Knowledge Base Category -

There is a lot going on this time of year. Students have been back in school for almost a month. Halloween decorations are already popping up in the stores. The SEC 2018 football season “kicks off” in three days on Saturday September 1st and, wait for it, it is thirty-three days until the start of the CMS 2019 Fiscal Year on October 1st.

As for struggles with homework, what new Halloween decorations you may need and what time your team is playing, I will leave that up to you to decide. As for the new CMS Fiscal Year, this article winds down our series of articles focusing on the 2019 IPPS Final Rule. If you will, this article begins with a Meaningful Measures Initiative pre-game show, and then provides four quarters of excitement with a high level review of finalized proposals for the Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting Program and the three programs CMS views as a collective set of hospital value-based programs (the Hospital Value Based Purchasing Program, Hospital Acquired Conditions Reduction Program, and Hospital Readmission Reduction Program). 

Meaningful Measures Initiative

CMS launched the Meaningful Measures Initiative in October 2017 to “reduce” the regulatory burden on the healthcare industry, lower health care costs, and enhance patient care.” The aim of this Initiative is to identify “the highest priority areas for quality measurement and quality improvement in order to assess the core quality of care issues that are most vital to advancing our work to improve patient outcomes.”

According to the CMS Meaningful Measures Hub this Initiative “is not intended to replace any existing programs, but will help identify and select individual measures. Meaningful Measure areas are intended to increase measure alignment across CMS programs and other public and private initiatives. Additionally, it will point to high priority areas where there may be gaps in available quality measures while helping guide CMS’s effort to develop and implement quality measures to fill those gaps.”

Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting (IQR) Program

The Hospital IQR Program is a pay-for-reporting quality program established by the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. FY 2019 Proposals for the IQR Program are a result of CMS conducting an overall review of the Program under the “Meaningful Measures Initiative.” Current IQR Program measures were evaluated in the context of measures used in the Hospital Value Based Purchasing Program, Hospital Acquired Conditions Reduction Program and the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program.

New “Measure Removal Factor”

Currently there are seven previously adopted “Removal Factors” that are taken into consideration when making the decision to remove a measure. CMS finalized the proposal to add the following factor:

• Factor 8: The costs associated with a measure outweigh the benefit of its continued use in the program. Note: CMS has clarified that using this factor would be on a case-by-case basis and provides the example of deciding “to retain a measure that is burdensome for health care providers to report if we conclude that the benefit to beneficiaries justifies the reporting burden.”

Removal of Hospital IQR Program Measures

CMS finalized their proposal to remove a total of 39 measures from across Fiscal Years (FYs) 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 payment determinations, with some modifications. In general, measures proposed for removal were due to the measure being duplicative of a measure in another program (i.e. Value Based Purchasing Program) or the cost of the measure outweighing the benefit of its continued use. A table summarizing the measures finalized for removal from the IQR Program can be found on page 41575-41577 of the Federal Register/Vol 83, No. 160 / Friday, August 17, 2018 / Rules and Regulations.

Hospital Value Based Purchasing (VBP) Program

The Hospital VBP Program is a budget neutral program. This program is funded by reducing the base operating DRG payment amount for a hospital for each discharge in a fiscal year by an applicable percent to fund this program. The applicable percent for FY 2019 and subsequent years is 2.00 percent. CMS estimates the total amount available for value-based incentive payments for FY 2019 to be approximately $1.9 billion.

CMS believes as part of their “holistic quality payment program strategy” that this Program should continue to focus on measures related to:  

• Clinical Outcomes (i.e. mortality and complications),
• Patient and Caregiver Experience (i.e. HCAHPS survey),
• Healthcare costs (i.e. Medicare Spending per Beneficiary measure).

Retention and Removal of Quality Measures

CMS finalized their proposal “to revise our regulations at 42 CFR 412.164(a) to clarify that once we have complied with the statutory prerequisites for adopting a measure for the Hospital VBP Program (that is, we have selected the measure from the Hospital IQR Program measure set and included data on that measure on Hospital Compare for at least one year prior to its inclusion in a Hospital VBP Program performance period), the Hospital VBP statute does not require that the measure continue to remain in the Hospital IQR Program.”

This finalized proposal is part of CMS’ efforts to evaluate and streamline regulations and specifically “would reduce costs…by allowing us to remove duplicative measures from the Hospital IQR Program that are retained in the Hospital VBP Program.”

Program “Measure Removal Factors”

CMS finalized their proposal to adopt for the Hospital VBP Program the current Hospital IQR Program measure removal factors used to determine whether to remove a program measure. They also finalized the following two scenarios for removing a measure:

• When the costs associated with a measure outweigh the benefit of its continued use in the program (Removal Factor 8), or
• When CMS believes the continued use of a measure poses specific patient safety concerns, they can promptly remove the measure without rulemaking and notify hospitals and the public of the removal of the measure along with the reason for its removal through routine communications channels.

Measures Finalized for Removal from the VBP Program

CMS efforts to review existing VBP Program measures “to identify how to reduce costs and complexity across programs while continuing to incentivize improvement in the quality and value of care provided to patients” resulted in ten measures being proposed for removal from the VBP Program.

Many commenters did not support the proposal to remove the five Healthcare-Associated Infection (HAI) measures and Patient Safety and Adverse Events (Composite) (PSI 90) because they “believe patient safety measures should remain in all payment programs to sufficiently incentivize continued improvement on these measures and prioritize practices that ensure safe care.” CMS agreed and did not remove these six patient safety measures that are also in the Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction program measure set due to their critical importance to quality improvement and patient safety in the hospital setting.  The following table includes the four measures finalized for removal from the VBP Program.

Additional information about the VBP Program can be found on the CMS Hospital VBP webpage. 

Hospital Acquired Conditions (HAC) Reduction Program

The HAC Reduction Program requires payments be adjusted to hospitals ranking in the worst-performing quartile with respect to the risk-adjusted HAC quality measures. This group of hospitals are subject to a 1 percent payment reduction.

This Program “focuses on patient safety measures, which address the Meaningful Measures Initiative quality priority of making care safe by reducing harm caused in the delivery of care.” Per CMS, “measures in the HAC Reduction Program, generally represent “never events” and often, if not always, assess preventable conditions. By including these measures in the Program, we seek to encourage hospitals to address the serious harm caused by these adverse events and to reduce them.”

CMS finalized the following policies specific to the HAC Reduction Program:

• Adopt administrative processes to receive and validate National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) Healthcare-Associated Infection (HAI) data that is submitted by hospitals to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) beginning CY 2020
• Adjust the scoring methodology by removing domains and assigning equal weighting to each measure for which a hospital has a measure score in order to improve fairness across hospital types in the Program; and
• Established the data collection period for the FY 2021 Program Year.

Additional information about this program can be found on the CMS HAC Reduction Program webpage.  

Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP)

The HRRP “focuses on care coordination measures, which address the quality priority of promoting effective communication and care coordination within the Meaningful Measures Initiative.”

A hospital can be penalized by up to 3 percent for excess hospital readmissions in the following six clinical conditions:

• Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI),
• Heart Failure (HF),
• Pneumonia (PN),
• Total Hip Arthroplasty/Total Knee Arthroplasty (THA/TKA),
• Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD); and
• Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG) Surgery.

Applicable Periods for FY 2019, FY 2020, and FY 2021

The HRRP Applicable Period is defined “as the 3-year period from which data are collected in order to calculate excess readmissions ratios and payment adjustment factors for the fiscal year, which includes aggregate payments for excess readmissions and aggregate payments for all discharges used in the calculation of the payment adjustment.” The following table outlines the Finalized “Applicable Periods” for FY 2019, FY 2020, and FY 2021.

The FY 2019 readmissions payment adjustment factors were not available at the time the Final Rule was released. CMS notes that after hospitals have been given time to review their hospital-specific data, they  will post Table 15 (via the Internet on the CMS website) to display the final FY 2019 readmissions payment adjustment factors that will be applicable for discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2018. CMS expects this table to be posted in the fall of this year.

Additional information about this program can be found on the CMS HRRP webpage.

While admittedly not as exciting as a football game in the deep South, for hospitals this information is definitely part of the play book for what is to come in the 2019 IPPS Fiscal Year. 

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.”
- George Bernard Shaw

This week’s article in our 2019 IPPS Final Rule series highlights finalized changes to MS-DRG Classifications, the complication or comorbidity (CC) list and the major complication or comorbidity (MCC) list. At least annually, DRG classifications and relative weights are adjusted to reflect changes in treatment patterns, technology, and other factors that may change the relative use of hospital resources.

Pre-MDC

Heart Transplant or Implant of Heart Assist Program

In the FY 2018 IPPS Final Rule, CMS stated their intent to review the ICD-10 logic for Pre-MDC MS-DRGs 001 and 002 (Heart Transplant or Implant of Heart Assist System with and without MCC, respectively), as well as MS-DRG 215 (Other Heart Assist System Implant) and MS-DRGs 268 and 269 (Aortic and Heart Assist Procedures Except Pulsation Balloon with and without MCC, respectively) where procedures involving heart assist devices are currently assigned.

MS-DRGs 001 and 002 (Heart Transplant or Implant of Heart Assist System with and without MCC, respectively)

Currently data shows differences in the average length of stay and average costs for cases in Pre-MDC MS-DRGs 001 and 002 according to the type of procedure, type of device, and the approach utilized. Commenters agreed with CMS that available claims data doesn’t reflect recent advice published in Coding Clinic for ICD-10-CM/PCS regarding the coding of procedures involving external heart assist devices or recent changes to ICD-10-PCS codes for these procedures. At this time CMS is maintaining the current structure of Pre-MDC MS-DRGs 001 and 002 for FY 2019 and plans to continue to analyze claims data for consideration of future modifications.

MS-DRG 215 (Other Heart Assist System Implant)

CMS stated in the FY 2018 IPPS Final Rule that they are aware of Coding Clinic advice clarifying coding and reporting for certain external heart assist devices due to the technology being approved for new indications and current claims data does not reflect the updated guidance. They also noted recent updates to descriptions of the codes for heart assist devices in the past year and provide the example qualifier “intraoperative” being added effective October 1, 2017 (FY 2018). For these reasons CMS finalized their proposal to not to make any modification to MS-DRG 215 for FY 2019.

Percutaneous ECMO: New Codes

There was a request for CMS to review claims data for procedures involving Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) in combination with the insertion of a percutaneous short-term external heart assist device to determine if the current MS-DRG assignment is appropriate. CMS indicated that “Our clinical advisors agree that until there is a way to specifically identify percutaneous ECMO in the claims data to enable further analysis, a proposal at this time is not warranted.”

It just so happens that the FY 2019 ICD-10-PCS procedure code files include new ICD-10-PCS procedure codes identifying percutaneous ECMO procedures. Additionally, the current code for ECMO procedures (ICD-10-PCS code 5A15223) has been revised. New codes effective October 1, 2018 include:  

CMS notes the new codes were not finalized at the time of the Proposed Rule. Consistent with CMS’s annual process of assigning new procedure codes to MDCs and MS-DRGs, and designating a procedure as an O.R. or non-O.R. procedure, CMS reviewed the predecessor procedure code assignments. “The predecessor procedure code (ICD-10-PCS code 5A15223) for the new percutaneous ECMO procedure codes describes an open approach which requires an incision along the sternum (sternotomy) and is performed for open heart surgery. It is considered extremely invasive and carries significant risks for complications, including bleeding, infection and vessel injury.”

