Merriam-Webster defines confusion as “a situation in which people are uncertain about what to do or are unable to understand something clearly,” or “the feeling that you have when you do not understand what is happening, what is expected, etc.” and finally as “a state or situation in which many things are happening in a way that is not controlled or orderly.”

All three definitions are apt depictions of how the healthcare industry felt in response to the 2014 Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) Final Rule and more specifically how to implement the then new 2-Midnight Rule and Physician Certification Requirements. Adding to the confusion, the Physician Certification Requirements changed again on January 1, 2015 with the implementation of the 2015 Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) Final Rule and more recently, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have extended the Inpatient Probe and Educate process through April 30, 2015. We have recently come across certain Myths about the regulations and wanted to equip our readers with the Facts.

Myth: As of April 1st, 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have once again delayed implementation of the 2-Midnight Rule.

Fact: On April 1st the CMS indicated that “given potential Congressional action on H.R. 2, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, CMS will continue the Inpatient Probe and Educate process until April 30, 2015 and will continue to prohibit Recovery Auditor inpatient hospital patient status reviews for dates of admission occurring between October 1, 2013 and April 30, 2015.”

However, hospitals should have implemented the 2-Midnight Rule at the start of the CMS 2014 Fiscal Year on October 1, 2013. This rule was intended as guidance for Physicians in identifying patients appropriate for inpatient admission. CMS has NEVER delayed the implementation date for hospital compliance with the 2-Midnight Rule. The Inpatient Probe and Educate Process was put in place to delay Contractor inpatient hospital status reviews thereby allowing hospitals time to further understand and implement this policy.

Note: Congress has passed legislation and, at the time of this posting, President Obama has indicated that he will sign it into law. This means that the Probe and Educate process will be extended to the end of the fiscal year on September 30, 2015.

Myth: As a result of the 2-Midnight Rule, CMS will not reimburse hospitals for inpatient hospitalizations that do not span 2 Midnights.

Fact: In Sub-regulatory guidance following implementation of the 2014 IPPS Final Rule, the CMS indicated that there may be “unforeseen circumstances” or possible “exceptions” to when a beneficiary is appropriately placed in an inpatient status but does not remain in the hospital 2 Midnights. To date the CMS has identified four Unforeseen Circumstances and one possible Exception.

Unforeseen Circumstances

• Beneficiary death or transfer,
• A beneficiary rapidly improving and the reasonable 2-Midnight expectation was clearly documented in the record,
• A beneficiary leaves Against Medical Advice (AMA), or
• In the event that a beneficiary declines further workup and/or treatment and elects Hospice Care.

Exception

• “CMS believes a physician will generally expect beneficiaries with newly initiated mechanical ventilation to require 2 or more midnights of hospital care, if the physician expects that the beneficiary will only require 1 midnight of hospital care, inpatient admission and Part A payment is nonetheless generally appropriate. NOTE: This exception is not intended to apply to anticipated intubations related to minor surgical procedures or other treatment.”

Myth: CMS has suspended review of all inpatient claims submitted by hospitals to the Medicare program between October 1, 2013 and April 30 of this year.

Fact: It is true that Recovery Auditors are prohibited from patient status reviews on inpatient claims with dates of service from October 1, 2013 now through April 30, 2015.

However, during this time, Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) are facilitating the Probe & Educate program in which they are performing a limited number of pre-payment probe reviews of 1 day or less inpatient hospitalizations with dates of services on or after October 1, 2013. MACs were instructed to assess for compliance with the admission order requirements, physician certification requirements and 2-Midnight Benchmark Guidance. While this is a Probe and Educate program, hospitals do not receive payment for denied claims.

CMS outlines reviews not impacted by the 2014 IPPS Final Rule on the Inpatient Hospital Reviews Webpage. Specifically, “MACs, Recovery Auditors and the Supplement Medical Review Contractor will continue other types of inpatient hospital reviews, including, but not limited to:

• Coding reviews,
• Reviews for the medical necessity of a surgical procedure provided to a hospitalized beneficiary, and
• Inpatient hospital patient status reviews for dates of admission prior to October 1, 2013 (based on the applicable policy at the time of admission).”

Myth: All Medicare inpatient admissions need an Initial Physician Certification completed prior to the patient being discharged

Fact: This was true for Medicare admissions with dates of service on or after October 1, 2013 through December 31, 2014. However, this changed with the 2015 OPPS Final Rule. As of January 1, 2015, CMS finalized their “policy as proposed in the CY 2015 OPPS/ASC proposed rule, which limits the requirement for physician certification to long-stay (20 days or longer) and outlier cases.” Furthermore, they finalized their “proposed revision of paragraph (b) of § 424.13, without modification, to specify that certifications for long-stay cases must be furnished no later than 20 days into the hospital stay.”

Myth: Any practitioner treating a Medicare Inpatient can write a valid Inpatient Status Order.

