select a PAC provider, so long as the information presented aligns with the patient’s goals of care and treatment preferences. The IMPACT Act in no way limits providers’ ability to augment the information provided to patients. All attempts to assist patients should be documented in the medical record.
• CMS believes hospitals, HHAs and CAHs will be in compliance with the Patient Choice requirement if they present objective data on quality and resource use measures specifically applicable to the patient’s goals of care and treatment preferences, taking care to include data on all available PAC providers, and allowing patients and/or their caregivers the freedom to select a PAC provider of their choice.
• Providers must use and share data on quality measures and data on resource use measures that are relevant and applicable to the patient’s goals of care and treatment preferences. While we believe that resource use data can be helpful to all patients, providers can tailor the specific data that are given to patients so that the data are applicable to the patient’s specific medical condition or circumstance. The provider should ensure that the data given to patients aligns with the patient’s ultimate goals of care and treatment preferences.
• For patients enrolled in a Managed Care Organization, the hospital must make the patient aware that the patient or caregiver needs to verify the participation of HHAs or SNFs in their network. If the hospital has information regarding which providers participate in the managed care organization’s network, it must share this information with the patient and must document in the patient’s medical record that the list was presented to the patient. The patient or their caregiver/support persons must be informed of the patient’s freedom to choose among providers and to have their expressed wishes respected, whenever possible. The final component of the retained provision would be the hospital’s disclosure of any financial interest in the referred HHA or SNF. However, this section would be revised to include IRFs and LTCHs.

Find & Compare Doctors, Hospitals & Other Providers

The following “Compare” webpages are available at www.medicare.gov:

• Hospitals,
• Nursing Homes,
• Home Health Services,
• Dialysis Facilities,
• Long-term Care Hospitals,
• Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities,
• Doctors & Other Health Professionals, and
• Hospice Compare
  

Navigating the Compare Website:

• First go to the www.medicare.gov website.
• Next, click the box with a picture of binoculars and the text “Find Care: Search all providers & facilities” below the binoculars.
• You will now be on the webpage with links to each of the “Compare” webpages.
• Click the type of post-acute care you are searching for.
• At each of the “Compare” webpages, the first thing you will be asked to do is to enter at a minimum the location where you are searching for post-acute providers.
• This will take you to a page with a list of Providers. You can select up to three Providers to compare at time.

All of the Compare webpages are easy to navigate, even for someone like me who typed my college papers on a Brother typewriter and have learned all I know about computers through on the job training. To provide insight into what is available let’s take a closer look at the Home Health Compare webpage.

Home Health Compare

After searching a specific location you will be taken to the page with a list of Providers. Once on this page you can see star ratings, compare up to three Providers, modify your search and learn more about the Quality of Patient Care and Patient Survey Summary star ratings.

Quality of Patient Care Star Rating

Agencies are rated between 1 and 5 showing how they compare to other home health agencies on performance measures. The ratings are based on 8 quality measure that give a general overview of performance. CMS does note that “since the star rating ranks all agencies from lowest to highest, some agencies will be ranked below others even though they’re providing good quality care.”

Home Health quality measures are divided into the following categories:

• Managing daily activities
• Managing pain and treating symptoms
• Preventing harm
• Preventing unplanned hospital care
• Payment and value of care.

Patient Survey Summary Star Rating

CMS utilizes the HHCAHPS (Home Health Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers & Systems) to rate agencies. As with the quality of patient care ratings, the more stars indicates better quality care. CMS provides the following important things to remember as you compare agencies:

• “The patient experience star ratings are based on the information on quality of care that is reported on Home Health Compare. Not all home health agencies will be represented on the web site.
• Home Health Compare displays home health agency performance on certain important measures of quality care. Specifically the web site displays the quality of patient care data and patient survey results (which reflect the patient experience of care).
• Positive results on patient experience of care measures are one aspect of the quality of home health care. Other information may be important to you, like how often an agency initiated patient care in a timely manner, that isn't included in HHCAHPS star ratings.