“Percutaneous (peripheral) ECMO does not require a sternotomy and can be performed in the intensive care unit or at the bedside.” The new procedure codes for percutaneous ECMO procedures have been designated as non-O.R. procedures that will affect the MS-DRG assignment for specific medical MS-DRGs. Effective October 1, 2018, MS-DRGs for which the percutaneous ECMO procedure will affect MS-DRG assignment are in the following table, along with the revised MS-DRG titles.

Note: “In cases where a percutaneous external heart assist device is utilized, in combination with a percutaneous ECMO procedure, effective October 1, 2018, the ICD-10 MS-DRG Version 36 GROUPER logic results in a case assignment to MS-DRG 215 because the percutaneous external heart assist device procedure is designated as an O.R. procedure and assigned to MS-DRG 215.”

Brachytherapy

Commenter Request: “We received a request to create a new Pre-MDC MS–DRG for all procedures involving the CivaSheet® technology, an implantable, planar brachytherapy source designed to enable delivery of radiation to the site of the cancer tumor excision or debulking, while protecting neighboring tissue…Currently, procedures involving the CivaSheet® technology are reported using ICD–10–PCS Section D—Radiation Therapy codes, with the root operation ‘‘Brachytherapy.’’ These codes are non-O.R. codes and group to the MS–DRG to which the principal diagnosis is assigned.”

CMS Response: Claims analysis only identified 4 cases. CMS maintained their proposal to not create a new Pre-MDC MS-DRG for procedures involving the CivaSheet® technology for FY 2019.

Laryngectomy

Pre-MDC MS-DRGs 11, 12 and 13 (Tracheostomy for Face, Mouth and Neck Diagnoses with MCC, with CC, and without CC/MCC, respectively)

Current logic for case assignment to MS-DRGs 11, 12 and 13:  

• Tracheostomies must be reported with a principal diagnosis code involving the face, mouth, or neck to satisfy the logic for assignment to Pre-MDC MS-DRGs 11, 12, or 13.
• Laryngectomies reported with any principal diagnosis code will satisfy the logic for assignment to Pre-MDC MS-DRGs 11, 12, or 13.

CMS finalized the following proposals specific to MS-DRGs 11, 12 and 13:

• Reorder the lists of the diagnosis and procedure codes. The list of principal diagnosis codes for face, mouth, and neck would be sequenced first, followed by the list of the tracheostomy procedure codes and, lastly, the list of laryngectomy procedure codes.
• Revise the titles of Pre-MDC MS–DRGs 11, 12, and 13 from ‘‘Tracheostomy for Face, Mouth and Neck Diagnoses with MCC, with CC and without CC/MCC, respectively’’ to ‘‘Tracheostomy for Face, Mouth and Neck Diagnoses or Laryngectomy with MCC’’, ‘‘Tracheostomy for Face, Mouth and Neck Diagnoses or Laryngectomy with CC’’, and ‘‘Tracheostomy for Face, Mouth and Neck Diagnoses or Laryngectomy without CC/MCC’’, respectively, to reflect that laryngectomy procedures may also be assigned to these MS–DRGs.

Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T-Cell Therapy

“Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy is a cell-based gene therapy in which T-cells are genetically engineered to express a chimeric antigen receptor that will bind to a certain protein on a patient’s cancerous cells. The CAR T-cells are then administered to the patient to attack certain cancerous cells and the individual is observed for potential serious side effects that would require medical intervention.”

Two CAR T-cell therapy drugs received FDA approval in 2017 (KYMRIAH™ manufactured by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation and YESCARTA™ manufactured by Kite Pharma, Inc.). Current ICD-10-PCS procedures codes involving the CAR T-cell therapy drugs includes:

• XW033C3 (Introduction of engineered autologous chimeric antigen receptor t-cell immunotherapy into peripheral vein, percutaneous approach, new technology group 3), and
• XW043C3 (Introduction of engineered autologous chimeric antigen receptor t-cell immunotherapy into central vein, percutaneous approach, new technology group 3).

Both codes became effective October 1, 2017. Procedures described by these two ICD–10–PCS procedure codes are designated as non-O.R. procedures that have no impact on MS–DRG assignment.

CMS notes their “clinical advisors believe that patients receiving treatment utilizing CAR T-cell therapy procedures would have similar clinical characteristics and comorbidities to those seen in cases representing patients receiving treatment for other hematologic carcinomas who are treated with autologous bone marrow transplant therapy that are currently assigned to MS–DRG 016 (Autologous Bone Marrow Transplant with CC/MCC). Therefore, CMS finalized their proposals to:

• Assign ICD-10-PCD procedure codes XW033CS and XW043C3 to Pre-MDC MS-DRG 016 for FY 2019, and
• Revise the title of MS-DRG 016 from “Autologous Bone Marrow Transplant with CC/MCC” to “Autologous Bone Marrow Transplant with CC/MCC or T-cell Immunotherapy.”

In addition to a new MS-DRG assignment and MS-DRG title revision, both manufacturers of CAR T-cell therapy submitted applications and were approved for new technology add-on payments for FY 2019.

MDC 1: Diseases and Disorders of the Nervous System

Epilepsy with Neurostimulator

In the FY 2018 IPPS/LTCH PPS Final Rule, CMS finalized their proposal “to reassign all cases reporting a principal diagnosis of epilepsy… and one of the following ICD-10-PCS code combinations, which captures cases involving neurostimulator generators inserted into the skull (including cases involving the use of the RNS© neurostimulator), to retitled MS-DRG 023 (Craniotomy with Major Device Implant or Acute Complex Central Nervous System (CNS) Principal Diagnosis (PDX) with MCC or Chemotherapy Implant or Epilepsy with Neurostimulator), even if there is no MCC reported:”

• 0NH00NZ (Insertion of neurostimulator generator into skull, open approach), in combination with 00H00MZ (Insertion of neurostimulator lead into brain, open approach);
• 0NH00NZ (Insertion of neurostimulator generator into skull, open approach), in combination with 00H03MZ (Insertion of neurostimulator lead into brain, percutaneous approach); and
• 0NH00NZ (Insertion of neurostimulator generator into skull, open approach), in combination with 00H04MZ (Insertion of neurostimulator lead into brain, percutaneous endoscopic approach).

CMS agreed with a requestor and finalized the proposal to add the following two codes representative of epilepsy diagnoses to the listing of epilepsy diagnosis codes for cases assigned to MS-DRG 023:

• G40.109 (Localization-related (focal) (partial) symptomatic epilepsy and epileptic syndromes with simple partial seizures, not intractable, without status epilepticus); and
• G40.111 (Localization-related (focal) (partial) symptomatic epilepsy and epileptic syndromes with simple partial seizures, intractable, with status epilepticus).

MDC 5: Diseases and Disorders of the Circulatory System

Pacemaker Insertions

CMS finalized all four proposals specific to pacemaker insertions:  

• First, “to recreate pairs of procedure code combinations involving both the insertion of a pacemaker device with the insertion of a pacemaker lead to act as procedure code combination pairs or ‘‘clusters’’ in the GROUPER logic that are designated as O.R. procedures outside of MDC 5 when reported together.”
• Second, “to designate all the procedure codes describing the insertion of a pacemaker device or the insertion of a pacemaker lead as non-O.R. procedures when reported as a single, individual stand-alone code based on the recommendation of our clinical advisors.”
• Third, “maintain the current GROUPER logic for MS-DRGs 258 and 259 (Cardiac Pacemaker Device Replacements with MCC and without MCC, respectively) where the listed procedure codes as shown in the ICD-10 MS-DRG Definitions Manual Version 35…describing a pacemaker insertion, continue to be designated as “non-O.R. affecting the MS-DRG” because they are reported when a pacemaker device requires replacement and have a corresponding diagnosis from MDC 5.”
• Fourth, “maintain the current GROUPER logic for MS–DRGs 260, 261, and 262 (Cardiac Pacemaker Revision Except Device Replacement with MCC, with CC, and without CC/MCC, respectively) so that cases reporting any one of the listed ICD–10–PCS procedure codes as shown in the ICD–10 MS–DRG Definitions Manual Version 35 describing procedures involving pacemakers and related procedures and associated devices will continue to be assigned to those MS–DRGs under MDC 5 because they are reported when a pacemaker device requires revision and they have a corresponding circulatory system diagnosis.

CMS also sought public comment on a couple of issues specific to pacemakers. First, they questioned if procedure codes currently designated as O.R. Procedure codes and are assigned to MS-DRGs 260, 261, and 262 under MDC 5 describing the removal or revision of a cardiac lead and removal or revision of a cardiac rhythm related (pacemaker) device should also be designated as non-O.R. procedure codes for FY 2019 when reported as a single, individual stand-alone code with a principal diagnosis outside of MDC 5 for consistency in the classification among these devices. CMS agreed with a commenter “that the removal or revision of a cardiac lead or pacemaker generator can be more complex and require greater resources than an initial insertion procedure.” Therefore, CMS is maintaining the O.R. designation for the codes listed in the following table.

The second request for comment was to ask whether procedure codes describing the insertion and revision of intra-cardiac or “leadless” pacemakers should also be considered for classification into all surgical unrelated MS-DRGs outside of MDC 5 for FY 2019. CMS notes in the Final Rule that they are maintaining the O.R. designation of the procedure codes and have indicated they will continue to analyze these procedures as additional claims data become available.

Drug-Coated Balloons in Endovascular Procedures

In FY 2018 the new technology add-on payments for the LUTONIX® and IN.PACT™ Admiral™ drug-coated balloon (DCB) technologies were discontinued. CMS received a request to reassign cases that utilize a DCB in the performance of an endovascular procedure involving the treatment of superficial femoral arteries for peripheral arterial disease from the lower severity level MS-DRG 254 (Other Vascular Procedures without CC/MCC) and MS-DRG 253 (Other Vascular Procedures with CC) to the highest severity level MS-DRG 252 (Other Vascular Procedures with MCC). CMS data analysis results and clinical advisors do not support reassigning these cases.

MDC 6: Diseases and Disorders of the Digestive System

Benign Lipomatous Neoplasm of Kidney (D17.71)

From a commenters request and their own review, CMS identified a replication issue from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM for codes D17.71 and D17.72 (benign lipomatous neoplasm of other genitourinary tract organ) and therefore finalized the reassignment of both codes. The following table highlights the current MDC and MS-DRG assignment and the new MDC and MS-DRG assignment that will be effective October 1, 2018.

The following table compares the Relative Weight (RW), Geometric Mean Length of Stay (GMLOS), Arithmetic Mean Length of Stay (AMLOS) and National Average Payment Rate for ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes D17.71 and D17.72 current MS-DRG assignment and Finalized MS-DRG assignment effective October 1, 2018. The table highlights the fact that in general the Finalized MS-DRGs assignments have a higher RW, LOS and National Payment Rate.

‍ 

Bowel Procedures

There was a request made to reassign eight procedure codes describing repositioning of the colon and takedown of end colostomy from MS-DRGs 344, 345, and 346 (Minor Small and Large Bowel Procedures with MCC, with CC, and without CC/MCC, respectively) to MS-DRGs 329, 330, and 331 (Major Small and Large Bowel Procedures with MCC, with CC, and without CC/MCC respectively). Based on data analysis CMS felt that the codes were best aligned with those in MS-DRGs 344, 345, and 346.