Fact: Per the January 30, 2014 CMS Sub-regulatory guidance Hospital Inpatient Admission Order and Certification, the order must be provided by a Physician or other practitioner that meets the following criteria

1. Is licensed by the state to admit inpatients to hospitals,
2. Has been granted privileges by the hospital to admit inpatients to that specific facility, and
3. Is knowledgeable about the patient’s hospital course, medical plan of care, and current condition at the time of the admission.

Resources:

CMS Inpatient Hospital Reviews Web page: http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Monitoring-Programs/Medicare-FFS-Compliance-Programs/Medical-Review/InpatientHospitalReviews.html

January 30, 2014 CMS Sub-regulatory Guidance: Hospital Inpatient Admission Order and Certification

http://cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/Downloads/IP-Certification-and-Order-01-30-14.pdf

Can you sometimes tell by the tone of someone’s voice or the way they drag out the words, that there is a condition to their answer? “Well, nooo…” You just know the conjunction “but” is coming. Medicare generally communicates with providers in writing, but experience tells us there is often a condition to Medicare’s answers.

A few years ago there was a lot of discussion in Medicare billing circles about whether a physician’s signature is required on a laboratory requisition. And in typical Medicare fashion, the answer was a clear, “No…, but…” The “but” being that although the signature of the ordering physician is not required on the requisition, there has to be an order or documentation of intent to order the lab tests that is signed by the physician. This documentation can be located in the physician’s office chart, but needs to be submitted to the Medicare contractor in the case of a medical review of the claim. And the provider being reviewed (i.e. the testing lab), whose payment is at risk, is the one ultimately responsible for submitting the supporting documentation.

With all the reminders of these requirements that circulated back then, surely most hospital-based and independent laboratories understood what was expected. Therefore, I was a bit surprised to see an announcement back in December concerning a significant increase in pathology and laboratory service errors identified by data analysis of the Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT) program findings. In response to the increase in errors, CERT published a document addressing the lab and pathology errors.

CERT identifies insufficient documentation and incorrect coding as the reasons for the significant errors, but the main issue addressed in the publication is missing or incomplete documentation.

“If a physician’s order for a diagnostic test is not included in the medical record, the physician must document the intent to order the laboratory service.” This documentation must state the specific tests the physician is ordering. Simply stating “ordering lab” is not sufficient. Also the documentation of intent must be signed by the physician or there must be a signed physician’s order for the lab tests. A signed order or signed documentation of intent to order must be sent to the Medicare contractor reviewing the record to support the services billed. Without this documentation, the claim will be denied.

“Documentation must support the medical necessity for the services performed.” Per the Medicare Claims Processing Manual, Chapter 16 , section 120.1 – “Diagnoses are required on all claims” and such diagnostic information must be supplied to the performing laboratory by the ordering physician. There are twenty-three National Coverage Determinations (NCDs) for lab services and individual Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) often have Local Coverage Determinations (LCDs) for other lab services. Both the NCDs and LCDs require certain diagnoses to support the medical necessity of the lab tests; additional indications and documentation may also be required by the coverage policies. Two examples of required lab documentation from the CERT document include:

• Blood Glucose - The ordering physician must include evidence in the patient’s clinical record that an evaluation of history and physical preceded the ordering of glucose testing and that manifestations of abnormal glucose levels were present to warrant the testing.
• Thyroid Function tests - When thyroid function tests are billed at a greater frequency than the norm (two per year), the ordering physician’s documentation must support the medical necessity of this frequency.

One more requirement – signatures must meet the Medicare signature guidelines as described in the Medicare Program Integrity Manual, Chapter 3, section 3.3.2.4.

In summary, if the CERT contractor reviews your laboratory claims, be sure to:

1. Respond timely to the CERT medical record request
2. Providers have 75 days to submit requested records
3. CERT will accept late documentation
4. Include all necessary documentation
5. A signed order or documentation of intent to order labs signed by the ordering physician
6. Signatures must meet Medicare signature requirements
7. Documentation to support the medical necessity of the services
8. Lab results/reports
9. Appeal unfavorable decisions to your local MAC
10. Include additional supporting documentation

That “no signature” thing comes with a huge conditional “but”!

This material was compiled to share information. MMP, Inc. is not offering legal advice. Every reasonable effort has been taken to ensure the information is accurate and useful.

Yes, it is true that in this age of electronic health records (EHRs) that most Physician notes are no longer written with a pen. However, in the January 2015 release of the Medicare Quarterly Compliance Newsletter, there are two Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT) review findings that share the denial commonality of “the physician’s failure to document a reasonable expectation that the beneficiary would require a hospital stay that would cross 2 or more midnights.” So hand written or electronic, it is a fact that the denials were due to the Physician’s pen.

