Knowledge Base Category -

The October 2016 release of the Medicare Quarterly Provider Compliance Newsletter included two issues specific to hospitals. This article focuses on the Recovery Auditors automated review performed to identify discharge status codes that had been improperly submitted under the IPPS Post-Acute Care Transfer (PACT) Policy.

Recovery Auditor Finding

“Analysis of discharge status codes and secondary claim data identified improper payments. Where a hospital used discharge status code 01, but should have shown a transfer to another care setting with a different discharge status code, the hospital may be overpaid for the inpatient services. It is crucial that hospitals place the correct discharge status code on claims to avoid subsequent overpayment identification and recovery.”

Transfer Policy Background

MLN® Acute Care Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System Fact Sheet (ICN 006815) indicates that under the Transfer Policy DRG payments are reduced when:

• The patient’s LOS is at least 1 day less than the geometric mean LOS for the DRG;
• The patient is transferred to another hospital covered by the Acute Care Hospital IPPS or, for certain MS-DRGs, discharged to a post-acute setting (PACT Policy);
• The patient is transferred to a hospital that does not have an agreement to participate in the Medicare Program (effective October 1, 2010); and
• The patient is transferred to a CAH (effective October 1, 2010)

PACT Policy and Discharge Status Codes

Cases with a length of stay less than the Geometric Mean Length of Stay (GMLOS) for a PACT DRG will not reimburse the full Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) payment if the patient was transferred to a post-acute care (PAC) setting. This policy involves the following patient discharge status codes:

When a patient is discharged with the status code of 01, Medicare’s overpayment edit will look for:

• “The presence of a transfer claim to a Skilled Nursing Facility, Cancer Hospital, Psychiatric Hospital, Children’s Hospital, Inpatient Rehab Facility, or Long Term Care Facility that commences or continues within one day of the acute care discharge, or
• A transfer claim to Home Health Care that commences or continues within three days of the acute care discharge.”

How to Avoid this Problem

Medicare advises that “hospitals should take steps to assure claims coders understand that the patient discharge status code is a crucial data element in determining payment for inpatient stays.” They go on to provide links to resources providing more information on how to avoid these errors.

MMP, Inc. advises that key stakeholders in your facility read and share the October 2016 issue of the Medicare Quarterly Compliance Newsletter.

“Observation care is a well-defined set of specific, clinically appropriate services, which include ongoing short term treatment, assessment, and reassessment, that are furnished while a decision is being made regarding whether patients will require further treatment as hospital inpatients or if they are able to be discharged from the hospital.”

Under the two-midnight rule, hospitals may approach the decision for observation services a little differently. When a patient presents to the hospital, the first decision for the physician is, “does the patient require care in a hospital setting?” If the answer to this question is yes, then for patients with an expectation of a two-midnight stay an inpatient admission is appropriate. If the physician does not think the patient will require two midnights of care in the hospital or is unsure, then observation services are generally appropriate. When a patient who is receiving observation services approaches a second midnight in the hospital, a change to inpatient status is appropriate if the patient still requires care in a hospital setting. Considering this, it should be rare that a patient receives observation services beyond a second midnight.

Observation services are not appropriate for preparation time for outpatient testing, or for routing pre-op or post-operative services. Even with the two-midnight rule, observation services still remain a period of treatment or monitoring in order to make a decision concerning the patient’s admission or discharge.

When to Start

“Observation time begins at the clock time documented in the patient’s medical record, which coincides with the time that observation care is initiated in accordance with a physician’s order.”

What does this mean exactly? First, there must be a physician’s order for observation before observation services can begin. Observation orders cannot be back-dated. For example, when condition code 44 is used to change a patient’s status from inpatient to outpatient, observation services do not begin until there is an order for observation (which would be after the change to outpatient status). Observation services would begin at the time that order was written.

If the patient is already actively receiving care, such as in the example above, then observation begins at the time the observation order is written. For patients being transferred to a room after an observation order is written, observation care may not begin until the patient begins to receive evaluation and/or care in the hospital room.

Rounding

Observation hours are rounded to the nearest hour. This means everything from 9:01 through 9:29 is rounded to 9:00 and from 9:31 to 9:59 is rounded to 10:00. 9:30 is ambiguous and could be rounded either way. The example in the Medicare manual is a patient receiving observation services from 3:03 p.m. until 9:45 p.m. – this equals 7 hours of obs.

Concurrent Active Monitoring

“Observation services should not be billed concurrently with diagnostic or therapeutic services for which active monitoring is a part of the procedure (e.g., colonoscopy, chemotherapy).”

Medicare does not provide a list or any examples beyond the two noted in the statement above for what constitutes a procedure with “active monitoring.” This is something the hospital will have to determine, but generally includes near-constant monitoring by a nurse or other health care professional. If such a procedure occurs during a period of observation, the hospital must subtract or “carve out” that time from the total observation hours. This could be accomplished by using the beginning and ending time of the procedure, or Medicare allows hospitals to use an “average length of time” for interrupting procedures and deduct that amount of time from the observation hours.

When to End

“Observation time ends when all medically necessary services related to observation care are completed.”

Observation ending time may not coincide with the time of the physician’s discharge order. Sometimes necessary medical care may end prior to the discharge order or care may extend beyond the time of the discharge order. If after care has ended, the patient is waiting for transportation home, the waiting time should not be included in observation time.

Observation hours end when an order is written to admit the patient as an inpatient. The observation services will be bundled into the inpatient claim, but for accurate records this is when observation counting stops.

Why Bother?

Isn’t observation packaged, so why does the counting of observation hours matter? Well, yes, but no. The outpatient claim line item for observation services, billed with HCPCS code G0378, is a packaged service and receives no separate payment. However, if certain criteria are met, an observation comprehensive APC is paid for the associated visit code, such as any level ED visit, an outpatient clinic visit, or a direct referral for observation services. If 8 or more hours of observation are billed with a visit code and without a primary procedure (status indicator J1) on the claim or surgical procedure (status indicator T) on the day of or before obs, then the claim qualifies for an observation comprehensive APC payment. For 2016, the unadjusted national Medicare payment for the obs C-APC is $2174.14. Definitely worth following the rules.

Hospitals have been dealing with observation services for a long time and most providers probably have their systems down on how to accurately count and report observation services. But a reminder of the rules never hurts. 