In their analysis of MS-DRGs 329, 330, and 331 CMS also examined a subset of cases reporting one of the following bowel procedures as the only O.R. procedure:

• 0DQK0ZZ: Repair ascending colon, open approach.
• 0DQK4ZZ: Repair ascending colon, percutaneous endoscopic approach.
• 0DQL0ZZ: Repair transverse colon, open approach.
• 0DQL4ZZ: Repair transverse colon, percutaneous endoscopic approach.
• 0DQM0ZZ: Repair descending colon, open approach.
• 0DQM4ZZ: Repair descending colon, percutaneous endoscopic approach.
• 0DQN0ZZ: Repair sigmoid colon, open approach.
• 0DQN4ZZ: Repair sigmoid colon, percutaneous endoscopic approach.
• 0DSB0ZZ: Reposition ileum, open approach.
• 0DSB4ZZ: Reposition ileum, percutaneous endoscopic approach.
• 0DSE0ZZ: Reposition large intestine, open approach.
• 0DSE4ZZ: Reposition large intestine, percutaneous endoscopic approach.

CMS noted that “this approach can be useful in determining whether resource use is truly associated with a particular procedure or whether the procedure frequently occurs in cases with other procedures with higher than average resource use.” Analysis showed that resources for these cases is more aligned with MS-DRGs 344, 345, and 346. CMS proposed to reassign the twelve codes to this group of MS-DRGs.

It was refreshing to read that commenters “noted that several questions and answers regarding these ICD-10-PCS procedure codes were published in Coding Clinic for ICD-10-CM/PCS between late 2016 and the end of 2017, and stated that because 2 full years of data were not available subsequent to publication of this advice, CMS’s analysis and proposed MS-DRG modifications may be based on unreliable data.” CMS agreed with commenters, did not finalize this proposal and plan to wait until further data is available before finalizing changes to the MS-DRG assignment for these bowel procedures.

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

Spinal Fusion

CMS announced in the FY 2018 Final Rule their plans to review the ICD-10 logic for MS-DRGs where procedures involving spinal fusion are currently assigned. CMS did not propose any changes to the MS-DRGs involving spinal fusion for FY 2019. However, in response to a commenter’s suggestions and findings they do provide results from their data analysis.

As a background to this issue, procedure codes describing a spinal fusion with a device value “Z” represents “No Device” for the 6th character in the code. “Because a spinal fusion procedure always requires some type of device (for example, instrumentation with bone graft or bone graft alone) to facilitate the fusion of vertebral bones, these codes are considered clinically invalid.” Ninety-nine procedure codes describing a spinal fusion with a device value “Z” were proposed for deletion at the September 12, 2017 ICD-10-Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting. Commenters supported this proposal and also supported the deletion of other procedure codes describing fusion of body sites other than the spine. A total of 213 procedure codes describing fusion of a specific body part with a device value “Z” are being deleted effective October 1, 2018 (FY 2019).

CMS data analysis found that invalid spinal fusion procedures represented approximately 12 percent of all discharges across the spinal fusion MS-DRGs from the September 2017 update of the FY 2017 MedPAR file. “Because these procedure codes describe clinically invalid procedures, we would not expect these codes to be reported on any claims data…It is unclear why providers assigned procedure codes for spinal fusion procedures with the device value ‘‘Z’’ No Device. Our analysis did not examine whether these claims were isolated to a specific provider or whether this inaccurate reporting was widespread among a number of providers.”

CMS plans to continue to monitor claims noting that due to the timing of when the procedure codes become invalid “It would be premature to propose any MS-DRG modifications for spinal fusion procedures. Possible MS-DRG modifications may include taking into account the approach that was utilized in performing the spinal fusion procedure (for example, open versus percutaneous).”

MDC 9: Diseases and Disorders of the Skin, Subcutaneous Tissue and Breast

Cellulitis with Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) Infection

A request was made to reassign ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes reported with a primary diagnosis of cellulitis and a secondary diagnosis code of B95.62 (Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection as the cause of diseases classified elsewhere) or A49.02 (Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection, unspecific site). Specifically reassign the codes from the current MS-DRGs 602 and 603 (Cellulitis with MCC and with MCC, respectively) in MDC 9 to MS-DRG 867 (Other infectious and Parasitic Diseases Diagnoses with MCC). Through data analysis, CMS believes these cases are more clinically aligned where they are currently assigned and finalized their proposal to maintain the current MS-DRG classification for cases reported with ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes B95.62 and A49.02 when reported as secondary diagnoses with a principal diagnosis of cellulitis.  

MDC 10: Endocrine, Nutritional and Metabolic Diseases and Disorders

Acute Intermittent Porphyria

A request was made to revise the MS-DRG classification for cases of patients diagnosed with porphyria and reported with ICD-10-CM diagnosis code E80.21 (Acute intermittent (hepatic) porphyria). “Porphyria is defined as a group of rare disorders (“porphyria’s”) that interfere with the production of hemoglobin that is needed for red blood cells.” After data analysis, CMS did not propose to revise the current MS-DRG classification. In response to comments published in the Final Rule CMS did indicate “we are sensitive to the commenters’ concerns about access to treatment for beneficiaries who have been diagnosed with this condition. Therefore, as part of our ongoing, comprehensive analysis of the MS-DRGs under ICD-10, we will continue to explore mechanisms through which to address rare diseases and low volume DRGs.”

MDC 14: Pregnancy, Childbirth and the Puerperium

In the FY 2018 proposed and final rule, CMS recognized that MS-DRG logic involving a vaginal delivery is technically complex as a result of the requirements that must be met and solicited public comments on further refinement of the following four MS-DRGs

• MS-DRG 767: Vaginal Delivery with Sterilization and/or D&C,
• MS-DRG 768: Vaginal Delivery with O.R. Procedure Except Sterilization and/or D&C,
• MS-DRG 774: Vaginal Delivery with Complicating Diagnosis, and
• MS-DRG 775: Vaginal Delivery without Complicating Diagnosis.

CMS also sought comments on further refinements to the conditions defined as a complicating diagnosis for MS-DRG 774 and MS-DRG 781 (Other Antepartum Diagnoses with Medical Complications). CMS formed an internal workgroup comprised of clinical advisors that included physicians, coding specialists, and other IPPS policy staff that assisted in the review of the GROUPER logic for a vaginal delivery and complicating diagnoses. CMS also received clinical input from 3M/Health Information Systems (HIS) staff who are responsible for updating and maintaining the GROUPER program under a contract with CMS.

CMS finalized their proposal to delete 10 MS-DRGs and create 18 new MS-DRGs based on their efforts of consolidating specific conditions and concepts into the structure of existing logic and making additional modifications, such as adding severity levels. These changes are intended to:

• Address the vaginal delivery “complicating diagnosis” logic and the antepartum diagnoses with “medical complications” logic by adding severity level MS-DRGs,
• Simplify the vaginal delivery procedure logic by eliminating the extensive diagnosis and procedure code lists for several conditions that must be met for assignment to the vaginal delivery MS-DRGs.
• Respond to issue brought to their attention through public comments.

MS-DRGs Finalized for Deletion under MDC 14:

• MS–DRG 765 (Cesarean Section with CC/MCC);
• MS–DRG 766 (Cesarean Section without CC/MCC);
• MS–DRG 767 (Vaginal Delivery with Sterilization and/or D&C);
• MS–DRG 774 (Vaginal Delivery with Complicating Diagnosis);
• MS–DRG 775 (Vaginal Delivery without Complicating Diagnosis);
• MS–DRG 777 (Ectopic Pregnancy);
• MS–DRG 778 (Threatened Abortion);
• MS–DRG 780 (False Labor);
• MS–DRG 781 (Other Antepartum Diagnoses with Medical Complications); and
• MS–DRG 782 (Other Antepartum Diagnoses without Medical Complications).

New MS-DRGs Finalized to be added under MDC 14:

• Proposed new MS–DRG 783 (Cesarean Section with Sterilization with MCC);
• Proposed new MS–DRG 784 (Cesarean Section with Sterilization with CC);
• Proposed new MS–DRG 785 (Cesarean Section with Sterilization without CC/MCC);
• Proposed new MS–DRG 786 (Cesarean Section without Sterilization with MCC);
• Proposed new MS–DRG 787 (Cesarean Section without Sterilization with CC);
• Proposed new MS–DRG 788 (Cesarean Section without Sterilization without CC/MCC);
• Proposed new MS–DRG 796 (Vaginal Delivery with Sterilization/D&C with MCC);
• Proposed new MS–DRG 797 (Vaginal Delivery with Sterilization/D&C with CC);
• Proposed new MS–DRG 798 (Vaginal Delivery with Sterilization/D&C without CC/MCC);
• Proposed new MS–DRG 805 (Vaginal Delivery without Sterilization/D&C with MCC);
• Proposed new MS–DRG 806 (Vaginal Delivery without Sterilization/D&C with CC);
• Proposed new MS–DRG 807 (Vaginal Delivery without Sterilization/D&C without CC/MCC);
• Proposed new MS–DRG 817 (Other Antepartum Diagnoses with O.R. Procedure with MCC);
• Proposed new MS–DRG 818 (Other Antepartum Diagnoses with O.R. Procedure with CC);
• Proposed new MS–DRG 819 (Other Antepartum Diagnoses with O.R. Procedure without CC/MCC);
• Proposed new MS–DRG 831 (Other Antepartum Diagnoses without O.R. Procedure with MCC);
• Proposed new MS–DRG 832 (Other Antepartum Diagnoses without O.R. Procedure with CC); and
• Proposed new MS–DRG 833 (Other Antepartum Diagnoses without O.R. Procedure without CC/MCC).
  

CMS provides diagrams illustrating how the new MS-DRG logic for MDC 14 would function. These diagrams can be found on pages 255 and 257 of the Final Rule display copy.

Dilation and Curettage Procedures

CMS finalized their proposal to reassign ICD-10-PCS procedure codes 0UDB7ZX, 0UDB7ZZ, 0UDB8ZX, and 0UDB8ZZ describing dilation and curettage (D&C) procedures from MS-DRG 767 under MDC 14 to MS-DRGs 744 and 745 under MDC 13.

The following table compares the Relative Weight (RW), Geometric Mean Length of Stay (GMLOS), Arithmetic Mean Length of Stay (AMLOS) and National Average Payment Rate for ICD-10-CM procedure codes 0UDB7ZX, 0UDB7ZZ, 0UDB8ZX, and 0UDB8ZZ current and new MS-DRG assignment effective October 1, 2018. Similar to renal dialysis, this MS-DRG reassignment highlights the fact that the presence or absence of comorbidities and complications will now impact admissions for a D&C.  

‍MDC 18: Infectious and Parasitic Diseases, Systemic or Unspecified Sites

Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) of Non-Infectious Origin

ICD-10-CM codes R65.10 (Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) of non-infectious origin without acute organ dysfunction and R65.11 (Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) of non-infectious origin with acute organ dysfunction are currently assigned to the following three MS-DRGs:

• MS-DRG 870: Septicemia or Severe Sepsis with Mechanical Ventilation >96 Hours,
• MS-DRG 871: Septicemia or Severe Sepsis without Mechanical Ventilation >96 Hours with MCC, and
• MS-DRG 872: Septicemia or Severe Sepsis without Mechanical Ventilation >96 Hours without MCC.