First, for those that may still be unfamiliar with this newsletter, it is a resource provided by the CMS to serve as an “educational product, to help providers understand the major findings identified by MACs, Recovery Auditors, Program Safety Contractors, Zone Program Integrity Contractors, the Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT) review contractor and other governmental organizations, such as the Office of Inspector General.” If you are interested in viewing past issues, the CMS maintains a Newsletter Archive of all of the newsletters to date.

The January edition of the newsletter includes findings from the Office of Inspector General (OIG), Recovery Auditor and CERT. This article focuses on two of the CERT findings.

Surgical Procedures Related to Hemodialysis being billed as an Inpatient
Provider Types Affected: Physicians and Hospitals

Background

Placement of an arteriovenous fistula (AVF) is the best option for beneficiaries requiring hemodialysis for end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The procedure is typically an outpatient procedure. “Inpatient hospital admission is appropriate when the beneficiary has some other acute problem requiring inpatient care or when a serious post-operative complication arises.”

Medicare payment to a hospital for surgical procedures includes the procedure itself and all normal post-op recovery and monitoring even if the monitoring extends overnight. Also, hemodialysis and a beneficiary’s need for chronic hemodialysis “does not justify an inpatient hospital admission for a vascular access-related procedure.”

Review Finding

Most improper payments identified by the CERT were due to the hospital inappropriately billing Medicare for the surgery and post-op care as an inpatient hospital admission.

Denial due to the Physician’s Pen

The CERT asserted that the most common denial for an inpatient hospitalization spanning less than 2 midnights “is the physician’s failure to document a reasonable expectation that the beneficiary would require a hospital stay that would cross 2 or more midnights.”

What You Should Know

“Physicians do not need to include a separate attestation of the expected length of stay; rather, this information may be inferred from the physician’s standard medical documentation, such as his or her plan of care, treatment orders, and physician’s notes. Expectation of time and the determination of the underlying need for medical care at the hospital are supported by complex medical factors such as history and comorbidities, the severity of signs and symptoms, current medical needs, and the risk of an adverse event, which are expected to be documented in the physician’s assessment and plan of care.”

The 2 Midnight Rule and Elective Procedures
Provider Types Affected: Physicians Facilities and Hospitals

Background

The 2014 IPPS Final Rule (CMS-1599-F) 2-Midnight Rule provision maintains that an inpatient admission and payment under Medicare Part A is generally appropriate when the physician:

1. “Expects the beneficiary to require a stay that crossed at least two midnights; and
2. Admits the beneficiary to the hospital based upon that expectation.”

Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) have been performing reviews under the Probe and Educate Program that began with admissions on or after October 1, 2013 and is currently set to end on March 31, 2015.

This review focuses on the review findings “as they pertain to admissions for elective procedures.”

Exception to the 2 Midnight Rule and Unforeseen Circumstances

When the Expected Length of Stay was Less Than 2 Midnights

It would not be appropriate to admit a beneficiary as an inpatient when they present for an elective surgical procedure that is not designated as Inpatient Only by Medicare and the physician does not expect to keep the patient in the hospital beyond 2 midnights.

Contractors will deny this type of claim unless there is documentation in the record of an approved exception. Currently the only approved exception is “newly initiated mechanical ventilation (excluding anticipated intubations related to minor surgical procedures or other treatment).”

When the Expected Length of Stay was 2 or More Midnights

There are times when a physician expects a beneficiary to require a 2 midnight or longer hospitalization but due to unforeseen circumstance the stay is less than 2 midnights. CMS approved examples of unforeseen circumstances includes “unexpected death, transfer to another hospital, departure against medical advice, clinical improvement, and election of hospice care in lieu of continued treatment in the hospital.”

Denial due to the Physician’s Pen

The CERT again asserted in this review that the most common denial for an inpatient hospitalization spanning less than 2 midnights “is the physician’s failure to document a reasonable expectation that the beneficiary would require a hospital stay that would cross 2 or more midnights.”

Two examples of Medicare Part A Inpatient Denied Claims provided in this review include a vascular procedure where the documentation did not support the inpatient admission and a urologic procedure where there was no inpatient order and the documentation did not support a 2 midnight expectation.

What You Should Know

Just as in the first CERT review findings, this article asserts that what you should know is that “Physicians do not need to include a separate attestation of the expected length of stay; rather, this information may be inferred from the physician’s standard medical documentation, such as his or her plan of care, treatment orders, and physician’s notes. Expectation of time and the determination of the underlying need for medical care at the hospital are supported by complex medical factors such as history and comorbidities, the severity of signs and symptoms, current medical needs, and the risk of an adverse event, which are expected to be documented in the physician’s assessment and plan of care.”

I encourage you to take the time to read this entire newsletter as it provides the issues, what you should know as well as valuable links to resources to find more information about each review type.

Some people may not get their gift from Santa this Christmas. When I was a child, I was always told that Santa Claus would not come until I went to sleep. If the number of people having sleep study testing is any indication, a lot of people in the US are having trouble sleeping. An OIG audit reported that from 2005 to 2011, Medicare spending for polysomnography services rose from $407 million to $565 million, an increase of 39 percent.