Fall is my favorite time of year. How could it not be when kids are going back to school, college football returns, and although the summer heat lingers longer than I would like, we have some spectacular fall foliage. Everything I love about fall at the most basic is consistent from year to year but in truth brings about tremendous change. Maybe it’s my oldest nephew entering high school this year, or the first weekend of regular season football shattering the predictions in the football standings - at the end of the day one constant of fall is change.

The one constant I have seen in health care for more years than I care to think about now is change. Exhibit A: the ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting updates go into effect every fall on October 1st with the start of a new CMS Fiscal Year. In the update, narrative changes appear in bold text. However, with the FY 2017 Guidelines there are some significant changes, of which one in particular has sparked a lot of debate in the Coding and Clinical Documentation Community.

Key NARRATIVE Changes

“With”

“The word “with” should be interpreted to mean “associated with” or “due to” when it appears in a code title, the Alphabetic Index, or an instructional note in the Tabular List. The classification presumes a causal relationship between the two conditions linked by these terms in the Alphabetic Index or Tabular list. These conditions should be coded as related even in the absence of provider documentation explicitly linking them, unless the documentation clearly states the conditions are unrelated. For conditions not specifically linked by these relational terms in the classification, provider documentation must link the conditions in order to code them as related. The word “with” in the Alphabetic Index is sequenced immediately following the main term, not in alphabetical order.”

Code assignment and Clinical Criteria

The New addition to the guidelines, “Code assignment and Clinical Criteria,” is the “hot button” that has sparked much debate as to what this really means.  

“The assignment of a diagnosis code is based on the provider’s diagnostic statement that the condition exists. The provider’s statement that the patient has a particular condition is sufficient. Code assignment is not based on clinical criteria used by the provider to establish the diagnosis.”

This guidance poses a real dilemma for Professional Coders and Clinical Documentation Improvement (CDI) Specialists as we include clinical indicators when constructing a query for the physician and government contractors have become notorious for denying a claim for lack of clinical indicators in the documentation supporting the coded diagnosis. Unfortunately, I have yet to see, read or hear about a good solution for this guidance.

Zika virus infections

1. “Code only confirmed cases
   Code only a confirmed diagnosis of Zika virus (A92.5, Zika virus disease) as documented by the provider. This is an exception to the hospital inpatient guidelines Section II, H.
   
   In this context, “confirmation” does not require documentation of the type of test performed; the physician’s diagnostic statement that the condition is confirmed is sufficient. This code should be assigned regardless of the stated mode of transmission.
   
   If the provider documents “suspected”, “possible” or “probable” Zika, do not assign code A92.5. Assign a code(s) explaining the reason for encounter (such as fever, rash, or joint pain) or Z20.828, Contact with and *suspected) exposure to other viral communicable diseases.”

Hypertension

With the transition to ICD-10 last October there was one code for Hypertension (I-10). There was no longer a way to differentiate when it was actually a “hypertensive crisis” or “hypertensive emergency.”

As of October 1, 2016, they are back.

“Hypertensive Crisis
Assign a code from category I16, Hypertensive crisis, for documented hypertensive urgency, hypertensive emergency or unspecified hypertensive crisis. Code also any identified hypertensive disease (I10-I15). The sequencing is based on the reason for the encounter.”

Documented Pressure Ulcer Stage

There are two new changes for 2017. First being for patients admitted with pressure ulcers documented as healing. “For ulcers that were present on admission but healed at the time of discharge, assign the code for the site and stage of the pressure ulcer at the time of admission.”

The second change is for the patient admitted with pressure ulcer evolving into another stage during the admission. “If a patient is admitted with a pressure ulcer at one stage and it progresses to a higher stage, two separate codes should be assigned: one code for the site and stage of the ulcer on admission and a second code for the same ulcer site and the highest stage reported during the stay.”

While I have highlighted a few of the key narrative changes, it is worth noting that there are over 40 narrative changes in the guidelines. Looking for specific changes also made me realize how many times the guidelines advise “when documentation is unclear the provider should be queried” (26 times).

From the CDI Specialist perspective the guidelines provide a good foundation for understanding and appreciating the coding conventions to which Coding Professionals must adhere. They are also an essential read for anyone preparing for the Certified Clinical Documentation Specialist (CCDS) exam.

I encourage Coding Professionals and CDI Specialists to read the entire document and be on the lookout for how to register for our fall Inpatient Coding Updates Webinar that is held annually in October. 

The phrase “waste not, want not” means to use one’s resources wisely in order to always have plenty and avoid poverty. Although Medicare pays for drug wastage in certain circumstances, they also expect healthcare providers and suppliers to “use drugs or biologicals most efficiently, in a clinically appropriate manner.” But when waste cannot be avoided, starting next year, CMS is requiring reporting that will allow them to identify and monitor billing and payment for discarded drugs under Medicare Part B.

As promised, CMS has released a list of frequently asked questions concerning the use of the JW modifier. The JW modifier indicates that a portion of a drug or biological was discarded or wasted. Currently the use of the JW modifier is at the discretion of the jurisdictional Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs). For example, Cahaba GBA, MAC for Jurisdiction JJ (Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee) does not require the reporting of the JW modifier for wasted drugs/biological. In order to be more consistent and better able to track drug wastage, CMS is requiring the use of the JW modifier nationally effective January 1, 2017, in order for providers/suppliers to seek payment for drug/biological wastage.

The JW modifier is to be used on Part B drug claims for discarded drugs and biologicals (hereafter referred to as drugs) when they are in single-use vials or packaging. If uncertain, the information as to whether a drug or biological is single use can be found in the manufacturer’s packaging insert. The discarded drug amount is the amount of a single use vial or other single use package that remains after administering a dose/quantity of the drug to a Medicare patient. Multiple use vials/packaging are not eligible for Medicare payment for discarded amounts.

The JW modifier will mainly be used for reporting drug wastage in physician offices and hospital outpatient departments (including Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs)). Some suppliers such as pharmacies may need to report the JW modifier, but it is unlikely they will have much, if any, drug wastage. Hospital Part B inpatient claims on a 12X type of bill would also report the JW modifier for separately payable drugs. Eligible and participating 340B providers are not exempt from use of the JW modifier.

One of the main things to remember about the use of the JW modifier is that it only applies to drugs that are separately payable, for example drugs with an OPPS status indicator of G (pass-through drugs) and K (separately payable non-pass-through drugs). In the outpatient hospital setting, this applies to separately payable drugs billed for surgical patients, patients in the emergency room, patients in outpatient clinics, and other outpatients receiving separately payable drugs.