In the Proposed Rule CMS’ Clinical Advisors noted that these two ICD-10-CM codes describe non-infectious conditions and recommended reassignment to a more clinically appropriate MS-DRG. Claims data analysis included cases in MS-DRGs 870, 871, and 872 with a principal diagnosis of R65.10 or R65.11. CMS noted the cases “appear to have been coded inaccurately according to the ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting at Section I.C.18.g., which specifically state: “The syndrome (SIRS) can develop as a result of certain non-infectious disease processes, such as trauma, malignant neoplasm, or pancreatitis. When SIRS is documented with a non-infectious condition, and no subsequent infection is documented, the code for the underlying condition, such as an injury, should be assigned, followed by code R65.10, Systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) of noninfectious origin without acute organ dysfunction or code R65.11, Systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) of non-infectious origin with acute organ dysfunction.’’ Therefore, according to the Coding Guidelines, ICD–10–CM diagnosis codes R65.10 and R65.11 should not be reported as the principal diagnosis on an inpatient claim.” CMS finalized their proposal to reassign ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes R65.10 and R65.11 to MS-DRG 864: Fever and to revise the title of the MS-DRG to “Fever and Inflammatory Conditions.”  

The following table compares the Relative Weight (RW), Geometric Mean Length of Stay (GMLOS), Arithmetic Mean Length of Stay (AMLOS) and National Average Payment Rate for ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes R65.10 and R65.11 current and new MS-DRG assignment effective October 1, 2018. This table highlights the expectation that SIRS without infection takes fewer resources to treat and has a much shorter LOS.

MDC 14: Pregnancy, Childbirth and the Puerperium

In the FY 2018 proposed and final rule, CMS recognized that MS-DRG logic involving a vaginal delivery is technically complex as a result of the requirements that must be met and solicited public comments on further refinement of the following four MS-DRGs

• MS-DRG 767: Vaginal Delivery with Sterilization and/or D&C,
• MS-DRG 768: Vaginal Delivery with O.R. Procedure Except Sterilization and/or D&C,
• MS-DRG 774: Vaginal Delivery with Complicating Diagnosis, and
• MS-DRG 775: Vaginal Delivery without Complicating Diagnosis.

CMS also sought comments on further refinements to the conditions defined as a complicating diagnosis for MS-DRG 774 and MS-DRG 781 (Other Antepartum Diagnoses with Medical Complications). CMS formed an internal workgroup comprised of clinical advisors that included physicians, coding specialists, and other IPPS policy staff that assisted in the review of the GROUPER logic for a vaginal delivery and complicating diagnoses. CMS also received clinical input from 3M/Health Information Systems (HIS) staff who are responsible for updating and maintaining the GROUPER program under a contract with CMS.

CMS finalized their proposal to delete 10 MS-DRGs and create 18 new MS-DRGs based on their efforts of consolidating specific conditions and concepts into the structure of existing logic and making additional modifications, such as adding severity levels. These changes are intended to:

• Address the vaginal delivery “complicating diagnosis” logic and the antepartum diagnoses with “medical complications” logic by adding severity level MS-DRGs,
• Simplify the vaginal delivery procedure logic by eliminating the extensive diagnosis and procedure code lists for several conditions that must be met for assignment to the vaginal delivery MS-DRGs.
• Respond to issue brought to their attention through public comments.

MS-DRGs Finalized for Deletion under MDC 14:

• MS–DRG 765 (Cesarean Section with CC/MCC);
• MS–DRG 766 (Cesarean Section without CC/MCC);
• MS–DRG 767 (Vaginal Delivery with Sterilization and/or D&C);
• MS–DRG 774 (Vaginal Delivery with Complicating Diagnosis);
• MS–DRG 775 (Vaginal Delivery without Complicating Diagnosis);
• MS–DRG 777 (Ectopic Pregnancy);
• MS–DRG 778 (Threatened Abortion);
• MS–DRG 780 (False Labor);
• MS–DRG 781 (Other Antepartum Diagnoses with Medical Complications); and
• MS–DRG 782 (Other Antepartum Diagnoses without Medical Complications).

New MS-DRGs Finalized to be added under MDC 14:

• Proposed new MS–DRG 783 (Cesarean Section with Sterilization with MCC);
• Proposed new MS–DRG 784 (Cesarean Section with Sterilization with CC);
• Proposed new MS–DRG 785 (Cesarean Section with Sterilization without CC/MCC);
• Proposed new MS–DRG 786 (Cesarean Section without Sterilization with MCC);
• Proposed new MS–DRG 787 (Cesarean Section without Sterilization with CC);
• Proposed new MS–DRG 788 (Cesarean Section without Sterilization without CC/MCC);
• Proposed new MS–DRG 796 (Vaginal Delivery with Sterilization/D&C with MCC);
• Proposed new MS–DRG 797 (Vaginal Delivery with Sterilization/D&C with CC);
• Proposed new MS–DRG 798 (Vaginal Delivery with Sterilization/D&C without CC/MCC);
• Proposed new MS–DRG 805 (Vaginal Delivery without Sterilization/D&C with MCC);
• Proposed new MS–DRG 806 (Vaginal Delivery without Sterilization/D&C with CC);
• Proposed new MS–DRG 807 (Vaginal Delivery without Sterilization/D&C without CC/MCC);
• Proposed new MS–DRG 817 (Other Antepartum Diagnoses with O.R. Procedure with MCC);
• Proposed new MS–DRG 818 (Other Antepartum Diagnoses with O.R. Procedure with CC);
• Proposed new MS–DRG 819 (Other Antepartum Diagnoses with O.R. Procedure without CC/MCC);
• Proposed new MS–DRG 831 (Other Antepartum Diagnoses without O.R. Procedure with MCC);
• Proposed new MS–DRG 832 (Other Antepartum Diagnoses without O.R. Procedure with CC); and
• Proposed new MS–DRG 833 (Other Antepartum Diagnoses without O.R. Procedure without CC/MCC).
  

CMS provides diagrams illustrating how the new MS-DRG logic for MDC 14 would function. These diagrams can be found on pages 255 and 257 of the Final Rule display copy.

Dilation and Curettage Procedures

CMS finalized their proposal to reassign ICD-10-PCS procedure codes 0UDB7ZX, 0UDB7ZZ, 0UDB8ZX, and 0UDB8ZZ describing dilation and curettage (D&C) procedures from MS-DRG 767 under MDC 14 to MS-DRGs 744 and 745 under MDC 13.

The following table compares the Relative Weight (RW), Geometric Mean Length of Stay (GMLOS), Arithmetic Mean Length of Stay (AMLOS) and National Average Payment Rate for ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes 0UDB7ZX, 0UDB7ZZ, 0UDB8ZX, and 0UDB8ZZ current and new MS-DRG assignment effective October 1, 2018. Similar to renal dialysis, this MS-DRG reassignment highlights the fact that the presence or absence of comorbidities and complications will now impact admissions for a D&C.  

‍MDC 18: Infectious and Parasitic Diseases, Systematic of Unspecified Sites

Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) of Non-Infectious Origin

ICD-10-CM codes R65.10 (Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) of non-infectious origin without acute organ dysfunction and R65.11 (Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) of non-infectious origin with acute organ dysfunction are currently assigned to the following three MS-DRGs:

• MS-DRG 870: Septicemia or Severe Sepsis with Mechanical Ventilation >96 Hours,
• MS-DRG 871: Septicemia or Severe Sepsis without Mechanical Ventilation >96 Hours with MCC, and
• MS-DRG 872: Septicemia or Severe Sepsis without Mechanical Ventilation >96 Hours without MCC.

In the Proposed Rule CMS’ Clinical Advisors noted that these two ICD-10-CM codes describe non-infectious conditions and recommended reassignment to a more clinically appropriate MS-DRG. Claims data analysis included cases in MS-DRGs 870, 871, and 872 with a principal diagnosis of R65.10 or R65.11. CMS noted the cases “appear to have been coded inaccurately according to the ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting at Section I.C.18.g., which specifically state: “The syndrome (SIRS) can develop as a result of certain non-infectious disease processes, such as trauma, malignant neoplasm, or pancreatitis. When SIRS is documented with a non-infectious condition, and no subsequent infection is documented, the code for the underlying condition, such as an injury, should be assigned, followed by code R65.10, Systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) of noninfectious origin without acute organ dysfunction or code R65.11, Systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) of non-infectious origin with acute organ dysfunction.’’ Therefore, according to the Coding Guidelines, ICD–10–CM diagnosis codes R65.10 and R65.11 should not be reported as the principal diagnosis on an inpatient claim.” CMS finalized their proposal to reassign ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes R65.10 and R65.11 to MS-DRG 864: Fever and to revise the title of the MS-DRG to “Fever and Inflammatory Conditions.”  

The following table compares the Relative Weight (RW), Geometric Mean Length of Stay (GMLOS), Arithmetic Mean Length of Stay (AMLOS) and National Average Payment Rate for ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes R65.10 and R65.11 current and new MS-DRG assignment effective October 1, 2018. This table highlights the expectation that SIRS without infection takes fewer resources to treat and has a much shorter LOS.

‍Severity Level Changes

Complications and comorbidities (CCs) are conditions that, when present, lead to increased resource utilization. Major Complications and comorbidities (MCCs) reflect the highest level of severity. Both CCs and MCCs have the potential to impact MS-DRG assignment.

Here a few key changes made to MCC and CC ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes lists effective October 1, 2018:

• B20 (Human immunodeficiency virus [HIV] disease) has been reassigned from an MCC to a CC.  
• G93.40 (Encephalopathy, unspecified) has been reassigned from an MCC to a CC.
• J80 (Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome) has been reassigned from a CC to an MCC.

The following table contains a group of ICD-10-CM codes discussed at the March 6, 2018 – March 7, 2018 ICD-10-CM/PCS Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting that were not finalized in time to include in the proposed rule but will be added to the CC List effective October 1, 2018.

A complete list of the MCC and CC changes can be found in Final Rule tables 6I.1, 6I2, 6J.1 and 6J.2.

MMP has combined these lists into one pdf document so you can quickly see what has changed from MCC to CC, what has changed due to further specificity of a code or what is new. Click here to download this combined list

This week MMP continues our series of articles focusing on the 2019 IPPS/LTCH Final Rule. In a related CMS Fact Sheet, they note that this Final Rule further advances “the agency’s priority of creating a patient-centered healthcare system by achieving greater price transparency, interoperability, and significant burden reduction so that hospitals can operate with better flexibility and patients have what they need to be active healthcare consumers.”

Last week’s article focused on the change to the admission order requirement. CMS put the admission order change into the “variety of changes” that will result in “Burden Reduction” for hospitals. This week’s article focuses on the finalized payment rate changes for acute care hospitals, “transparency” through online posting of standard charges, and “Burden Reduction” through revisions to the Physician Certification requirement.

Payment Rate Changes for IPPS Participating Acute Care Hospitals

“By law, CMS is required to update payment rates for IPPS hospitals annually, and to account for changes in the prices of goods and services used by these hospitals in treating Medicare patients, as well as for other factors. This is known as the hospital “market basket.” The IPPS pays hospitals for services provided to Medicare beneficiaries using a national base payment rate, adjusted for a number of factors that affect hospitals’ costs, including the patient’s condition and the cost of hospital labor in the hospital’s geographic area.”

“The increase in operating payment rates for general acute care hospitals paid under the IPPS that successfully participate in the Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting (IQR) Program and are meaningful electronic health record (EHR) users is approximately 1.85 percent.” This first table details Payments Rates Finalized for FY 2016 through FY 2018 compared to the Finalized Rate 1.85 percent change for FY 2019.

Table 1: Operating Payment Rate Compare: Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting & Meaningful EHR Users

This next table details the Market Basket and “other factors” accounted for in the payment rate updates. Keep in mind that this percentage is for Hospitals that successfully participate in the Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting (IQR) and are Meaningful EHR users.