Because of this dramatic increase in the volume of sleep studies, several Medicare review contractors have sleep studies and polysomnography as one of their review topics. Two such contractors are the Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT) reviewers and the Supplemental Medical Review Contractors (SMRC). (see the SMRC Polysomnography Project )

Medicare covers diagnostic testing of sleep disorders when the patient has symptoms or complaints of narcolepsy, sleep apnea, impotence or parasomnia. Polysomnography for chronic insomnia is not covered. (See Medicare Benefit Policy Manual, Chapter 15 section 70) There is also a National Coverage Determination (NCD 240.4.1) and several Local Coverage Determinations (LCDs) concerning the coverage requirements for sleep studies.

All reasonable and necessary diagnostic tests for the conditions listed above are covered when the following criteria are met:

• The clinic is either affiliated with a hospital or is under the direction and control of physicians. Diagnostic testing routinely performed in disorder clinics may be covered even in the absence of direct supervision by a physician;
• Patients are referred to the sleep disorder clinic by their attending physicians, and the clinic maintains a record of the attending physician’s order; and
• The need for diagnostic testing is confirmed by medical evidence, e.g. physician examination and laboratory tests.

Based on the findings from CERT reviews, discussed in the October 2014 Medicare Quarterly Compliance Newsletter, 97% of improper payments are due to insufficient documentation. So what do providers need to do to ensure they receive payment for their polysomnography services? Make sure the documentation in the medical record for sleep studies includes:

• A valid physician’s order for the diagnostic study or documentation to support the intent to order study (if there is no order, evidence of the intent to order PSG documented in the medical record can be accepted)
• A physician’s signature on the procedure note; and
• Clinical documentation to support the reason/need for the diagnostic study (e.g. documentation to support the fact that the beneficiary had symptoms and signs of sleep apnea).

You have to be good (and asleep) to get your presents from Santa, but you have to have complete and appropriate documentation to get your present (payment) from Medicare for sleep testing.

This material was compiled to share information. MMP, Inc. is not offering legal advice. Every reasonable effort has been taken to ensure the information is accurate and useful.

Having undergone back surgery at the age of twenty-seven, I would tell you that yes I needed that back surgery. Whether or not my chart demonstrated that need or not, who knows. That was then and this is now and in the current Medical Review Contractor environment, if the documentation in a medical record does not support the medical necessity of the procedure, claims submitted by hospitals and in some instances the surgeon can and are being denied.

There are countless types of back surgeries but for this article the focus is on documentation required to support the medical necessity of lumbar spinal fusions that code to DRGs 459 (Spinal Fusion Except Cervical with Major Co-morbidity or Complication) and DRG 460 (Spinal Fusion Except Cervical without Major Co-Morbidity or Complication).

Who is Looking?

The CMS Inpatient Hospital Reviews webpage indicates that despite the current Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) Probe & Educate Program, “MACs, Recovery Auditors and the Supplemental Medical Review Contractors will continue other types of inpatient hospital reviews” including “reviews for the medical necessity of a surgical procedure provided to a hospitalized beneficiary.”

MACs

Jurisdiction-N (J-N): First Coast Services Options, Inc.

First Coast is the MAC for Florida and in the absence of a National Coverage Determination (NCD) they were the first and to date the only MAC to have a Local Coverage Determination (LCD) for Spinal Fusions. LCD L32074: Lumber Spinal Fusion for Instability and Degenerative Disc Conditions had an original effective date for services performed on or after October 16, 2011.

Key LCD Guidance

• It is “when conservative therapy (non-surgical medical management) is unsuccessful after at least 3 to 12 months, depending on the diagnosis, lumbar spinal fusion may be considered for certain conditions.”
• “The hospital records are the primary source of information for the audit of hospital/procedure services. Therefore, any historical data supporting the medical necessity of the fusion (for example, duration and outcome of physiotherapy, injection therapy, anatomic factors influencing the decision for surgery, etc.) must be included in the inpatient medical record as noted in the history and physical examination, operative note and/or copies of office notes. For example, fusion of iatrogenic instability (i.e., surgical resection of facet as essential portion of the required decompression rendering an unstable segment) should be documented in a pre-operative note and/or an operative note.”
• “To meet Medicare’s reasonable and necessary (R&N) threshold for coverage of a procedure, the physician’s documentation for the case should clearly support both the diagnostic criteria for the indication (standard test results and/or clinical findings as applicable) and the medical need (the procedure does not exceed the medical need and is at least as beneficial as existing alternatives & the procedure is furnished with accepted standards of medical practice in a setting appropriate for the patient’s medical needs and condition). Lacking compelling arguments for an exception in the supporting documentation, the hospital (FISS claim) and physician services (MCS claim) can be denied.”
• Physician documentation must support the need for surgery and “must include the following:
• Office notes/hospital record, including history and physical by the attending/treating physician
• Documentation of the history and duration of unsuccessful conservative therapy (non-surgical medical management) when applicable. Failure of non-surgical medical management can be historical and does not have to be under the direction of the operating surgeon.
• Interpretation and reports for X-rays, MRI’s, CT’s, etc.,
• Medical clearance reports (as applicable)
• Documentation of smoking history, and that the patient has received counseling on the effects of smoking on surgical outcomes and treatment for smoking cessation if accepted (if applicable)
• Complete operative report outlining operative approach used and all the components of the spine surgery