This means that drugs that are not separately paid by Medicare do not require the use of the JW modifier. For example:

• Drugs provided in rural health clinics (RHCs) and federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) since these are not separately paid,
• Drugs provided during hospital inpatient admissions (Part A) that are paid under the Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS),
• Drugs given to an outpatient but combined to an inpatient Part A claim under the 3 day payment window rule,
• Packaged drugs, such as drugs with an OPPS status indicator of “N” or an SI of “K” that are bundled with comprehensive APCs (see OPPS Addendum D1 for explanation of services packaged with comprehensive APCs)
• Overfill wastage (CMS has made it clear in the past that overfill, which is any amount of drug greater than the amount identified on the package, is not billable.)

CMS also exempts drugs paid under the Part B drug Competitive Acquisition Program (CAP) although at this time the CAP remains on hold so there is no current list of CAP medications.)

One of the questions not clearly addressed by the FAQs is whether providers and suppliers are required to report drug wastage or can they elect to absorb the cost of discarded drugs. The guidance states that the JW modifier is used in order to obtain payment for the discarded amount of a drug or biological and is not needed if no discarded drug is being billed to the payer. So IF you are going to bill and expect payment for drug wastage, you must use the JW modifier January 1, 2017 and after.

In using the JW modifier on and after January 2017, providers must report the amount of the discarded drug on a separate claim line with the JW modifier. The unit field should reflect the quantity of drug discarded. If the provider is unable to quantify the amount of drug wasted, the JW modifier is not required. Do not report one claim line with combined units for amount of drug administered and wasted. Also realize if the amount of drug administered or the amount of drug wasted is less than the amount described by one HCPCS billing unit, then it is not necessary to use the JW modifier.

Prior to January 1, 2017, providers must follow the directions of their MACs or they may voluntarily report the JW modifier. Providers should check their MACs websites for any specific direction concerning the reporting of the JW modifier prior to the mandatory January 1, 2017 requirement. For example, here is some guidance from a few MACs and you can see that current instructions differ from MAC to MAC – that is why it is important to determine your MAC’s guidance for use of the JW modifier in 2016.

Cahaba GBA - Cahaba DOES NOT require the use of the JW modifier at this time. If providers wish to designate that a portion of a single dose vial is being discarded, please continue to bill the injection on ONE line and add the JW modifier to the procedure code and document the discarded amount in the patents records. Bill for the complete vial, even though part of the vial is being discarded. DO NOT split the billing to two claim lines: one with the JW and one without.

First Coast - For billing purposes, First Coast does not require the use of modifier JW prior to January 1, 2017. Drug wastage is billed by combining on a single line the wastage and administered dosage amount.

NGS - National Government Services does NOT require the use of the JW modifier at this time but providers may choose to use it. Claims will process appropriately with or without the JW modifier. If the JW modifier is used; it should be appended to a separate line for the HCPCS code (separate from the amount administered) indicating the amount (in units) discarded.

One thing CMS and all the MACs agree on is that wastage of the drug must be documented in the patient’s medical record to support the billing of discarded drugs. Here is CMS’s answer to the FAQ concerning documentation of drug wastage:

“CMS expects that providers and suppliers will maintain accurate (medical and/or dispensing) records for all beneficiaries as well as accurate purchasing and inventory records for all drugs that were purchased and billed to Medicare. General guidance on documentation is available in MLN Matters SE 1316. Providers and suppliers should also check with the MAC that processes their Part B drug claims in case additional information on billing and documentation is available at the local level.”

For complete details concerning the JW modifier, see the following CMS guidance:

• MLN Matters Article MM9603,
• Section 40 of Chapter 17 of the Medicare Claims Processing Manual,
• CMS’s FAQ document
• Any information on the JW modifier on your local MAC’s website

Providers should use drugs wisely and efficiently, but if wastage cannot be avoided and the provider wants to be paid for it, then understanding the proper use, reporting and documentation for the JW modifier is critical.

“The only way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it, and join the dance.”- Alan Watts

This week we conclude our in-depth analysis of the 2017 IPPS Final Rule by taking a plunge into finalized changes to Medicare Severity Diagnosis-Related Group (MS-DRG) Classifications broken down by Major Diagnostic Categories (MDCs).

Pre-Major Diagnostic Category (Pre MDC)

Total Artificial Heart Replacement

The proposal to assign ICD-10-PCS procedure codes 02RK0JZ and 02RL0JZ as a code cluster to ICD–10 Version 34 MS–DRGs 001 and 002 (Heart Transplant or Implant of Heart Assist System with and without MCC, respectively) to accurately replicate the Version 32 ICD–9–CM based MS–DRG logic of procedure code 37.52 was finalized.

MDC1: Diseases and Disorders of the Nervous System

Mechanical Complication Codes

In the proposed rule CMS agreed with a requestor that ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes T85.610A, T85.620A, T85.630A, and T85.690A describe conditions occurring within the nervous system. These ICD-10 diagnosis codes describe concepts not previously captured by the ICD-9-CM. As a result, CMS finalized the reassignment of these four ICD–10–CM diagnosis codes from MDC 21 under MS–DRGs 919, 920, and 921 to MDC 1 under MS–DRGs 091, 092, and 093. The official code titles were revised after publication of the Proposed Rule. The new ICD-10 code titles are as follow:

MDC 4: Diseases and Disorders of the Ear, Nose, Mouth and Throat

Reassignment of Diagnosis Code R22.2

The proposal to reassign ICD–10–CM diagnosis code R22.2 (Localized Swelling, Mass and Lump, Trunk) from MDC 4 to MDC 9 under MS–DRGs 606 and 607 (Minor Skin Disorders with and without MCC, respectively) was finalized.

MDC 5: Diseases and Disorders of the Circulatory System

Implant of Loop Recorder

The proposal to re-designate the following four ICD–10–PCS codes from non-O.R. to O.R. procedures within Appendix E of the Version 34 ICD–10 MS–DRG Definitions Manual was finalized.

• 0JH602Z (Insertion of monitoring device into chest subcutaneous tissue and fascia, open approach);
• 0JH632Z (Insertion of monitoring device into chest subcutaneous tissue and fascia, percutaneous approach);
• 0JWT02Z (Revision of monitoring device in trunk subcutaneous tissue and fascia, open approach); and
• 0JWT32Z (Revision of monitoring device in trunk subcutaneous tissue and fascia, percutaneous approach).