Table 2: Elements Used to Compute Operating Payment Rates

“CMS projects that the rate increase, together with other changes to IPPS payment policies, will increase Medicare spending on inpatient hospital services in FY 2019 by approximately $4.8 billion, including an increase in new technology add-on payments of $0.2 billion.” The projected increase in Medicare spending doubles the expected increase of $2.4 billion in FY 2018.

Transparency: Requirements for Hospitals to Make Public a List of Their Standard Charges via the Internet

Public Health Services Act

Section 2718 of the Public Health Services Act focuses on bringing down the cost of health care coverage. More specifically, Section 2718(e) is sub-titled Standard Hospital Charges and provides the following requirement:

“(e) Standard Hospital Charges – Each hospital operating within the United States shall for each year establish (and update) and make public (in accordance with guidelines developed by the Secretary) a list of the hospital’s standard charges for items and services provided by the hospital, including for diagnosis-related groups established under section 1886(d)(4) of the Social Security Act.”

2015 IPPS/LTCH Final Rule

In the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH Final Rule (79 FR 50146), CMS reminded hospitals of their obligation to comply with provision 2718(e) of the Public Health Service Act and provided guidelines for its implementation.  

Guidelines

• Hospitals either make public a list of their standard charges (whether that be the chargemaster itself or in another form of their choice), OR
• Have a policy for allowing the public to view a list of those charges in response to an inquiry.

MedPAC suggested that hospitals be required to post the list on the internet. While CMS agreed posting a list on the internet would be one approach to satisfy the guidelines, they believed hospitals were in the best position to determine the manner and method to make the list public and did not make this a requirement.

CMS did encourage hospitals to undertake efforts to do the following:

• Engage in consumer friendly communication of their charges to help patients understand what their potential financial liability might be for services they obtain at the hospital, and
• Enable patients to compare charges for similar services across hospitals.

The expectation was that hospitals would update the information at least annually, or more often as appropriate, to reflect current charges. CMS ended this section of the 2015 Final Rule by stating “We are confident that hospital compliance with this statutory transparency requirement will improve the public accessibility of charge information. As hospitals continue to make data publicly available in compliance with section 2718(e) of the Public Health Service Act, we also will continue to review and post relevant charge data in a consumer friendly way, as we previously have done by posting on the CMS Web site the following hospital and physician charge information: May and June 2013 hospital charge data releases; 2013 physician data requests for information; and the April 2014 physician data releases and data provided on geographic variation in payments and payments per beneficiary.”

CMS maintains a Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data webpage on the CMS.gov website. Here you will find data across several settings (i.e., Hospital Inpatient and Outpatient, Home Health, Skilled Nursing Facilities and Physician Data).

2019 IPPS/LTCH Proposed Rule

In the 2019 IPPS/LTCH Proposed Rule CMS shared their concern “that challenges continue to exist for patients due to insufficient price transparency.” Specific challenges cited include:

• Patients being surprised by out-of-network bills for physicians, such as anesthesiologists and radiologist, who provide services at in-network hospitals.
• Patient being surprised by facility fees and physician fees for emergency department visits.

Another concern was “that chargemaster data are not helpful to patients for determining what they are likely to pay for a particular service or hospital stay. In order to promote greater price transparency for patients…we are considering ways to improve the accessibility and usability of the charge information that hospitals are required to disclose under section 2718(e) of the Public Health Service Act.”

As a first step, CMS acted upon MedPAC’s prior suggestion and effective January 1, 2019, hospitals will be required “to make available a list of their current standard charges via the Internet in a machine readable format and to update this information at least annually, or more often as appropriate. This could be in the form of the chargemaster itself or another form of the hospital’s choice, as long as the information is in machine readable format.”

2019 IPPS/LTCH Final Rule: Comments and CMS Responses

Comment: Some supported the update to the guidelines and indicated many hospitals already make their standard charges available voluntarily or under applicable State law.

CMS Response: CMS agreed many hospitals already make information available, “for example, the 2014 American Hospital Association State Transparency Survey data indicated that 35 States required hospitals to release information on some charges and 7 States relied on voluntary disclosure of charge data.”

Side note, in July 2014, the American Hospital Association released a Toolkit for Hospitals regarding Achieving Price Transparency for Consumers.

Comment: Commenters suggested that payers are a better source of information about the cost of care and should be the primary source of information for out of pocket costs and that CMS should require that insurance companies provide cost calculators or other tools to patients to calculate costs specific to their situation. This comment ended by noting that many uninsured patients receive free or discounted care through the hospital’s charity care policies.

CMS Response: With respect to the commenters who indicated that, for insured patients, payers are a better source of information about the cost of care and should be the primary source of information for out-of-pocket costs for patients, we note that nothing in our guidelines precludes hospitals and payers from working together to provide information on out-of-pocket costs for patients and to improve price transparency for patients. We also recognize that sometimes uninsured patients receive free or discounted care through a hospital’s charity care policies and again commend hospitals for those policies. Nothing in our guidelines precludes a hospital from providing charity care to uninsured patients.

CMS finalized their proposed update to the guidelines that effective January 1, 2019 hospitals will be required “to make available a list of their current standard charges via the Internet in a machine readable format and to update this information at least annually, or more often as appropriate.”

Burden Reduction: Physician Certification Changes

In a related article about the 2019 IPPS Final Rule, MMP reported that the proposed and finalized revision to the hospital inpatient admission orders documentation requirements did not include changes to the Physician Certification requirements. Specifically, CMS notes in the Final Rule that Physician certification of inpatient services continues to be a requirement for cases that are 20 inpatient days or more (long-stay cases), for outlier cases of hospitals other than inpatient psychiatric facilities, and for cases of Critical Access Hospitals as per the CY 2015 OPPS/AC final rule (79 FR 66997), and 42 CFR part 312, subpart F, 42 CFR 424.13, and 42 CFR 424.15.

Towards the end of the display copy of the Final Rule, page 2142, CMS discusses the revisions made to the Physician Certification and Recertification of Claims. Medicare regulations at 42 CFR 424.11 implements §1814(a) and 1835(a)(2) of the Act, specifying “the requirements for physician statements that certify and periodically recertify as to the medical necessity of certain types of covered services provided to Medicare beneficiaries.”

• §424.11 (c) “specifies that when supporting information for the required physician statement is available elsewhere in the records (for example, in the physician’s progress notes), the information need not be repeated in the statement itself. The last sentence of §424.11(c) further provides that it will suffice for the statement to indicate where the information is to be found.”

CMS notes as part of their initiative “to identify Medicare regulations that are unnecessary, obsolete, or excessively burdensome on health care providers and suppliers…we have been made aware that the provisions of §424.11(c)” which state that it will suffice for the statement to indicate where the information is to be found may be resulting in unnecessary denials of Medicare claims.”  

At the end of the day, “the medical record must contain adequate documentation of the relevant criteria for which the physician is providing certification and recertification” even when the exact location of this information is not noted on the Physician Certification. CMS notes “the precise location is becoming increasingly obsolete with the growing utilization of electronic health records (EHRs)—which, by their nature are readily searchable.”

CMS finalized their proposal to delete the last sentence of §421.11(c) and relocate the second sentence of §421.11(c) to the end of the immediately preceding paragraph (b).

Resources:

CMS 2019 IPPS/LTCH Final Rule Home Page: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/FY2019-IPPS-Final-Rule-Home-Page.html

CMS Fact Sheet Announcing Release of 2019 IPPS/LTCH Final Rule: https://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaReleaseDatabase/Fact-sheets/2018-Fact-sheets-items/2018-08-02.html 

The 2019 Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems (IPPS) for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long-Term Care Hospital Final Rule was released this past Thursday August 2nd. The display copy comes in at a mere 2,593 pages. So, if you are someone who likes to eat dessert before your meal or start a book by reading the ending, this article is for you. CMS finalized their “proposal to revise the inpatient admission order policy to no longer require a written inpatient admission order to be present in the medical record as a specific condition of Medicare Part A payment.”  

Similar to there being so much more to a meal than dessert or a good story than the last page of a book, there is more you need to know and think about in relation to this finalized proposal. This article provides a look back at when this initially became a requirement, details an “almost apology” to hospitals from CMS, provides CMS’s expected outcomes from this rule change, a sampler, if you will, of some of the more notable comments to and responses from CMS and ends with an important list of items to keep in mind that did not change.

Background

In the 2014 IPPS Final Rule, CMS adopted the “2-Midnight” payment policy, codified “the longstanding policy that a beneficiary becomes a hospital inpatient if formally admitted pursuant to the order of a physician (or other qualified practitioner as provided in the regulations) in accordance with the hospital conditions of participation (CoPs), and made it a specific condition of Medicare Part A payment that a written inpatient admission order be present in the medical record.  

Commenters of the 2014 IPPS Proposed rule felt this requirement was “duplicative and burdensome on hospitals.” CMS’s response was that “The physician order reflects affirmation by the ordering physician or other qualified practitioner that hospital inpatient services are medically necessary, and the “order serves the unique purpose of initiating the inpatient admission and documenting the physicians (or other qualified practitioner as provided in the regulations) intent to admit the patient which impacts its required timing.”

They did “acknowledge that in the extremely rare circumstance the order to admit is missing or defective, yet the intent, decision, and recommendation of the ordering physician or other qualified practitioner to admit the beneficiary as an inpatient can clearly be derived from the medical record, medical review contractors are provided with discretion to determine that this information constructively satisfies the requirement that a written hospital inpatient admission order be present in the medical record.”

Proposed Revision to the Policy, Why Now?

While the Final Rule does not include an apology to hospitals for making the status order a requirement of payment since October 1, 2013, CMS does note that, “it has come to our attention that some medically necessary inpatient admissions are being denied payment due to technical discrepancies with the documentation of inpatient admission orders.”

Common technical discrepancies cited by CMS include:

• Missing practitioner admission signatures,
• Missing co-signatures or authentication signatures, and
• Signature occurring after discharge.

They further share they “have become aware that, particularly during the case review process, these discrepancies have occasionally been the primary reason for denying Medicare payment of an individual claim…we have concluded that if the hospital is operating in accordance with the hospital CoPs, medical reviews should primarily focus on whether the inpatient admission was medically reasonable and necessary rather than occasional inadvertent signature documentation issues unrelated to the medical necessity of the inpatient stay. It was not our intent when we finalized the admission order documentation requirements that they should by themselves lead to the denial of payment for medically reasonable and necessary inpatient stays, even if such denials occur infrequently.”

Anticipated Outcome of Policy Revision

Two key outcomes CMS hopes to achieve through this Policy Revision are:

• First, to reduce this unnecessary administrative burden on physicians and providers, and
• Second, to “properly adjust the focus of the medical review process towards determining whether an inpatient stay was medically reasonable and necessary and intended by the admitting physician rather than towards occasional inadvertent signature or documentation issues unrelated to the medical necessity of the inpatient stay or the intent of the physician.”

Comments & CMS Responses

As mentioned earlier in this article, here are some key comments received and CMS responses related to the admission order policy change.

Comment: Concern the proposal may render the inpatient admission order completely insignificant and not required for any purpose.

CMS Response: “Our proposal does not change the requirement that, for purposes of Part A payment, an individual becomes an inpatient when formally admitted as an inpatient under an order for inpatient admission. The physician order remains a significant requirement because it reflects a determination by the ordering physician or other qualified practitioner that hospital inpatient services are medically necessary, and initiates the process for inpatient admission.”