Medical record documentation must be made available to Medicare upon request. When the documentation does not meet the criteria for the service(s) rendered or the documentation does not establish the medical necessity for the service(s), such service(s) will be denied as not reasonable and necessary under Section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act.”

Jurisdiction-11 (J-11) Palmetto GBA

Palmetto, the MAC for North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia posted the YouTube Presentation Clinical Updates: DRG 459, 406earlier this year on August 11th. The most common reason cited by Palmetto for denials was a lack of information in the medical record about the conservative care provided prior to the surgical intervention.

Palmetto goes on to list documentation examples of conservative treatment that when clearly documented may help support payment for spinal fusion-related hospital care. Physical therapy, joint injections, neurologic deficits and upper and lower extremity strength are just a few of the examples provided.

Cahaba GBA, the MAC for Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee, has on more than one occasion indicated that simply documenting “failed outpatient therapy” for a total joint replacement is not sufficient to support the surgery. Similarly, Palmetto notes in this presentation that “failed outpatient therapy, admit for spinal fusion” is not sufficient evidence of Medical Necessity for a spinal fusion.

Supplemental Medicare Review Contractor (SMRC)

Transmittal 508 had an Effective and Implementation date of April 8, 2014 and added the Supplemental Medicare Review Contractor (SMRC) to the already long list of “Review Contractors” (MACs, CERT, RAC, PSCs, and ZPICs) performing medical review activities.

Strategic Health Solutions, LLC was awarded the SMRC Contract and they have been busy this year fulfilling one of their primary tasks of “conducting medical review based on the analysis of national claims data versus data that is limited to a specific jurisdiction as performed by Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs).”

One such Project was a review of Medicare Part A Inpatient Services for Spinal Fusions. As part of the Project Background they noted that “analysis of Medicare claims data for calendar years 2012 and 2013 indicated a significant increase in billing and payment in Inpatient Hospitals Stays of Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG) Codes 459 (Spinal Fusion, except cervical spine, with major complications or comorbidities) and 460 (Spinal Fusion, except cervical spine, without major complications or comorbidities).”

The purpose of this project was to determine if claims had been appropriately adjudicated according to Medicare regulations and guidelines. At the end of the project 986 claims had been reviewed. Of those claims 589 were denied due to no response from the hospital and 374 claims were denied after review with a resultant overall Error Rate of 49%.

Project findings also included Specific Denial Reasons and Ways to Prevent Denials.

Denial Reasons

• Providers not responding to Additional Documentation Request (ADR) within the 45 day time frame
• Lack of documentation supporting the medical necessity of the procedure.
• Lack of documentation showing that conservative treatment was done prior to the surgical intervention.

Ways to Prevent Denials

• “Responding timely to SMRC ADR letters,
• Submit all documentation related to the services billed which support the medical necessity of services billed.”

Moving forward, hospitals need to be aware of NCD and LCD requirements to ensure records support the medical necessity of a procedure, be mindful of all of the Review Contractors that could be requesting records and submit requested information within the allowed time frame.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 2014 IPPS Final Rule placed a significant burden on hospitals by requiring that a Physician Certification be completed on ALL Medicare inpatient admissions. In their effort to achieve “policy goals with the minimum administrative requirement necessary,” CMS finalized the 2015 OPPS proposed changes to the physician certification process that only requires physician certification for long-stay and outlier cases.

Implications for Hospitals:

• The physician certification change does not change the fact that there must be a signed inpatient order prior to a beneficiary being discharged as a hospital Condition of Participation (CoP) & a requirement for payment for Medicare Part A Services.
• Physician documentation in the medical record (e.g., History & Physical, MD Progress Notes and Physician Orders) still must support the medical necessity for hospital care that is expected to span at least two midnights.

• For Medicare beneficiaries that reach a 20 day length of stay it will be important to make sure that the “physician certifies or recertifies the following:

1. (1)The reasons for either –
2. (i)Continued hospitalization of the patient for medical treatment or medically required diagnostic study; or
3. (ii)Special or unusual services for cost outlier cases (under the prospective payment system set forth in subpart F or part 412 of this chapter).
4. (2)The estimated time the patient will need to remain in the hospital.
5. (3)The plans for posthospital care, if appropriate.’