Endovascular Thrombectomy of the Lower Limbs

CMS agreed with a commenter that procedures describing endovascular thrombectomy of the lower limbs should be assigned to ICD–10 MS–DRGs 270, 271, and 272. CMS finalized their proposal to restructure the ICD–10–PCS MS–DRG configuration and add 20 of the proposed ICD–10–PCS code translations (which would capture procedures describing endovascular thrombectomy of the lower limbs) to ICD–10–PCS Version 34 (The code table can be found on page 56804 of the final rule.)

Pacemaker Procedure Codes Combinations

The proposal to modify the ICD-10 MS-DRG logic to capture a wider range of possible reported procedure codes describing procedures involving both a pacemaker device and leads was finalized.

Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair with Implant

Proposals finalized:

• Collapse MS-DRGs 228, 229, and 230 from three severity levels by deleting MS-DRG 230 and revising MS-DRG 229,
• ICD-9-CM procedure code 35.97 and the cases reporting ICD-10-PCS procedure code 02UG3JZ (Supplement mitral valve with synthetic substitute, percutaneous approach) will be reassigned from MS–DRGs 273 and 274 to MS–DRG 228 and revised MS–DRG 229,
• The title of revised MS-DRG 229 is now “Other Cardiothoracic Procedures without MCC”; and
• The title for MS–DRG 228 will remain “Other Cardiothoracic Procedures with MCC.”

MDC 6: Diseases and Disorders of the Digestive System

Excision of Ileum

CMS received a request to analyze an MS-DRG replication issue. Under ICD–9, procedure code 45.62 (Other partial resection of small intestine) was assigned to MS–DRGs 329, 330 and 331 (Major Small and Large Bowel Procedures with MCC, with CC, and without CC/MCC, respectively).

Under the current ICD–10 MS–DRGs Version 33, ICD–10–PCS procedure code 0DBB0ZZ (Excision of ileum, open approach) is assigned to MS–DRGs 347, 348, and 349 (Anal and Stomal Procedures with MCC, with CC, and without CC/MCC, respectively). The requestor indicated that, despite the variation in terms for ‘‘excision’’ and ‘‘resection’’ between the two code sets, the surgical procedure to remove a portion of the small intestine, whether it is the ileum, duodenum, or jejunum, has not changed and should not result in different MS–DRG assignments when translated from ICD–9–CM to ICD–10. CMS agreed that this is a replication error.

Additionally, CMS reviewed the MS–DRG assignments for ICD–10–PCS code 0DBA0ZZ (Excision of jejunum, open approach) and determined the MS–DRG assignment for this code resulted in the same replication error.

As a result of analysis, CMS proposed and finalized the reassignment of ICD–10–PCS codes 0DBB0ZZ and 0DBA0ZZ from MS–DRGs 347, 348, and 349 (Anal and Stomal 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), effective with the ICD–10 MS–DRGs Version 34 on October 1, 2016.

MDC 7: Diseases and Disorders of the Hepatobiliary System and Pancreas

Bypass Procedures of the Veins

A requestor noted that currently, ICD–10–PCS procedure code 06183DY (Bypass portal vein to lower vein with intraluminal device, percutaneous approach) is assigned to only MDC 5 (Diseases and Disorders of the Circulatory System) and MS–DRGs 270, 271, and 272 (Other Major Cardiovascular Procedures with MCC, with CC, and without CC/MCC, respectively) under ICD–10 MS–DRGs Version 33.

The requestor stated that the code should also be assigned to MDC 7 and MS–DRGs 405, 406, and 407 to be consistent with the ICD–9–CM MS–DRGs Version 32. CMS analyzed this issue and agreed and finalized the assignment of ICD–10–PCS procedure code 06183DY to MDC 7 and MS–DRGs 405, 406, and 407 for FY 2017.

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

Combination Codes for Removal and Replacement of Knee Joints

CMS examined knee joint revision combination codes that are not currently assigned to MS–DRGs 466, 467, and 468 (Revision of Hip or Knee Replacement with MCC, with CC, and without CC/MCC, respectively) in ICD–10 MS–DRGs Version 33 and identified 58 additional combinations that also should be included so that the same logic is used in the ICD–10 version of the MS–DRGs as is used in the ICD–9–CM version. CMS finalized the addition of these 58 new code combinations that capture the joint revisions to the Version 34 MS DRG structure for MS–DRGs 466, 467, and 468, effective October 1, 2016. The table of new combination codes begins on page 56821 of the Final Rule.

Decompression Laminectomy

Currently, under ICD–10–PCS, the procedure describing a decompression laminectomy is coded for the ‘‘release’’ of a specified area of the spinal cord. These decompression codes are assigned to MS–DRGs 028, 029, and 030 (Spinal Procedures with MCC, with CC or Spinal Neurostimulators, or without CC/MCC, respectively) and to MS–DRGs 518, 519, and 520 (Back and Neck

Procedures Except Spinal Fusion with MCC or Disc Device or Neurostimulator, with CC, or without CC/MCC, respectively) in the ICD–10 MS–DRGs Version 33.

A commenter brought attention to the fact that codes describing release of specific peripheral nerve are assigned to MS–DRGs 515, 516, and 517 (Other Musculoskeletal System and Connective Tissue O.R. Procedures with MCC, with CC, and without C/MCC, respectively). The commenter suggested that a subset of these codes also be assigned to MS–DRGs 028 through 030 and MS–DRGs 518 through 520 for clinical coherence purposes.

CMS agreed with the commenter’s suggestion and CMS proposed to reassign 18 ICD–10–PCS procedure codes from MS–DRGs 515 through 517 to MS–DRGs 028 through 030 and MS–DRGs 518 through 520 under the ICD–10 MS–DRGs Version 34.

This change was delayed in the Final Rule, “until the ICD-10 claims data are available, because we will have the ability to better analyze the impact of reassigning the specified codes according to their anatomic locations, as well as receive clarification regarding which specific codes should be taken under consideration for reassignment.”

Lordosis

A replication issue involving four diagnosis codes related to lordosis (excessive curvature of the lower spine) was discovered in MS-DRGs 446,457, and 458 (Spinal Fusion Except Cervical with Spinal Curvature or Malignancy or Infection or Extensive Fusions with MCC, with CC, and without CC/MCC).