Comment: Commenters referenced the January 2014 sub-regulatory guidance which explained that if a practitioner disagreed with the decision to admit a patient to inpatient status, the practitioner could simply refrain from authenticating the inpatient admission order and the patient would remain in outpatient status. There was a concern that if CMS no longer requires a written inpatient admission order to be present in the medical record as a specific condition of Medicare Part A payment, CMS would not be able to distinguish between orders that were simply defective and orders that were intentionally not signed.

CMS Response: “It should never have been the case that the only evidence in the medical record regarding this uncommon situation was the absence of the physician’s or other qualified practitioner’s signature. The medical record as a whole should reflect whether there was a decision by a physician or other qualified practitioner to admit the beneficiary as an inpatient or not.”

This fact is precisely why, under our current guidance, we acknowledged that in the extremely rare circumstance where the order to admit is missing or defective, yet the intent, decision, and recommendation of the ordering physician or other qualified practitioner to admit the beneficiary as an inpatient can clearly be derived from the medical record, medical review contractors have discretion to determine that this information constructively satisfies the requirement that a written hospital inpatient admission order be present in the medical record. We disagree with these commenters that reliance only on the absence of the signature in these uncommon situations reflected good medical documentation practice.”

Comment: Concerned the proposal would remove the requirement for an order altogether, affecting patient appeal rights, or increase financial liability.

CMS Response: “As stated earlier, the physician order remains a requirement for purposes of reflecting a determination by the ordering physician or other qualified practitioner that hospital inpatient services are medically necessary, initiating the inpatient admission. Additionally, regardless of this proposal and other physician order requirements described earlier, the hospital CoPs include the requirement that all Medicare inpatients must receive written information about their hospital discharge appeal rights.”

Commenters provided the example of a patient being in outpatient status receiving observation services but spent two medically necessary midnights and was discharged. The question being, can the stay be reviewed after discharge, a determination be made that the 2-midnight benchmark was met, and the hospital submit a claim for inpatient admission?

CMS responded by referring readers to the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final Rule (78 FR 50942) where they stated that “The physician order cannot be effective retroactively. Inpatient status only applies prospectively, starting from the time the patient is formally admitted pursuant to a physician order for inpatient admission, in accordance with our current policy.”

Comment: Some commenters stated that the proposed policy change appears to suggest that the completion of admission orders would now be optional and other available documentation could be used to create retroactive orders.

CMS Response: “Regarding the comment about retroactive orders, it has been and continues to be longstanding Medicare policy to not permit retroactive orders. The order must be furnished at or before the time of the inpatient admission. The order can be written in advance of the formal admission (for example, for a prescheduled surgery), but the inpatient admission does not occur until hospital services are provided to the beneficiary.”

Comment: Commenters inquired if the proposal would change the requirements regarding which practitioners are allowed to furnish inpatient admission orders.

Response: “The proposed revision relating to hospital inpatient admission order documentation requirements under Medicare Part A does not include revisions to the requirements regarding which practitioners are allowed to furnish inpatient admission orders.”

What was Not Proposed and Has Not Changed?

Hospitals have struggled with this requirement since it was finalized in the 2014 IPPS Final Rule. While I truly believe that this policy revision is a good thing for hospitals, it is vital to be mindful of what has not changed.

• Hospitals and physicians are still required to document relevant orders in the medical record to substantiate medical necessity requirements.
• The requirement remains that an individual is considered an inpatient if formally admitted as an inpatient under an order for inpatient admission.
• Nothing was proposed nor changed with respect to the “2 midnight” payment policy.
• Guidance from the Medicare benefits Policy Manual (MBPM), Chapter 1, Section 10.2 will not change. Specifically, “The order to admit may be missing or defective (that is, illegible, or incomplete, for example ‘inpatient’ is not specified), yet the intent, decision, and recommendation of the ordering practitioner to admit the beneficiary as an inpatient can clearly be derived from the medical record. In these situations, contractors have been provided with discretion to determine that this information provides acceptable evidence to support the hospital inpatient admission. However, there can be no uncertainty regarding the intent, decision, and recommendation by the ordering practitioner to admit the beneficiary as an inpatient, and no reasonable possibility that the care could have been adequately provided in an outpatient setting.”
• Physician certification of inpatient services continues to be a requirement for cases that are 20 inpatient days or more (long-stay cases), for outlier cases of hospitals other than inpatient psychiatric facilities, and for cases of Critical Access Hospitals as per the CY 2015 OPPS/AC final rule (79 FR 66997), and 42 CFR part 312, subpart F, 42 CFR 424.13, and 42 CFR 424.15.

One final reminder, this policy change will become effective with hospital discharges on or after October 1, 2018. So for now stay vigilant with making sure there is a valid inpatient order in your records prior to the beneficiary being discharged.

Be on the lookout for more articles about the Final Rule over the next few weeks. Until then, you can access a copy of the Final Rule on the CMS IPPS Homepage at https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/FY2019-IPPS-Final-Rule-Home-Page.html.

“The importance of consistent, complete documentation in the medical record cannot be overemphasized. Without such documentation accurate coding cannot be achieved. The entire record should be reviewed to determine the specific reason for the encounter and the conditions treated.”

• Source: ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting FY 2019

The FY 2019 ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Report were recently posted to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Classification of Diseases, Functioning and Disability webpage.  This article highlights changes to the General Coding and Chapter Specific Guidelines. Narrative changes within the guidelines and this article appear in bold text.

I.B. General Coding Guidelines

I.B. 14. Documentation by Clinicians Other than the Patient’s Provider

In the FY 2018 Guidelines, Section 1.B. 14 was titled Documentation for BMI, Depth of Non-pressure ulcers, Pressure Ulcer Stages, Coma Scale, and NIH Stroke Scale. As the list of diagnoses has continued to grow from when BMI and Pressure Ulcer Stages guidance first appeared in the 2010 Guidelines, it makes sense to change the section title. For FY 2019 this section is now titled Documentation by Clinicians Other than the Patient’s Provider and begins with the following new sentence:

“Code assignment is based on the documentation by patient’s provider (i.e., physician or other qualified healthcare practitioner legally accountable for establishing the patient’s diagnosis). There are a few exceptions, such as codes for...and lists Body Mass Index (BMI), Depth of Non-pressure ulcers, pressure ulcer stages, coma scale and NIH Stroke Scale.

This section also includes new guidance specific to social determinants of health (SDOH). “For social determinants of health, such as information found in categories Z55-Z65, Persons with potential health hazards related to socioeconomic and psychosocial circumstances, code assignment may be based on medical record documentation from clinicians involved in the care of the patient who are not the patient’s provider since this information represents social information, rather than medical diagnoses.

The BMI, coma scale, NIHSS codes and categories Z55-Z65 should only be reported as secondary diagnoses.”

You can learn more about Social Determinants of Health in a related MMP article.

I.B. 19. New Section: Coding for Healthcare Encounter in Hurricane Aftermath

Section 1.B.19 is a new and is titled Coding for Healthcare Encounters in Hurricane Aftermath. The subsections in 1.B.19 include:

1. Use of External Cause of Morbidity Codes,
2. Sequencing of External Causes of Morbidity Codes,
3. Other External Causes of Morbidity Code Issues, and
4. Use of Z Codes.

The “Use of Z Codes” section ends with following guidance, “The external cause of morbidity codes and the Z codes listed above are not an all-inclusive list. Other codes may be applicable to the encounter based upon the documentation. Assign as many codes as necessary to fully explain each healthcare encounter. Since patient history information may be very limited, use any available documentation to assign the appropriate external cause of morbidity and Z codes.”

I.C. Chapter-Specific Coding Guidelines

I.C.1. Chapter 1: Certain Infectious and Parasitic Disease (A00-B99)

I.C.1.d. Sepsis Due to a Postprocedural Infection Updated

New guidance has been added to 5(b) Sepsis due to a postprocedural infection and 5(c) Postprocedural infection and postprocedural septic shock.

(b) Sepsis due to postprocedural infection

 “For infections following a procedure, a code from T81.40, to T81.43 Infection following a procedure, or a code from O86.00 to O86.03, Infection of obstetric surgical wound, that identifies the site of the infection should be coded first, if known. Assign an additional code for sepsis following a procedure (T81.44) or sepsis following an obstetrical procedure (O86.04). Use an additional code to identify the infectious agent. If the patient has severe sepsis, the appropriate code from subcategory R65.2 should also be assigned with the additional code(s) for any acute organ dysfunction.

For infections following infusion, transfusion, therapeutic injection, or immunization, a code from subcategory T80.2, Infections following infusion, transfusion, and therapeutic injection, or code T88.0-, Infection following immunization, should be coded first, followed by the code for the specific infection. If the patient has severe sepsis, the appropriate code from subcategory R65.2 should also be assigned, with the additional code(s) for any acute organ dysfunction.

(c) Postprocedural infection and postprocedural septic shock

If a postprocedural infection has resulted in postprocedural sepsis shock, assign the codes indicated above for sepsis due to postprocedural infection, followed by code Y81.12-, Postprocedural septic shock. Do not assign code R65.21, Severe sepsis with septic shock. Additional code(s) should be assigned for any acute organ dysfunction.”

I.C.1.f. Zika “Suspected”, “possible” or “probable

FY 2018 guidance for coding “suspected”, “possible” or “probable” Zika virus infections advised to not assign code A92.5 (Zika virus disease). Instead, assign a code(s) explaining the reason for the encounter (such as fever, rash, or joint pain) or Z20.828, Contact with and (suspected) exposure to other viral communicable diseases.

For FY 2019, instead of coding Z20.828 you should code Z20.821, Contact with and (suspected) exposure to Zika virus.

I.C. 2.  Chapter 2: Neoplasms (C00-D49)

I.C.2.m. Current malignancy versus personal history of malignancy

New to this section is the following guidance: “Subcategories Z85.0-Z85.7 should only be assigned for the former site of a primary malignancy, not the site of a secondary malignancy. Codes from subcategory Z85.8-, may be assigned for the former site(s) of either a primary or secondary malignancy included in this subcategory.”

I.C. 5 Chapter 5: Mental, Behavioral and Neurodevelopmental disorders (F01-F99)

5.c. Factitious Disorder

This new section in the FY 2019 Guidelines defines and provides guidance for coding “Factitious disorder imposed on self or Munchausen’s syndrome.”

I.C. 9. Chapter 9: Diseases of the Circulatory System I00-I99)

I.C.9.a.1. Hypertension with Heart Disease

Additional I-10-CM codes classifying hypertension with heart conditions have been added.

I.C.9.a.2. Hypertensive Chronic Kidney Disease

The FY 2018 Guidance included the following statement: “CKD should not be coded as hypertensive if the physician has specifically documented a different cause.” For FY 2019, the guidelines now indicate that “CKD should not be coded as hypertensive if the provider indicates the CKD is not related to the hypertension.”

I.C.9.a.11. Pulmonary Hypertension

Pulmonary Hypertension specific guidance was new in the FY 2018 Guidelines and the guidance ended with the note that “the sequencing is based on the reason for the encounter.” For FY 2019, the following caveat to this guidance has been added, “The sequencing is based on the reason for the encounter, except for adverse effects of drugs (See Section 1.C.19.e.).”

I.C.9.e.4. Subsequent acute myocardial infarction

New to subsequent acute myocardial infarction is the statement, “If a subsequent myocardial infarction of one type occurs within 4 weeks of a myocardial infarction of a different type, assign the appropriate codes from category I21 to identify each type. Do not assign a code I22. Codes from category I22 should only be assigned if both the initial and subsequent myocardial infarction are type 1 or unspecified.”