• The physician certification continues to be a requirement until January 1, 2015 and must include the following:
• Authentication of the Practitioner order prior to the beneficiary being discharged,
• The reason for inpatient services,
• The estimated time that the patient will require as an inpatient; and
• The plans for hospital care.

Final Rule Comments and Responses

• Comment: CMS indicates that several commenters “continued to disagree that CMS has the statutory authority to require signed admission orders for all inpatient cases.”
  
  Commenters further “argued that the continued requirement for admission orders is essentially the same as the certification requirement and stated that section 1814(a)(2) of the Act is explicit in requiring physician certification only for services “furnished over a period of time” and not for all services.”
  
  Response: Not surprising, CMS disagrees noting that, “While the inpatient admission order was a required component of the physician certification under our previous policy, the order and the physician certification do not serve identical policy goals under our proposal, which we are now finalizing. For all cases, a properly authorized and documented admission order is necessary because the admission order is integral to a clear regulatory definition of when and how a beneficiary becomes an inpatient.”

• Comment: There were also several commenters that requested that the timing of a signed admission order be by the time of billing as is permitted for Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs).
  
  Response: Again, not surprising, CMS disagrees and indicates that “we believe that, in most cases, matters relating to the determination of patient status should be resolved before discharge, due to the consequences that flow from such a determination. For example, whether services are billed under Medicare Part A or Part B can have a significant impact on a beneficiary’s financial liability. Therefore, we do not believe it is appropriate to change our existing policy which requires that inpatient orders be signed prior to discharge by a practitioner familiar with the case and authorized by the hospital to admit inpatients.”

• Comment: Several commenters also requested additional guidance around the required content and format of the physician certification statement.
  
  Response: CMS reiterates in the Final Rule that “the physician certification requirements at § 424.13 generally may be satisfied by elements routinely found in a patient’s medical record, such as progress notes. CMS does not require that a physician certification comply with a specific standard or format--only that it ensures that the conditions at § 424.13(a) were met. If the medical record adequately describes the reasons for continued hospitalization, the estimated time the patient is expected to require inpatient care, and discharge planning (where appropriate), and the medical record is signed by a physician involved with and responsible for the patient’s care, this would satisfy certification requirements.”

Final Rule

“We are finalizing the policy as proposed in the CY 2015 OPPS/ASC proposed rule, which limits the requirement for physician certification to long-stay (20 days or longer) and outlier cases”

“We are also are finalizing our proposed revision of paragraph (b) of § 424.13, without modification, to specify that certifications for long-stay cases must be furnished no later than 20 days into the hospital stay.”

For those interested, the Revision of the Requirements for Physician Certification of Hospital Inpatient Services Other Than Psychiatric Inpatient Services can be found on pages 901-912 of the Display Copy of the Final Rule.

Link to the Display Copy of the Final Rule: http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/HospitalOutpatientPPS/Hospital-Outpatient-Regulations-and-Notices-Items/CMS-1613-FC.html?DLPage=1&DLSort=2&DLSortDir=descending

This material was compiled to share information. MMP, Inc. is not offering legal advice. Every reasonable effort has been taken to ensure the information is accurate and useful.

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

What is Kwashiorkor?

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

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

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

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

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

Kwashiorkor and the OIG Work Plan

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

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

Key Takeaways from 2014 OIG Reports:

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

What Guidance is Available to Hospitals?

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

Coding Clinic

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

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

Consensus Statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medical Management Plus enjoys acknowledging the various healthcare professionals with whom we work during their designated annual recognition times. October is National Physical Therapy month and we thank all of those who work diligently in the physical therapy occupation to improve the health of their patients. In association with this recognition, here are some questions and answers related to Medicare therapy services.

1. If a patient in a hospital setting (observation or inpatient) receives therapy services, do you have to follow the Part B (general considered outpatient) therapy guidelines?
2. outpatients receiving observatipon services
3. inpatients whose inpatient admission does not meet criteria so only Part B services are billed, and
4. inpatients who only have Medicare Part B coverage (patient does not have Medicare Part A or Part A benefits are exhausted).
   The 2014 IPPS Final Rule states “we (CMS) believe we also must apply the therapy caps and all other Part B coverage and payment rules to hospital inpatient therapy services paid under Part B. Accordingly, (therapy services) billed to Medicare Part B, … will be subject to the Part B therapy caps …, the therapy caps exceptions process, the manual medical review process, and all other requirements for payment and coverage of therapy services under Part B (for example, functional status reporting requirements).”
5. Is a discharge summary required for all Medicare patients receiving outpatient therapy services?Yes, the Medicare Benefits Policy Manual, Chapter 15, Section 220.3 states:
   “The Discharge Note (or Discharge Summary) is required for each episode of outpatient treatment. … The discharge note shall be a progress report written by a clinician, and shall cover the reporting period from the last progress report to the date of discharge. In the case of a discharge unanticipated in the plan or previous progress report, the clinician may base any judgments required to write the report on the treatment notes and verbal reports of the assistant or qualified personnel.”
6. If a patient discontinues outpatient therapy unexpectedly, must you report a discharge functional limitation HCPCS (G) code and modifier? What do you do if the same patient later returns to continue therapy?
   