The HHCAHPS star ratings compare home health agencies to each other. A 1-star rating doesn't mean that you'll get poor care from a home health agency. It means that home health agencies that got 2 or more stars performed better on this particular measure of patient experience of care. For this reason, we suggest that you use the star rating along with other quality information when making decisions about choosing a home health agency.”

Comparing Agencies enables you to see general information about the provider (address, phone number, and services provided) and granular detail about the quality measures and the HHCAHPS that make up an agencies star rating. At this level agencies can be compared to up to two other agencies at a time, the state and national average.

While we wait for the promised sub-regulatory guidance, I encourage you to take the time to become familiar with all of the Compare webpages.

As the first half of the school year winds down, it takes me back to filling spiral notebooks full of class notes, hours of studying, and final exams. Similar to exam results reflecting how well you learned the material taught, the Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT) program performs audits to see how well Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) have followed Medicare coverage, coding, and payment rates to adjudicate claims.

Audit findings are used to calculate a Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) program improper payment rate. “The CERT program considers any claim that was paid when it should have been denied or paid at another amount (including both overpayments and underpayments) to be an improper payment.”

CERT Audit Approach

Annually, the CERT program reviews a “statistically valid stratified random sample of Medicare FFS claims to determine if they were paid properly.” Specifically, the CERT reviews Part A claims excluding hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS), Part A Hospital IPPS claims, Part B claims (i.e. physician, laboratory, and ambulance services); and Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS).

If documentation does not support that the rules were met, a claim is counted as a total or partial improper payment. Once an improper payment is identified the error is categorized into one of the following five major categories:

• No Documentation,
• Insufficient Documentation,
• Medical Necessity,
• Incorrect Coding, or
• Other.

Fiscal Year 2019 Estimated Improper Payment Rates

In mid-November, CMS published a CMS.gov Fact Sheet detailing the estimated improper payment rates for CMS Programs for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019. Approximately 50,000 claims were sampled and included claims submitted from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. The following tables highlights an improper payment rate compare of FY 2018 to FY 2019.

CMS reminds the reader in the Fact Sheet that improper payment rates are not necessarily indicative of or are measures of fraud. Instead, improper payments are payments that did not meet statutory, regulatory, administrative, or other legally applicable requirements and may be overpayments or underpayments.”

CMS Initiatives Contributing to Decrease in Improper Payment Rate

CMS attributes the decreased improper payment rate and payments to reductions in Home Health, Other Medicare Part B services and DMEPOS claims. 

Specific actions taken to reduce improper payments includes:

• Policy clarification and Targeted Probe and Educate for Home Health agencies,
• Other Medicare Part B Services: Clarification and simplification of documentation requirements under the Patients-Over-Paperwork initiative for other Medicare Part B services, and
• “Various corrective actions” for DMEPOS.

You can learn more about the FY 2019 CERT findings in the Department of Health and Human Services FY 2019 Agency Financial Report at https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/fy2019-hhs-agency-financial-report.pdf on pages 200 through 210 of the report.  

To learn more about the CERT visit AdvanceMed’s CERT Provider Documentation Information website at https://certprovider.admedcorp.com/Home/About.

For this newsletter, I often write articles about other articles. I expect the quality and worth of the articles I write are judged by our readers, and likewise, I have an opinion on the worth of the articles I reference. Therefore, I have to applaud Palmetto GBA on their article on Therapeutic Exercise. This is one of the most comprehensive yet concise explanations of the requirements for therapy services I have seen. I will note some of the major points in my discussion below, but I encourage anyone who has a vested interest in this topic to read Palmetto’s article. In fact, I recommend you print and/or save it electronically for future reference. I know I will.

One of the main reasons for Medicare denials of therapy services is the lack of medical necessity. The Palmetto article breaks this down to 4 points and then discusses each of the requirements in more detail. 