I.C.15. Chapter 15: Pregnancy, Childbirth, and the Puerperium (O00-O9A)

I.C.15.l.3. Drug use during pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium

In FY 2018 this section addressed alcohol and tobacco use during pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium. A third paragraph has been added to address drug use and directs a coder that “Codes under subcategory O99.32, Drug use complicating pregnancy, childbirth, and the puerperium, should be assigned for any pregnancy case when a mother uses drugs during the pregnancy or postpartum. This can involve illegal drugs, or inappropriate use or abuse of prescription drugs. Secondary code(s) from categories F11-F16 and F18-F19 should also be assigned to identify manifestations of the drug use.”

I.C.18. Chapter 18: Symptoms, signs and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings, not elsewhere classified (R00-R99)

I.C.18.e. Coma Scale

New guidance at the end of this section indicates you “do not report codes for individual or total Glasgow coma scale scores for a patient with a medically induced coma or a sedated patient.

See Section IB.14 for comas scale documentation by clinicians other than the patient’s provider.”

I.C.19. Chapter 19: Injury, poisoning, and certain other consequences of external causes (S00-T88)

I.C.19.d.2. Burns of the same anatomic site

This section has been retitled from Burns of the same local site to Burns of the same anatomic site for FY 2019. Further specificity has been added to this section as follow: Classify burns of the same anatomic site and on the same side but of different degrees to the subcategory identifying the highest degree records in the diagnosis (e.g., for second and third degree burns of right thigh, assign only code T24.311-).

I.C.19.d.5. Assign separate codes for each burn site

“When coding burns, assign separate codes for each burn site. Category T30, Burn and corrosion, body region unspecified is extremely vague and should rarely be used.” A second paragraph has been added to this section instructing that “Codes for burns of “multiple sites” should only be assigned when the medical record documentation does not specify the individual sites.”

I.C.19.e.5.c. Underdosing

“Discontinuing the use of a prescribed medication on the patient’s own initiative (not direct by the patient’s provider is also classified as an underdosing,” expands the Guideline’s definition of underdosing.   

I.C.19.f. Adult and child abuse, neglect and other maltreatment

In addition to guidance about coding abuse, neglect, rape or sexual abuse the following paragraph has been added: “If a suspected case of force sexual exploitation or forced labor exploitation is ruled out during an encounter, code Z04.81, Encounter for examination and observation of victim following forced sexual exploitation, or code Z04.82, Encounter for examination and observation of victim following forced labor exploitation, should be used, not a code from T76.”

I.C.21. Chapter 21: Factors influencing health status and contact with health services (Z00-Z99)

Code Z68 Body Mass Index (BMI)

New to the guidance for coding a patient’s BMI is the following:

• BMI codes should only be assigned when the associated diagnosis (such as overweight or obesity) meets the definition of a reportable diagnosis.
• Do no assign BMI codes during pregnancy, and
• See Section I.B.14 for BMI documentation by clinicians other than the patient’s provider.

This article is meant as an overview, reading the Guidelines is a must for Coding and Clinical Documentation Improvement Professionals as you prepare for changes come October 1, 2018.     

In the world of Medicare & Medicaid Review Contractors the Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT) Program performs audits to see how well Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) are adjudicating claims. CMS released Change Request 10778 (CR10778) on June 15, 2018 with an effective date of July 17, 2018. This transmittal updates Chapter 12, The Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT) Program, of the Medicare Program Integrity Manual (PIM). Specifically, CR 10778 updates Chapter 12, section 12.3.8 with details on no response and insufficient documentation errors in the CERT Program. Before we look at the “details” let’s set the stage with a little more about the CERT.

About the CERT

The CERT Program calculates the Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) program improper payment rate. Any claim paid when it should have been denied or paid at a different amount is considered to be an improper payment by the CERT. Annually, a stratified sample of approximately 50,000 claims that have been submitted to Part A/B Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) and Durable Medical Equipment MACs are reviewed to determine if they have been paid properly under Medicare coverage, coding, and billing rules.

Claims are counted as total or partial improper payment and the error is categorized into one of the following five major categories:

1. No Documentation,
2. Insufficient Documentation,
3. Medical Necessity,
4. Incorrect Coding, or
5. Other.

The CMS CERT webpage and the CERT Review Contractor website both emphasize that “it is important to note the improper rate is not a fraud rate, but is a measurement of payments made that did not meet Medicare requirements.”

CR 10778

The CERT Review Contractor issues an Additional Documentation Request (ADR) to obtain medical records from providers. They currently have processes in place to report to the MACs when there is no response from a Provider or they receive insufficient documentation. CR10078 provides information to the MACs on actions they may take for these two types of errors.

Key Changes Effective July 17, 2018

The PIM, Chapter 12, section 12.3.8 is currently titled “Contacting Non-Responders and Documentation Requests” and was last updated January 19, 2017. The remainder of this article focuses on the details of what is changing. Specific changes in CR10778 are bolded and italicized.

Title Change

• Current Title: Contacting Non-Responders and Documentation Requests
• Effective July 17, 2018: “Handling Non-Responders and Insufficient Responses to Additional Documentation Requests (ADR)”

Additional Documentation Requests

• Current Guidance: A MAC may contact providers when an additional documentation request (ADR) is issued. ADR claims can be found on the CERT Claims Status Website (CSW).
• Effective July 17, 2018: The CERT review contractor sends the additional documentation request (ADR) to the billing provider and/or supplier. If the CERT review contractor determines that the documentation is missing or insufficient to make a determination on a claim, a subsequent ADR may be sent to the billing provider and/or supplier, the ordering/referring provider, or a third-party, as appropriate.

Contacting Non-Responders

• Effective July 17, 2018: This section will be re-titled “Handling Non-Responders” and include the following guidance.
  

If no response is received within the allotted time of 75 days, the CERT review contractor shall find the claim in error and assign Error Code 99 to the claim. These claims are posted to the Claims Status website (CSW) on the 76th day from the date the first request letter was sent. In addition, claims with Error Code 99 will appear in the next MAC feedback batch.

For claims with Error Code 99, the MACs may proceed at their discretion by doing one of the following:

1. Contact those providers who have failed to submit medical records and encourage them to submit the requested records to the CERT review contractor for review. The MACs should allow feedback to roll over as long as they are working with the provider to obtain documentation and/or CERT is reviewing the claim;
2. Complete MAC feedback, prior to entering an appeal, in accordance with section 12.3.3.3 of this chapter and collect the overpayment immediately in accordance with section 12.3.4 of this chapter; or
3. Collect the overpayment within 10 business days of the deadline for entering the final MAC feedback.
   

The MAC shall not contact any provider and/or supplier selected for CERT review until 30 days after the CERT first ADR has been reported on the CSW. The MAC may contact the third party and encourage them to send the needed medical record documentation to the CERT review contractor. When contacting the provider and/or supplier, the MAC shall remind them to include the barcoded cover sheet included with the CERT request or the CERT claim identification number at the top of the medical record. The MAC can download a barcoded cover sheet from the CSW if needed.

Handling Insufficient Responses – NEW

If the documentation submitted is inadequate to support payment for the service/item billed, or if the CERT review contractor could not conclude that the billed service/item was actually provided, was provided at the level billed, and/or was medically necessary, then the claim is considered to be an error due to insufficient documentation. Insufficient documentation errors are assigned an Error Code 21.

Claims that receive an Error Code 21 will be posted under the MAC feedback section of the CSW. MACs should reach out to the providers/suppliers to submit the requested documentation to the CERT review contractor.

Documentation Request Letters

When requesting medical records from providers, suppliers, and/or third parties, the CERT review contractor uses the CMS approved request letters, found at https://certprovider.admedcorp.com/. The CERT review contractor also sends the request letters in Spanish to providers in Puerto Rico and upon request to providers in other regions. (Note, this is an updated email address to use to find the CMS approved request letters.)

CERT Program, MACs and Hospitals

In their 2017 Medicare Fee-for-Service Supplemental Improper Payment Data Report, the CERT found a 9.5 percent improper payment rate in claims reviewed that had been submitted for payment from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. “No documentation” errors accounted for 2% of the monetary loss findings and “insufficient documentation” errors accounted for 64% of the monetary loss findings. MACs utilize CERT Program review findings as one data source to identify issues for Provider Education and Pre-Payment Reviews. Hospitals need to be aware of the errors, educate key stakeholders within your facility and respond to ADR requests from the CERT.   

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has released the Spring 2018 Semiannual Report to Congress. This report summarizes work by the OIG for the reporting period covering October 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018. This Report describes work undertaken “to identify significant problems, abuses, deficiencies, remedies, and investigative outcomes relating to the administration of HHS programs and operations that were disclosed during the reporting period.”

The Inspector General, Daniel R. Levinson, notes “over the 6-month reporting period OIG worked to enhance the integrity of HHS programs and operations, protect vulnerable populations, and drive value in health and human services…Looking forward, OIG will continue to leverage our staff expertise to inform Department-wide goals, including combating the opioid crises, bringing down the cost of prescription drugs, addressing the cost and availability of health insurance, and transforming our health care system to a value-based system.”

This article highlights OIG overall expected recoveries and statistics found in the report and provides examples of OIG Activities specific to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) from the first half of FY 2018.

“Fighting Fraud” by the Numbers

Highlights of Enforcement Accomplishments

• $1.46 billion is the expected investigative recoveries.
• 424 is the number of individuals or entities that engaged in crimes against HHS programs where criminal actions against them have been taken.
• 1,588 is the number of individuals and entities that have been excluded from Federal health care programs.
• 349 is the number of civil actions taken against individuals or entities.

Highlights of Accomplishments in Assessment of Mismanagement and Abuse in HHS Programs

• $187.5 million is the amount the OIG expects to recover.
• $1.5 billion is the amount of potential savings.
• $680 million is the amount of questioned costs during this time period.

Highlights from CMS Medicare Program Reports and Reviews

CMS Did Not Adequately Address Discrepancies in the Coding Classification for Kwashiorkor (A-03-14-00010), November 2017

Report Highlights

• 2,145 inpatient claims at 25 providers were reviewed.
• The OIG determined that only 1 claim correctly included the diagnosis code for Kwashiorkor.
• Findings equated to overpayments in excess of $6 million.
• CMS agreed with OIGs recommendations.
• The 25 hospitals reviewed repaid $5.7 million in overpayments.

Note: In January of this year the OIG Announced the Active Work Plan Item: Hospitals Billing for Severe Malnutrition on Medicare Claims. The OIG indicated in the announcement that “this review will assess the accuracy of Medicare payments for the treatment of severe malnutrition. We will determine whether providers are complying with Medicare billing requirements when assigning diagnosis codes for the treatment of severe types of malnutrition on inpatient hospital claims.”

Wisconsin Physicians Service Paid Providers for Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Services That Did Not Comply With Medicare Requirements (A-01-15-00515), February 2018

 Report Highlights

• Wisconsin Physicians Service (WPS) paid 73 providers for HBO therapy services that did not comply with Medicare requirements.
• OIG estimated WPS overpaid providers in Jurisdiction 5 $42.6 million.
• WPS “generally agreed” to the following OIG recommendations:
• Recover the “appropriate portion of the $300,789 in identified Medicare overpayments,
• Notify providers responsible for the 44,820 non-sampled claims with potential overpayments to investigate and return any identified overpayments, and
• To identify and recovery any improper payments after the audit and strengthen policies & procedures for making payments for HBO therapy.

Note: HBO Therapy Services is a current Targeted Probe & Educate Medical Review target for Palmetto JM. Palmetto’s May 15, 2018 Ask the Contractor Teleconference (ACT) focused on Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy. You can find Answers to Pre-submitted Questions on Palmetto’s JM website.