   Per MLN Matters Special Article SE 1307: “Discharge reporting is required at the end of the reporting episode or to end reporting on one functional limitation prior to reporting on another medically necessary functional limitation. The exception is in cases where the beneficiary discontinues therapy expectantly. When the beneficiary discontinues therapy expectantly, we encourage clinicians to include discharge reporting whenever possible on the claim for the final services of the therapy episode.
   
   When a beneficiary discontinues therapy without notice, and returns less than 60 calendar days from the last recorded DOS to receive treatment for:
7. the same functional limitation, the clinician must resume reporting following the reporting requirements outlined in the “Required Reporting of Functional Codes” subsection; or
8. a different functional limitation, the clinician must discharge the functional limitation that was previously reported and begin reporting on a different functional limitation at the next treatment DOS.
9. NOTE: A reporting episode will automatically be discharged when it has been 60 or more calendar days since the last recorded DOS.
10. Is it appropriate to use modifier 59 to by-pass CCI edits for therapy services that are performed during the same session but at separate times?
11. Yes, per the NCCI manual, “Some NCCI edits pair a “timed” CPT code with another “timed” CPT code or a non-timed CPT code. 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.”
12. Where can I find the information on the time reporting requirements for rehabilitative therapy services?
13. That information can be found in the,Medicare Claims Processing Manual, chapter 5 ,section 20.2and also -Medicare Therapy Billing Scenarios
14. Are Medicare contractors and affiliates still performing medical review of therapy services?
15. Yes, the RACs continue to perform manual medical review of therapy services exceeding the annual threshold amount and the OIG recently published areview of outpatient therapy services. Although this review focused on an independent therapy provider (not hospital outpatient), the findings are relevant to therapy in either setting. Findings included:
    
16. Plan of Care (POC) goals that were not measurable or pertinent to the patient’s functional limitation,
17. Problems with the therapist’s signature on the POC and treatment notes
18. Lack of specific skilled interventions in the treatment notes
19. Lack of documentation of time
20. Lack of medical necessity for therapy services
21. Progress notes not performed every 10th treatment day
22. Physician certifications not signed and/or dated
23. Other Medicare contractors such as the Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) and CERT reviewers may also review therapy records.

As always, therapists have more to worry about than just how their patients are progressing.

In this week’s article, we are featuring Neoplasms focusing mainly on the differences between ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM Coding Guidelines. There are only a few changes in the wording of the guidelines but there are several additional guidelines in ICD-10-CM. Only the differences in the two classification systems are listed below.

Unless otherwise indicated, these guidelines apply to all health care settings.‍

GUIDELINES COMPARISON

‍Primary malignant neoplasms overlapping site boundaries

A primary malignant neoplasm that overlaps two or more contiguous (next to each other) sites should be classified to the subcategory/code .8 ('overlapping lesion'), unless the combination is specifically indexed elsewhere.

For multiple neoplasms of the same site that are not contiguous such as tumors in different quadrants of the same breast, codes for each site should be assigned.

Malignant neoplasm of ectopic tissue

Malignant neoplasms of ectopic tissue are to be coded to the site of origin mentioned, e.g., ectopic pancreatic malignant neoplasms involving the stomach are coded to pancreas, unspecified (C25.9).

The neoplasm table in the Alphabetic Index should be referenced first. However, if the histological term is documented, that term should be referenced first, rather than going immediately to the Neoplasm Table, in order to determine which column in the Neoplasm Table is appropriate.

EXAMPLE

If the documentation indicates “adenoma,” refer to the term in the Alphabetic Index to review the entries under this term and the instructional note to “see also neoplasm, by site, benign.” The table provides the proper code based on the type of neoplasm and the site. It is important to select the proper column in the table that corresponds to the type of neoplasm. The Tabular List should then be referenced to verify that the correct code has been selected from the table and that a more specific site code does not exist.

See Section I.C.21. Factors influencing health status and contact with health services, Status, for information regarding Z15.0, codes for genetic susceptibility to cancer.

 ‍

GUIDELINES COMPARISON

‍Additional guidelines in ICD-10-CM

2.i) Malignancy in two or more noncontiguous sites

A patient may have more than one malignant tumor in the same organ. These tumors may represent different primaries or metastatic disease, depending the site. Should the documentation be unclear, the provider should be queried as to the status of each tumor so that the correct codes can be assigned.

2.j) Disseminated malignant neoplasm, unspecified

Code C80.0, Disseminated malignant neoplasm, unspecified, is for use only in those cases where the patient has advanced metastatic disease and no known primary or secondary sites are specified. It should not be used in place of assigning codes for the primary site and all known secondary sites.