“Medical necessity — four main requirements

• Presence of a disabling condition
• Individualized treatment
• Expectation that the beneficiary will benefit from therapy
• Requires skilled care”

Presence of a disabling condition

It seems obvious that the patient must have an injury, post-surgical limitations, or a medical condition that requires therapy. The issue is that there must be documentation beyond simply stating the medical problem. Documenting the patient has a sprained ankle, is post-surgical from a rotator cuff repair, or had a stroke is not enough. The therapist performing the evaluation needs to include the functional deficits the patient has and how these affect the patient’s ability to perform activities of daily living (ADLs). For example, following a shoulder injury or surgery, the patient could have pain, swelling, weakness, and limited range of motion that results in an inability to perform dressing and self-care independently. I like to think of documenting times 3 –

1. the medical condition, such as post-surgical repair of torn rotator cuff,
2. the symptoms and deficits, such as pain, swelling, weakness, and limited range of motion (be sure to include objective measures), and
3. the activity limitations and participation restrictions in the patient’s daily life, such as patient is unable to reach up to wash hair, dress independently and perform house-keeping chores.

The Palmetto articles states, “Per the LCD, include one of the following: weakness, contracture, stiffness secondary to spasm, spasticity, decreased joint range of motion, gait problem, balance and/or coordination deficits, abnormal posture, muscle imbalance (pain is not listed, but it is acceptable as pain typically can cause several of the above conditions).”

Individualized treatment

This is the Plan of Care (POC) where the therapist selects the types of exercises, amount, frequency, and duration of treatment tailored to the specific patient’s needs and abilities. In listing the goals, the therapist can tie the types of exercises chosen to the patient’s activity limitations or participation restrictions identified. For example, therapeutic exercises may be performed to increase strength and improve range of motion to allow the patient to be able to perform self-care activities independently.

Again, from the Palmetto article – “Per the LCDs, goals should address the following: patient needing to improve mobility, flexibility, strengthening, coordination, control of extremities, dexterity, range of motion, or endurance as part of activities of daily living training, or reeducation.”

Expectation that the beneficiary will benefit from therapy

If you do not think it would benefit the patient, you should not be doing it. The goals included in the POC should address your expectations of the benefits the patient will have from the therapy. The progress reports as the patient participates in therapy will hopefully reflect the benefits the therapist expected from the therapy treatment. These should include objective measures, such as measures of the patient’s range of motion or strength, and subjective observations and patient reports of improvements in their abilities to perform ADLs. Not all patients respond as expected – if a patient is not benefiting from therapy, the therapist may modify the plan or discontinue therapy.

Notice that this says the beneficiary should “benefit” from therapy, not “improve” from therapy. That is an important distinction since all patients may not be able to improve, but therapy is needed to prevent or slow further decline in functional status. This is acceptable for Medicare coverage, but the expectation and outcomes should be clearly documented.

Requires skilled care

The treatments provided to the patient must require the skills of a therapist or therapy assistant under the direction of a therapist. If the services could be provided by someone without the skills of a therapist, then the services do not meet Medicare’s requirements for skilled care. Skills may include providing instructions on proper exercise form, direction to the patient during exercises, providing assistance, ensuring the safety of the patient during the performance of treatment, and/or monitoring the patient medically. The requirement for skilled care is addressed in the evaluation, plan of care, and in the daily treatment notes, where the therapist might document cueing the patient, instruction in proper form, or stand-by assist for patient safety, for example. The Palmetto article points out “Keywords in documentation to support use of skilled care (are) educate, education, corrected, instruct, instruction, trained, directed, reassessed, medical monitoring.”

As long as patients are benefiting from therapy and continue to require skilled care, documentation in the record must indicate the patient’s progression and the continuing need for the skills of the therapist. Once a patient is able to perform exercises independently or with non-skilled assistance, therapy services are no longer covered by Medicare. Patients may continue with a home or gym exercise program on their own.

The Palmetto article goes on to discuss all the different types of required therapy documents and what needs to be included in each – evaluation, plan of care, certification/recertification, progress reports, and treatment notes. Medical necessity is whether the patient needs therapy, but therapy documentation provides the support for that medical necessity in addition to supporting the services provided. That is a big job for words on a page. And Medicare will be judging the quality and worth of that writing.