While this is not an Active Medical Review for Palmetto JJ (Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee), for those providing HBO therapy services it would be worth your time to read this and ask the question, are we compliant with Medicare requirements?

Hospitals Did Not Comply With Medicare Requirements for Reporting Certain Cardiac Devices (A-05-16-00059), March 2018

 Report Highlights

• All 296 payments reviewed did not comply with Medicare requirements.
• Medicare contractors incorrectly paid hospitals $7.7 million rather than the $3.3 million they should have been paid.
• CMS agreed with the recommendation to “consider studying alternatives to implementing edits in order to eliminate the current Medicare requirements for reporting device credits.”

Note: In the Thursday, June 7, 2018 edition of the MLNConnects e-newsletter, CMS included a Provider Compliance Reminder for correct billing for device replacement procedures. The reminder provides links to resources to correctly bill and avoid overpayment recoveries. 

“The social determinants of health are the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age. These circumstances are shaped by the distribution of money, power and resources at global, national and local levels. The social determinants of health are mostly responsible for health inequities - the unfair and avoidable differences in health status seen within and between countries.”

• Social Determinants of Health World Health Organization definition

The Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion’s Healthy People 2020 initiative includes a Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) topic area. They note that “social determinants of health are conditions in the environments in which people are born, live, learn, work, play, worship, and age that affect a wide range of health, functioning, and quality-of-life outcomes and risks…resources that enhance quality of life can have a significant influence on population health outcomes. Examples of these resources include safe and affordable housing, access to education, public safety, availability of healthy foods, local emergency/health services, and environments free of life-threatening toxins.”

In general, since the Wednesday@One focuses on topics related to Medicare Rules and Regulations in the acute hospital setting, you may be asking, this is interesting but what does it have to do with the hospital? Well, I am glad you “asked.”

ICD-10-CM codes included in categories Z55-Z65 identify patients with potential health hazards to socioeconomic and psychosocial circumstances. Information represented in this code block is information that would typically be identified by a Social Worker, Case Manager, or admitting nurse as a hospital begins the discharge planning process as soon as the patient is admitted.

In Coding Clinic for ICD-10-CM/PCS, First Quarter 2018, a question was asked to verify whether or not these codes could be assigned based on non-physician documentation. Advice given was that these codes represent social information and it would be acceptable to report them based on documentation from other clinicians following the patient.

To help you begin to understand what information is represented in these codes categories, the following table provides a high-level detail of the code categories and examples of codes within each category.

In MMP’s 2019 IPPS Proposed Rule series of articles, there was a related article discussing CMS’ efforts to account for social risk factors in several of the Hospital Quality Reporting Programs.

The Health People 2020 SDOH topic area has a goal to “create social and physical environments that promote good health for all.” A key to this is analyzing and acting upon data. As a hospital it is important that you begin to identify and utilize these codes.

If you are interested in learning more about SDOH’s, you can visit the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Social Determinants of Health web page at https://www.cdc.gov/socialdeterminants/.

We often associate the term “it takes a village” with the raising of children. It is true that parents, grandparents, relatives, teachers, coaches, church members, healthcare providers, and/or others often play key roles in bringing up a physically and emotionally healthy, well-adjusted young person. But what brought the “it takes a village” phrase to my mind today was listening to a replay of Palmetto GBA’s webcast on Inpatient Psychiatric Facility (IPF) coverage and documentation requirements.

Palmetto likely offered this educational session in preparation for and in response to their Targeted Probe and Educate (TPE) medical review of DRG 885, Psychoses. This is a target review area for both Palmetto’s Jurisdictions -  J and M. First Coast, the Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) for Jurisdiction N, also has a planned TPE review for this DRG. The Palmetto webcast reminded providers that other Medicare review entities such as the CERT contractor, Recovery Auditors, and the Office of Inspector General (OIG) could review inpatient psych or any other Medicare services.

According to the webcast, the “villagers” involved and their concerns and responsibilities for IPF services are listed below. Many tasks will involve the input of multiple staff and are a shared responsibility – more evidence that “it takes a village.”

Physicians

• Patient must be under the care of a physician
• Write admission and other orders for patient’s care
• Perform a psychiatric evaluation of the patient at admission to include
• Medical history and mental status
• Onset of illness and admission circumstances
• Patient attitudes and behaviors
• An estimate of intellectual functioning, memory functioning & orientation; and
• A descriptive inventory of patient’s assets
• Certify/recertify the need (medical necessity) for inpatient care, which includes
• Patient psychiatric condition severe enough to warrant inpatient care
• Need for active treatment
• Intensive, comprehensive, multimodal treatments exceeding the level and intensity of those that may be rendered in an outpatient setting
• Generally, an expectation of improvement of the patient’s condition or for diagnostic purpose
• Establish a treatment plan that includes
• Substantiated diagnosis
• Short-term & long-range goals
• Specific treatment modalities utilized
• Each treatment team member’s responsibilities
• Adequate documentation to justify diagnosis & treatment/rehabilitation activities carried out
• Document H&P, evaluations, examinations, treatment plan, progress notes, and discharge summary

Clinicians (Nurses, Social Workers)

• Perform and document assessments and interviews
• Provide and document treatments including description of service, content and purpose, patient’s response and correlation to treatment plan goals

Utilization Review, Social Services, Discharge Planning

• Appropriate utilization of patient benefit days and lifetime reserve days in appropriate setting

Billing

• Submit correct type of bill (TOB) with appropriate revenue and occurrence codes
• Special considerations for
• Admission source “D” for patients transferred from acute care hospital to their psych distinct part unit (prevents overpayment due to ER adjustment)
• One day payment window
• Interrupted stays and occurrence span code 74
• Services provided by other facilities during IPF stay

Coders

• Assignment of correct primary and secondary diagnosis codes to the highest degree of specificity
• Discharge status code

These are just some of the coverage and documentation requirements to support Medicare inpatient psychiatric services. I recommend providers who offer inpatient psychiatric services listen to this webcast (located on Palmetto’s Past Events webpage) whether you are in Palmetto’s jurisdictions or not. The information applies universally to all Medicare inpatient psych services. Palmetto also shared some of their findings from TPE reviews so far as well as some of the CERT findings. Providers need to pay special attention to make sure their records include:

• Physician’s orders for admission and other services. Be sure all orders include a legible signature, a date, and the author’s credentials. If signatures are illegible, send an attestation log with the documentation upon review.
• Valid and timely certifications and recertifications.
• An initial psychiatric evaluation at the time of admission or no later than 60 hours after admission
• Documentation that services and treatments are related to improving the patient’s condition
• A valid, individualized treatment plan that supports psychotherapy with type, amount, frequency, duration, diagnosis & anticipated goals
• Documentation of active treatments during billing period
• Complete and sufficient documentation

You may want to hold a town hall meeting for all the villagers to communicate, coordinate and understand their individual and shared responsibilities. Sometime it takes a village meeting to guide a village.

“We rarely talk about cost. We talk about waste, quality, and safety, and we find our costs go down.”

• Patrick Hagan, former COO of Seattle Children’s Hospital

Risk Factor: Socio-economic Status

The Establishing Beneficiary Equity in the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program Act of 2015 (S. 688 and H.R. 1343) would have required the CMS to account for socio-economic status when calculating risk-adjusted readmission penalties. This bill garnered support from the Association of American Medical Colleges as well as the American Hospital Association. You can read more about this Act in a related MMP article.

A year later the House Ways and Means Committee released the Helping Hospitals Improve Patient Care Act of 2016 (H.R. 5273) that included a modified version of H.R. 1343. This latest version of the bill was passed in the House and was sent to the Senate where it was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. 

Fast Forward to the 2019 IPPS Proposed Rule which includes a discussion about “Accounting for Social Risk Factors” (including socioeconomic status) in the following Programs discussed in the Proposed Rule:

• Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP),
• Hospital Value Based Purchasing (VBP) Program,
• Hospital Acquired Condition (HAC) Reduction Program,
• Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting (IQR) Program,
• IPPS-Exempt Cancer Hospital Quality Reporting (PCHQR) Program, and
• Long Term Care Hospital Quality Reporting Program (LTCH QRP).

Accounting for Social Risk Factors

CMS notes their “commitment to ensuring that medically complex patients, as well as those with social risk factors, receive excellent care. We discussed how studies show that social risk factors, such as being near or below the poverty level as determined by HHS, belonging to a racial or ethnic minority group, or living with a disability, can be associated with poor health outcomes and how some of this disparity is related to the quality of health care.”

Specific CMS aims within their core objectives include:

• Improving health outcomes,
• Attaining health equity for all beneficiaries, and
• Ensuring that complex patients as well as those with social risk factors receive excellent care.

The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) and the National Academy of Medicine

The ASPE and National Academy of Medicine have examined the influence of social risk factors in the CMS value-based purchasing programs. To date, as required by the IMPACT Act of 2014, ASPE has provided a report to Congress where they found that “in the context of value-based purchasing programs, dual eligibility was the most powerful predictor of poor health care outcomes among those social risk factors they examined and tested.” ASPE is continuing to examine this issue in a second report required by the IMPACT Act that is due to Congress in the fall of 2019.

National Quality Forum (NQF)

CMS noted in the FY 2018 IPPS/LTCH PPS Final Rule, that the NQF “undertook a 2-year trial period in which certain new measures and measures undergoing maintenance review have been assessed to determine if risk adjustment for social risk factors is appropriate for those measures.” This period ended April 2017.

NQF Trial Conclusion:

The NQF notes in the July 2017 Social Risk Trial Final Report Abstract that “the trial period has illuminated the feasibility of adjusting measures for social risk, with 17 measures endorsed by NQF for factors such as a person’s level of education.” The NQF has extended the socioeconomic status (SES) Trial, allowing further examination of social risk factors in outcome measures.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

CMS solicited feedback in the FY and CY 2018 Proposed Rules on which social risk factors provide the most valuable information to stakeholders for illuminating differences in outcome rates among patient groups. Commenters encouraged CMS to stratify measures by other social risk factors such as age, income, and educational attainment (82 FR 38404).

CMS Next Steps

As next steps, CMS is considering the following:

• Options to reduce health disparities among patient groups within and across hospitals by increasing the transparency of disparities as shown by quality measures,
• Implementing a hospital-specific disparity method that would promote quality improvement by calculating difference in outcome rates among patient groups within a hospital while accounting for their clinical risk factors,
• Implementing a method to assess hospitals’ outcome rates for subgroups of patients, such as dual eligible patients, across hospitals, allowing for a comparison among hospitals on their performance caring for patients with social risk factors.

Specific to the Hospital IQR Program, CMS acknowledges the complexity of interpreting stratified outcome measures and plans to stratify Pneumonia Readmission measure (NQF #0506) data by highlighting both hospital-specific disparities and readmission rates specific for dual-eligible beneficiaries across hospitals for dual-eligible patients in hospitals’ confidential feedback reports beginning Fall 2018. CMS is considering expanding confidential hospital feedback reports for other measures and eventually making this data publicly available on the Hospital Compare website.

CMS believes “the stratified results will provide hospitals with information that could illuminate disparities in care or outcome, which could subsequently be targeted through quality improvement efforts. We further believe that public display of this information could drive consumer choice and spark additional improvement efforts.” CMS plans to continue to work with the ASPE, the public and key stakeholders to “identify policy solutions that achieve the goals of attaining health equity for all beneficiaries and minimizing unintended consequences.”