2.k) Malignant neoplasm without specification of site

Code C80.1, Malignant (primary) neoplasm, unspecified, equates to Cancer, unspecified. This code should only be used when no determination can be made as to the primary site of a malignancy. This code should rarely be used in the inpatient setting.

2.l) Sequencing of neoplasm codes

2.l.1) Encounter for treatment of primary malignancy

If the reason for the encounter is for treatment of a primary malignancy, assign the malignancy as the principal/first-listed diagnosis. The metastatic sites.

2.l.2) Encounter for treatment of secondary malignancy

When an encounter is for a primary malignancy with metastasis and treatment is directed toward the metastatic (secondary) site(s) only, the metastatic site(s) is designated as the principal/first-listed diagnosis. The primary malignancy is coded as an additional code.

2.l.3) Malignant neoplasm in a pregnant patient

When a pregnant woman has a malignant neoplasm, a code from subcategory O9A.1-, Malignant neoplasm complicating pregnancy, childbirth, and the puerperium, should be sequenced first, followed by the appropriate code from Chapter 2 to indicate the type of neoplasm.

2.l.4) Encounter for complication associated with a neoplasm

When an encounter is for management of a complication associated with a neoplasm, such as dehydration, and the treatment is only for the complication, the complication is coded first, followed by the appropriate code(s) for the neoplasm.

The exception to this guideline is anemia. When the admission/encounter is for management of an anemia associated with the malignancy, and the treatment is only for anemia, the appropriate code for the malignancy is sequenced as the principal or first-listed diagnosis followed by code D63.0, Anemia in neoplastic disease.

2.l.5) Complication from surgical procedure for treatment of a neoplasm

When an encounter is for treatment of a complication resulting from a surgical procedure performed for the treatment of the neoplasm, designate the complication as the principal/first-listed diagnosis. See guideline regarding the coding of a current malignancy versus personal history to determine if the code for the neoplasm should also be assigned.

2.l.6) Pathologic fracture due to a neoplasm

When an encounter is for a pathological fracture due to a neoplasm, and the focus of treatment is the fracture, a code from subcategory M84.5, Pathological fracture in neoplastic disease, should be sequenced first, and followed by the code for the neoplasm.

If the focus of treatment is the neoplasm with an associated pathological fracture, the neoplasm code should be sequenced first, followed by a code from M84.5 for the pathological fracture.

2.m. Current malignancy versus personal history of malignancy

When a primary malignancy has been excised but further treatment, such as an additional surgery for the malignancy, radiation therapy or chemotherapy is directed to that site, the primary malignancy code should be used until treatment is completed.

When a primary malignancy has been previously excised or eradicated from its site, there is no further treatment (of the malignancy) directed to that site, and there is no evidence of any existing primary malignancy, a code from category Z85, Personal history of malignant neoplasm, should be used to indicate the former site of the malignancy.

See Section I.C.21. Factors influencing health status and contact with health services, History (of)

2.n. Leukemia, Multiple Myeloma, and Malignant Plasma Cell Neoplasms inremission versus personal history

The categories for leukemia, and category C90, Multiple myeloma and malignant plasma cell neoplasms, have codes indicating whether or not the leukemia has achieved remission.

There are also codes Z85.6, Personal history of leukemia, and Z85.79, Personal history of other malignant neoplasms of lymphoid, hematopoietic and related tissues.

If the documentation is unclear, as to whether the leukemia has achieved remission, the provider should be queried.

See Section I.C.21. Factors influencing health status and contact with health services, History (of)

2.o. Aftercare following surgery for neoplasm

See Section I.C.21. Factors influencing health status and contact with health services, Aftercare

2.p. Follow-up care for completed treatment of a malignancy

See Section I.C.21. Factors influencing health status and contact with health services, Follow-up

2.q. Prophylactic organ removal for prevention of malignancy

See Section I.C. 21, Factors influencing health status and contact with health services, Prophylactic organ removal

NOTE FROM AUTHOR

Notice the dashes (-) in the neoplasm table below:

Note: Codes listed with a dash (-), following the code, have a required additional character for laterality. The tabular must be reviewed for the complete code.

Example: Adrenal cortex (C74.0-) requires a fifth digit to determine right, left, or unspecified adrenal cortex for code completion.

If you haven’t done so already, MMP strongly encourages you to review all of the ICD-10-CM Coding Guidelines for each chapter. Often, we tend to use our memory when utilizing the guidelines and a refresher just might be helpful. You may be amazed at the guidelines that you remember and those you may have forgotten.

This material was compiled to share information. MMP, Inc. is not offering legal advice. Every reasonable effort has been taken to ensure the information is accurate and useful.

Resources:

AHIMA ICD-10-CM Training Manual

ICD-10-CM Coding Book by Ingenix