These MS–DRGs contain specific logic requiring a principal diagnosis describing a spinal curvature, a malignancy, or infection or a secondary diagnosis that describes a spinal curvature disorder related to another condition.

Under the ICD–10 MS–DRGs Version 33, the following diagnosis codes were listed on the principal diagnosis list and the secondary diagnosis list for MS–DRGs 456, 457, and 458:

After consideration CMS finalized maintaining these four codes in the logic for the principal diagnosis list but to remove them from the secondary diagnosis list.

MDC 13: Diseases and Disorders of the Female Reproductive System

Pelvic Evisceration

Current GROUPER logic for MS–DRGs 332, 333, and 334 (Rectal Resection with MCC, with CC and without CC/MCC, respectively) under MDC 6 (Diseases and Disorders of the Digestive System) and for MS–DRGs 734 and 735 (Pelvic Evisceration, Radical Hysterectomy and Radical Vulvectomy with CC/MCC and without CC/MCC, respectively) under MDC 13 (Diseases and Disorders of the Female Reproductive System) include a ‘‘cluster’’ of ICD–10–PCS procedure codes that describe pelvic evisceration.

A ‘‘cluster’’ is the term used to describe a circumstance when a combination of ICD–10–PCS procedure codes is needed to fully satisfy the equivalent meaning of an ICD–9–CM procedure code for it to be considered a plausible code translation.

Under ICD–10–PCS, users are instructed to code separately the organs or structures that are actually removed and for which there is a distinctly defined body part. Therefore, the case of a patient who undergoes a pelvic evisceration (exenteration) that involves the removal of the sigmoid colon and rectum would have each of those procedure sites (sigmoid colon and rectum) coded and reported separately (in addition to the procedure codes displayed in the cluster). In this scenario, if the principal diagnosis is a condition from the MDC 6 diagnosis list, the case would group to MS–DRGs 332, 333, and 334, regardless of the code cluster. In other words, it would not be necessary to retain the code cluster describing procedures performed on female pelvic organs in MDC 6.

Therefore, CMS proposed and finalized removing the procedure code cluster for pelvic evisceration procedures from MDC 6 under the ICD–10 MS–DRGs Version 34. The cluster would remain in ICD–10 MDC 13 under MS–DRGs 734 and 735 only.

MDC 19: Mental Diseases and Disorders

CMS finalized the proposal to the title of MS-DRG 884 (Organic Disturbances and Mental Retardation) to “MS-DRG 884 (Organic Disturbances and Intellectual Disability)” to reflect the current terminology to describe the condition.

MDC 23: Factors Influencing Health Status and Other Contacts with Health Services

Logic of MS-DRGs 945 and 946 (Rehabilitation with CC/MCC and without CC/MCC, respectively)

CMS received several requests to examine the Grouper logic for MS-DRGs 945 and 946. The requestors were concerned that ICD–9–CM codes that clearly identified an encounter for rehabilitation services such as procedure codes V57.89 (Care involving other specified rehabilitation procedure) and V57.9 (Care involving unspecified rehabilitation procedure) were not included in ICD–10–CM Version 33. In addition, the requestors pointed out that ICD–10–CM has significantly changed the guidelines for coding of admissions/encounters for rehabilitation.

In a Final Rule response CMS indicates that they “agree with the commenters that the issue of any updates to ICD–10–PCS guidelines should be considered along with any proposed MS–DRG updates because updated guidelines may impact code reporting. We welcome any suggestions on how to update the ICD–10–PCS guidelines. These suggestions should be sent to ICDProcedureCodeRequest@cms.hhs.gov. We plan to take any proposed ICD–10–PCS rehabilitation guideline updates to a future meeting of the ICD–10 Coordination and Maintenance Committee so that the public can provide input on any new rehabilitation guideline.”

As mentioned at the start, this article highlights MDC specific MS-DRG changes. This is a small dive into the coding changes found in the Final Rule. MMP, Inc. encourages you to review the Final Rule and to be on the lookout for our Annual Fall Inpatient Webinar focused on Coding Changes in October. 

“I’m late! I’m late! For a very important date!”- The White Rabbit in the 1951 Disney Classic Alice in Wonderland

Much like the White Rabbit, CMS was a day late in the release of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) Final Rule. Late or not, CMS noted in a related Fact Sheet that this rule finalizes policies that continue their commitment to increasingly shift Medicare payments from volume to value. This article focuses on final revisions made to the general acute care hospital Quality Programs.

HOSPITAL INPATIENT QUALITY REPORTING (IQR) PROGRAM

The Hospital IQR Program is a pay-for-reporting program established by the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act. General acute care hospitals successfully participating in this program and are also meaningful electronic health record (EHR) users will receive approximately 0.95 percent increase in their operating payment rates. The Final Rule finalized changes to this program for FY 2018 and FY 2019 payment determinations.

FY 2018 Program Year: Two Claims Based Measure Refinements

PN Payment: Hospital-Level, Risk-Standardized 30-Day Episode-of-Care Payment Measure for Pneumonia (NQF #2579)

This measure cohort will be expanded to include hospitalizations for patients with

• Principal discharge diagnosis of pneumonia, including not only viral or bacterial pneumonia, but also aspiration pneumonia; and
• Principal discharge diagnosis of sepsis (but not severe sepsis) with a secondary diagnosis of pneumonia (including viral or bacterial pneumonia and aspiration pneumonia) coded as present on admission (POA).

PSI 90: Patient Safety and Adverse Events Composite Measure (NQF #0531): The modified PSI 90 composite was adopted for the IQR Program. See table 3 for further detail.

FY 2019 Program Year: 15 Measures Removed & Four New Measures Added

CMS finalized the proposal to remove 15 measures for the FY 2019 payment determination and subsequent years (see Table 1).

Table 1: Measures Finalized for Removal for the FY 2019 Payment Determination and Subsequent Years

‍Four New Measures to be added to the Hospital IQR Program for the FY 2019 Payment Determination and Subsequent Years.

Table 2: New Measures Finalized for FY 2019 Payment Determination and Subsequent Years

CMS notes that the new “measures capture Medicare payment for services related to the episode procedure and take into account beneficiaries’ clinical complexity as well as geographic payment differences. We proposed these clinical episode-based measures to supplement the Hospital IQR Program’s Medicare Spending per Beneficiary (MSPB) Measure….the measures also support our mission to provide better healthcare for individuals, better health for populations, and lower costs for healthcare.”

In response to stakeholder concerns that these measures overlap with the Medicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) Measure, CMS notes “that unlike the overall MSPB measure, the clinical episode-based payment measures assess payment variation at the procedure level and only include services that are clinically related to the named episode procedure (for example, the spinal fusion measure includes inpatient admissions for “medical back problems” that occur following the initial spinal fusion procedure since the admission is likely a result of complications from the initial procedure).”

HOSPITAL VALUE BASED PURCHASING (VBP) PROGRAM

The Act instructs the Secretary to reduce the base operating DRG payment amount for a hospital for each discharge in a fiscal year by an applicable percent to fund this budget neutral program. CMS indicates in Table 16A of the Final Rule that the estimated amount available for value-based incentive payments to hospitals for FY 2017 is approximately $1.8 billion. Actual amounts will be displayed in Table 16B that is expected to be posted in October of this year.

FY 2019 Program Year: New Domain Name and Expansion of location for CAUTI and CLABSI

The Patient-and-Caregiver-Centered Experience of Care/Care Coordination Domain will become simply the Person and Community Engagement Domain.

The NHSN (National Health Safety Network) CAUTI (Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection) and CLABSI (Central Line-Associated Blood Stream Infections) outcome measures will include select ward (non-ICU) locations. “This expansion of the CAUTI and CLABSI measures aligns with the Hospital IQR Program. It also aligns with the HAC Reduction Program, which adopted the expansion of the CAUTI and CLABSI measures beginning with its FY 2018 program year (80 FR 49576 through 49578).”

FY 2021 Program Year: Two New Condition-Specific Payment Measures and Expansion of a 30-Day Mortality Measure Cohort

Two New Measures

Hospital-Level, Risk-Standardized Payment Associated with a 30-Day Episode-of-Care for Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) (NQF #2431), and

Hospital-Level, Risk-Standardized Payment Associated with a 30-Day Episode-of-Care for Heart Failure (HF) (NQF #2436).

Expansion of 30-Day-PN Mortality Cohort

Also for the FY 2021 Program Year, CMS finalized expansion of the cohort used for the 30-Day-PN Mortality measure to include patients with a principal discharge diagnosis of pneumonia, patients with a principal diagnosis of aspiration pneumonia and patients with a principal diagnosis of sepsis with a secondary diagnosis of pneumonia coded as present on admission (POA).

FY 2022 Program Year: CMS finalized the addition of Hospital 30-Day, All-Cause, Risk-Standardized Mortality Rate (RSMR) Following CABG Surgery (NQF #2554) (MORT-30-CABG) measure.

HOSPITAL ACQUIRED CONDITIONS (HAC) REDUCTION PROGRAM

This program creates an incentive for reducing the incidence of HACs by adjusting payments to hospitals in the worst performing quartile for HACs. CMS finalized the following five changes to the existing HAC Reduction Program policies:

• Clarified data requirements for Domain 1 (PSI-90),
• Established National Health Safety Network (NHSN) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Healthcare Associated Infection (HAI) data submission requirements for newly opened hospitals,
• Established performance periods for the FY 2018 and 2019 HAC Reduction Program,
• Adopted the refined Patient Safety Indicator (PSI) 90: Patient Safety for Selected Indicators Composite Measure (NQF #0531) beginning with the FY 2018 payment determination.
• Changed the Program scoring methodology from the current decile-based scoring to a continuous scoring methodology.

FY 2018 Program Year: Finalized Refinements to PSI 90

• First, the name of the PSI 90 measure will change to “Patient Safety and Adverse Events Composite: (NQF #0531).
• Second, the modified PSI 90 measure will include three new indicators (PSI-09, PSI-10 and PSI-11),
• Third, two Indicators will be re-specified in the modified PSI 90.
• PSI-12 Perioperative Pulmonary Embolism (PE) or Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) Rate no longer includes ECMO procedures in the denominator or isolated deep vein thrombosis (DVT) of the calf veins in the numerator.
• PSI 15 Accidental Puncture and Laceration Rate is now limited to discharges with an abdominal/pelvic operation, rather than including all medical and surgical discharges.
• Fourth, PSI-07 Central venous catheter-related blood stream infections rate will be removed in the modified PSI 90.
• Fifth, weighting of component indicators will be based not only on volume of each patient safety and adverse events, but also the harms associated with the events.

PSI 90: To Expand from 8 to 10 Indicators for FY 2018 Program

Table 3: PSI 90: Patient Safety and Adverse Events Composite (NQF #0531) for FY 2018

‍HOSPITAL READMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM (HRRP)

This program requires a reduction to a hospital’s based operating DRG payment to account for excess readmissions associated with the applicable conditions. For FY 2017 and subsequent years, a hospital’s potential reduction will be based on a risk-adjusted readmission rate during a three-year period for the following six conditions:

• Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI),
• Heart Failure (HF),
• Pneumonia (PN),
• Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD),
• Total Hip Arthroplasty/Total Knee Arthroplasty (THA/TKA), and
• New Condition for FY 2017 (pursuant to prior rulemaking): All-Cause, Unplanned Readmission Following Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG) Surgery (inclusion of this condition was finalized in the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH Final Rule).

CMS is updating the public reporting policy so that excess readmission rates will be posted to the Hospital Compare website as soon as feasible following the hospitals’ preview period.

More Than Half a Billion Dollars in Readmission Penalties for FY 2017

Set to begin October 1, 2016, Jordan Rau of Kaiser Health News (KHN)reports that readmission penalties are set to reach a new high of more than half a billion dollars in payments being withheld in the coming fiscal year. To see if and how much your hospital will be penalized you can get the data in KHN’s Article Medicare's Readmission Penalties Hit New High.

Resources

CMS Fact Sheet Announcing release of 2017 IPPS Final Rule: https://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaReleaseDatabase/Fact-sheets/2016-Fact-sheets-items/2016-08-02.html

2017 IPPS Final Rule (Display copy): https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/FY2017-IPPS-Final-Rule-Home-Page-Items/FY2017-IPPS-Final-Rule-Regulations.html?DLPage=1&DLEntries=10&DLSort=0&DLSortDir=ascending

If you have ever audited electronic healthcare medical records, you have likely seen patients that are the same one day as another – exactly the same – no, I mean EXACTLY the same - the exact same wording of the patient’s condition, patient statements, treatment plan and/or other documentation elements. This is the result of “copy and paste” within an electronic medical record.

There are benefits and risks associated with the use of “copy and paste” within EHRs as described by the Partnership for Health IT Patient Safety. Benefits include time savings and a more efficient way to capture complex information which may result in improved tracking of multiple problems and improved continuity of care. It can also reduce transcription errors and omissions of important information. However, the outdated, inaccurate, irrelevant, and misleading information that can result from “copy and paste” erodes confidence in the record, may have medico-legal implications, and can result in more queries and work to determine if the information is correct. Charts and notes can become overwhelmingly long and effective communication is compromised because important findings and problems are intertwined with normal patient information, making it difficult to decipher what is important or current.

In response to safety concerns, the Partnership for Health IT Patient Safety developed a Toolkit for the Safe Use of Copy and Paste. Although the focus of the toolkit is patient safety, other concerns associated with “copy and paste” include billing and compliance issues and potential malpractice implications.

The recommendations provided in the toolkit and listed below are not intended to impair usability of EHR systems or impede workflow. Their goal is to allow providers the opportunity to evaluate the best ways to see the information that is being reused and to take steps toward the safe use of “copy and paste.”

Recommendation A: Provide a mechanism to make copy and paste material easily identifiable.

• Allows verification of accuracy and facilitates review for edits
• Potential Actions: Create policies and procedures; block certain areas of documentation from copying; have a different appearance for copied material (italics, different color, etc.)

Recommendation B: Ensure that the provenance of copy and paste material is readily available.

• Helps verify that the information is appropriate and accurate and increases the potential to defend the record and achieve billing compliance
• Potential Actions: Identify original source of information and track changes and authors

Recommendation C: Ensure adequate staff training and education regarding the appropriate and safe use of copy and paste.

• Helps providers understand their liability and the potential patient safety and compliance risks of copy and paste
• Potential Actions: Provide regular training and feedback; identify methods to verify current and correct information

Recommendation D: Ensure that copy and paste practices are regularly monitored, measured, and assessed.

• Ensures the integrity of the clinical record, the quality and safety of care rendered, and compliance with state and federal regulations
• Potential Actions: Create auditing policy; perform regular audits and report findings and provide feedback

I personally think this toolkit offers excellent recommendations for the safe use of a “copy and paste” function. As explained in the Toolkit, some of the recommendations will take time to implement, particularly those that require technology changes by developers and workflow changes for providers. However, there are some steps that hospitals could implement now to improve the use “copy and paste.” A realization of the associated risks of “copy and paste” is one first step.

A medical claim is a form of communication with a healthcare payer that request payment and describes the services provided to a patient, plus other pertinent information. Medicare and other payers have detailed specifications about the types of information that must be included on a claim. Modifiers are often used on claims to explain the special circumstances of a particular item or service. In honor of National Occupational Therapy (OT) month, we examine some modifiers that are often required for rehabilitative services.

The American Occupational Therapy Association website states that occupational therapists and assistants are part of a vitally important profession that helps people across the lifespan participate in the things they want and need to do through the therapeutic use of everyday activities. In addition to clinical responsibilities, including complete and thorough documentation of their medical services, OTs and other rehabilitative therapists such as physical therapists (PT) and speech language pathologists (SLP) are required to understand some aspects of Medicare therapy billing. For example, therapists need to understand the proper use of some billing modifiers.

Therapy Discipline Modifiers

Services for Medicare patients provided by rehabilitative therapists must be appended with a modifier that describes the therapy discipline. Modifiers are used to identify therapy services whether or not financial limitations (therapy caps) are in effect. When limitations are in effect, Medicare tracks the financial limitation based on the presence of therapy modifiers. The therapy modifiers are:

• GN – Services delivered under an outpatient speech-language pathology plan of care;
• GO - Services delivered under an outpatient occupational therapy plan of care; or,
• GP - Services delivered under an outpatient physical therapy plan of care.

Modifiers GN, GO, and GP refer only to services provided under plans of care for rehabilitative therapy services. They should never be used with codes that are not on the list of applicable therapy services. For institutional claims, the modifiers must correlate with the respective revenue code (PT – modifier GP with revenue code 42x; OT – modifier GO with revenue code 43x; and SLP – modifier GN with revenue code 44x).

Modifier 59

Modifier 59 is appended to a CPT/HCPCS procedure code to indicate that a procedure or service was distinct or independent from other services performed on the same day. It is used to identify procedures/services that are not normally reported together, but are appropriate under the circumstances.

For PT, OT and SLP services, providers should not report more than one physical medicine and rehabilitation therapy service for the same fifteen minute time period with the exception of “supervised modality” codes. Some National Correct Coding Initiative (NCCI) procedure-to-procedure edits pair a “timed” therapy CPT code with another “timed” CPT code or a non-timed CPT code as services that would not normally be reported together. These edits may be bypassed with modifier 59 if the two procedures of a code pair edit are performed in different timed intervals even if sequential during the same patient encounter. When modifier 59 is used, documentation in the therapy record must support that the services were performed at separate and distinct time periods.

Modifier KX

Medicare sets financial limitations on the amount of therapy services a beneficiary may receive in a calendar year. For 2016 the therapy cap amounts are $1,960 for physical therapy (PT) and speech-language pathology (SLP) services combined and $1,960 for occupational therapy (OT) services. Medicare allows an exception when the patient’s condition requires continued skilled therapy beyond the amount payable under the therapy cap, to achieve their prior functional status or maximum expected functional status within a reasonable amount of time. Documentation in the therapy record must justify a medically necessary need for additional therapy beyond the therapy cap.

When exceptions are in effect and the beneficiary qualifies for a therapy cap exception, the provider must add a KX modifier to the therapy HCPCS code subject to the cap limits. By appending the KX modifier, the provider is attesting that the services billed:

• Are reasonable and necessary services that require the skills of a therapist; and
• Are justified by appropriate documentation in the medical record,; and
• Qualify for an exception using the automatic process exception.

When the cap is exceeded by at least one line on the claim, use the KX modifier on all of the lines on that institutional claim that refer to the same therapy cap (PT/SLP or OT), regardless of whether the other services exceed the cap. For example, if one PT service line exceeds the cap, use the KX modifier on all the PT and SLP service lines (also identified with the GP or GN modifier) for that claim. When the PT/SLP cap is exceeded by PT services, the SLP lines on the claim may meet the requirements for an exception due to the complexity of two episodes of service. In addition to the KX modifier, the GN, GP and GO modifiers shall continue to be reported.

Be sure that services are medically necessary and that documentation is sufficiently detailed to support the use of the modifier. Medicare is aware of the potential for misuse of the KX modifier. Note that:

• Routine use of the KX modifier for all patients with certain conditions will likely show up on data analysis as aberrant and invite inquiry.
• Use of the KX modifier when there is no indication that the cap is likely to be exceeded is abusive.
• If the use of the KX modifier is determined to be inaccurate, the provider/supplier is subject to sanctions resulting from providing inaccurate information on a claim.

For more information on the use of the KX modifier, see the Medicare Claims Processing Manual, Chapter 5 , Section 10.3.

Functional Limitation Modifiers

In 2013, Medicare began requiring the reporting of rehabilitative therapy functional limitation information on claims. Claims for outpatient therapy services are required to include non-payable G-codes and modifiers, which describe a beneficiary’s functional limitation and severity level, at specified intervals during the therapy episode of care. The severity modifier reflects the beneficiary’s percentage of functional impairment as determined by the clinician furnishing the therapy services for each functional status: current, goal, or discharge.

Therapists must document in the medical record how they made the modifier selection so that the same process can be followed at succeeding assessment intervals. For more information on functional limitation codes and modifiers, see the Medicare Benefit Policy Manual, Chapter 15, Section 220.4.

When communicating with Medicare and other payers, providers must know the specifics of the service and claim requirements. Proper use of modifiers to provide additional information about the services rendered is necessary for clear communication.

A common mnemonic device to aid memory is to come up with a short sentence or phrase using the first letters of what you are trying to remember. Since it is spring and we are planning our vegetable garden, for PGATO I came up with “please gather all the okra.” If you have never grown okra, you may not realize the gathering demands of okra in the miserably hot, sultry days of late summer. The reward however is the delicious, Southern dish of fried okra. For Medicare services, rewards are two-fold – one is helping patients to recover or improve and two is the Medicare reimbursement you receive if you have followed all of Medicare’s requirements for billing, coding, and documentation. Like okra plants can be prickly, so can Medicare requirements.

PGATO is my memory tool for remembering all of the components for proper documentation to support billing of psychotherapy - plan, goals, activity, time, and outcomes. CPT codes 90832-90838 represent insight oriented, behavior modifying, supportive, and/or interactive psychotherapy. Reviews by the Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT) contractors have identified issues with missing documentation.

Plan and Goals

A recent CERT review (see Cahaba Article Psychotherapy Codes) has identified errors in outpatient psychotherapy CPT codes 90832 and 90834, Type of Bill 13X. The primary issue identified on review was the absence of a signed, individualized plan of care for the services billed.

The individualized treatment plan must state the type, amount, frequency and duration of the services to be furnished and indicate the diagnoses and anticipated goals. Treatment goals should be measurable and objective. Documentation should include specific therapeutic interventions planned and an estimated duration of treatment.

Services must reasonably be expected to improve the patient’s condition. The treatment must be designed to reduce or control the patient’s psychiatric symptoms so as to prevent relapse or hospitalization, and improve or maintain the patient’s level of functioning. Psychotherapy services are not covered for severe and profound intellectual disabilities. Also, psychotherapy services are not covered for dementia patients when documentation indicates that dementia has produced a severe enough cognitive defect to prevent psychotherapy from being effective. When a patient has dementia, the capacity to meaningfully benefit from psychotherapy must be documented in the medical record.

Activity and Time

Another CERT review as described in MLN Matters Article SE1407 identified the main error as not clearly documenting the amount of time spent only on psychotherapy services.

The medical record must indicate the time spent in the psychotherapy encounter and the therapeutic maneuvers, such as behavior modification, supportive or interpretive interactions that were applied to produce a therapeutic change. Behavior modification is not a separate service, but is an adjunctive measure in psychotherapy.

A variety of techniques are recognized for coverage under the psychotherapy codes; however, the services must be performed by persons authorized by their state to render psychotherapy services (such as physicians, clinical psychologists, registered nurses with special training, and clinical social workers). Medicare coverage of procedure codes 90832-90838 does not include teaching grooming skills, monitoring activities of daily living, recreational therapy (dance, art, play) or social interaction.

Psychotherapy codes 90832-90838 are timed codes and the documentation must support the time billed as a psychotherapy encounter. The time associated with these codes is for face-to-face services only with the patient (or patient and family). In general, providers should select the code that most closely matches the actual time spent performing psychotherapy. CPT® provides flexibility by identifying time ranges that may be associated with each of the three codes:

• Code 90832 (or + 90833) 30 minutes: 16 to 37 minutes
• Code 90834 (or + 90836) 45 minutes: 38 to 52 minutes, or
• Code 90837 (or + 90838) 60 minutes: 53 minutes or longer

Do not bill psychotherapy codes for sessions lasting less than 16 minutes.

CPT codes 90833, 90836, and 90838 are add-on codes for psychotherapy services provided with an evaluation and management (E&M) service. Both services are payable if they are significant and separately identifiable and billed using the correct codes. Time spent for the E&M service is separate from the time spent providing psychotherapy and time spent providing psychotherapy cannot be used to meet criteria for the E&M service. Because time is indicated in the code descriptor for the psychotherapy CPT codes, it is important for providers to clearly document in the patient’s medical record the time spent providing the psychotherapy service rather than entering one time period including the E&M service.

Outcomes

A periodic summary of goals, progress toward goals and an updated treatment plan must be included in the medical record. The general expectation is that the treatment plan will be updated at least every three months.

There are no specific limits on the length of time that services may be covered, but the duration of a course of psychotherapy must be individualized for each patient. As long as the evidence shows that the patient continues to show improvement in accordance with their individualized treatment plan, and the frequency of services is within the norms of practice, coverage may be continued. However, prolonged periods of psychotherapy must be well-supported in the medical record and include a description of the necessity for ongoing treatment.

You may want to come up with your own memory tool for remembering to include all the required documentation components of psychotherapy. However you choose to remember, meeting Medicare’s prickly requirements will help guarantee appropriate payments.

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

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

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

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

STORYLINE

January 7, 2015

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

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

July 6, 2015

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

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

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

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

Will there be a Happy Ending?

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

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

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

‍ Resource

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