Knowledge Base Category -

For those of you that do not live in the state of Alabama it is hard to comprehend just how big college football is in this state. When I was new to the state one of the first questions people would ask is “which team are you for?” As a transplant from “up north,” (Tennessee), the obvious answer for me was neither.

In the world of Medicare and Acute Care Hospitals one main question that keeps being asked is, “are you an inpatient or an outpatient.” And for the Medicare beneficiary that has spent zero or one midnight in a hospital bed, though the answer will ultimately be inpatient or outpatient, it is not always an obvious answer.

The Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT) Program is used to calculate the improper payment estimate for the Medicare Fee-for-Service Program. Each November, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) publishes the improper payment rate in the Agency Financial Report at www.hhs.gov/afr. CMS later publishes more detailed information in an annual Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) Improper Payments Report and Appendices. This article will focus on why patient status for zero and one day lengths of stay remains a focus, who is keeping a close eye on this dilemma and resources for you to help assess this patient population in your hospital.

Why Zero and One Day Inpatient Lengths of Stay Continues to be a Focus?

“Are you and Inpatient or Outpatient” still being a question for zero and 1 midnight hospitalizations is best demonstrated in the Appendices table Projected Improper Payments by Length of Stay. This table was new to the Appendices in 2014 and again appears in the 2015 report. Depicted below is a compare of data from the 2014 table and 2015 table. While the improper payment rate dropped 9.3% it is this group of claims that continue to have the highest error ate.

Table 1: “Projected Improper Payments by Length of Stay” 2014 to 2015 Compare

‍Who is Monitoring for Compliance with Patient Status Assignment?

Beneficiary and Family Centered Care (BFCC) QIOs and Recovery Auditors

HHS indicated in the FY 2015 Agency Financial Report that they are committed to reducing improper payments in the Medicare FFS program. One of the five corrective actions they believe will have a considerable effect in preventing and reducing improper payments is the update to the “Two Midnight” rule in the CY 2016 OPPS Final Rule. At the same time they announced the following two changes in their education and enforcement strategies.

• “Beginning on October 1, 2015, the Quality Improvement Organizations (QIOs) assumed responsibility to conduct initial patient status review of providers to determine the appropriateness of Part A payment for short stay inpatient hospital claims. From October 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015, short stay inpatient hospital reviews conducted by the QIOs will be based on Medicare’s current payment policies.
• Beginning on January 1, 2016, QIOs and Recovery Audit Contractors (RACs) will conduct patient status reviews in accordance with policy changes finalized in the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System rule (CMS-1613-P) and effective in calendar year 2016. Effective January 1, 2016, RACs may conduct patient status reviews only for those providers that have been referred by the QIO as exhibiting persistent noncompliance with Medicare payment policies.”

To learn more about the transition of patient status reviews, you can:

• Read a related article at http://www.mmplusinc.com/news-articles/item/two-midnight-rule-once-again-to-be-or-not-to-be;or
• Join us for our 2016 Medicare Updates Webinar tomorrow afternoon.

Office of Inspector General

• FY 2014 and 2015 Work Plans: Inpatient Admission Criteria (OEI; 00-00-00000)

With the implementation of the “Two Midnight” Rule, the OIG added new inpatient admission criteria to the Work Plan in FY 2014 and 2015. This issue was focused on determining the impact of the new admission criteria on hospital billing, Medicare payments, and beneficiary payments. It also was focused on determining how billing varied among hospitals in FY 2014. This focus was based on the fact that “previous OIG work identified millions of dollars in overpayments to hospitals for short inpatient stays that should have been billed as outpatient stays. Beginning in FY 2014, new criteria state that physicians should admit for inpatient care those beneficiaries who are expected to need at least 2 nights of hospital care (known as the “two midnight policy””). Beneficiaries whose care is expected to last fewer than 2 nights should be treated as outpatients. The criteria represent a substantial change in the way hospitals bill for inpatient and outpatient stays.”

• FY 2016 Work Plan: Hospitals’ use of outpatient and inpatient stays under Medicare’s two-midnight rule (OEI; 02-15-00020)

With hospitals now entering into their third fiscal year under the “Two Midnight” Policy, as part of the FY 2016 Work Plan the OIG will “determine how hospitals’ use of outpatient and inpatient stays changed under Medicare’s two-midnight rule, as well as how Medicare and beneficiary payments for these stays changed, by comparing claims for hospital stays in the year prior to the effective date of the two-midnight rule to stays in the year following the effective date of that rule. We will also determine the extent to which the use of outpatient and inpatient stays varied among hospitals. CMS implemented the two-midnight rule on October 1, 2013. This rule represents a substantial change to the criteria that hospital physicians are expected to use when deciding whether to admit beneficiaries as inpatients or treat them as outpatients.”

Hospital Zero and One Day Inpatient Stay Volume

The CERT, OIG, BFCC-QIOs and potentially the Recovery Auditors are monitoring hospital’s compliance with the “Two-Midnight” policy by auditing zero and one midnight inpatient claims. But, do you know how this specific patient volume has changed where you work?

PEPPER Report

One source available to IPPS Participating Hospitals is the Program for Evaluating Payment Patterns Electronic Report (PEPPER). In the PEPPER User’s Guide, the OIG encourages hospitals to develop and implement a compliance program and conduct regular audits as a part of this program to ensure charges for Medicare services have been correctly documented and billed. They note that the PEPPER “can help guide the hospital’s auditing and monitoring activities.”

This report focuses on Medicare severity diagnosis related groups (DRGs) and discharges at risk for improper payment due to billing, coding and/or admission necessity.” One-day and Same-day Stays for Medical and Surgical DRGs are target areas in the report. A hospital is compared to its state, Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) Jurisdiction and the Nation for each target area.

The tables below compare the Nationals, J-J MAC Jurisdiction (Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee) and Alabama’s 80th Percentile for the 3rd quarter (April – June) of the Fiscal Year prior to implementation of the “Two-Midnight” Policy (2013), one year after implementation (2014) and the most current 3rd quarter fiscal year data (2015).

The PEPPER provides the following suggested interventions for Hospitals that are High Outliers:

“This could indicate that there are unnecessary admissions related to inappropriate use of admission screening criteria or outpatient observation. A sample of same- and/or one-day stay cases should be reviewed to determine if inpatient admission was necessary or if care could have been provided more efficiently on an outpatient basis (e.g., outpatient observation). Hospitals may generate data profiles to identify same- and/or one-day stays sorted by DRG, physician or admission source to assist in identification of any patterns related to same- and/or one-day stays. Hospitals may also wish to identify whether patients admitted for same- and/or one- day stays were treated in outpatient, outpatient observation or the emergency department for one or more nights prior to the inpatient admission. Hospitals should not review same- and/or one- day stays that are associated with procedures designated by CMS as “inpatient only.”

RealTime Medicare Data

Another source that can assist you is our sister company RealTime Medicare Data (RTMD). RTMD collects over 680 million Medicare claims annually from 23 states and the District of Columbia, and allows for searching of over 5.1 billion historical claims. In response to the “Two-Midnight” Policy, RTMD has available in their suite of Inpatient Hospital reports a One Day Stay Report. This report enables a hospital to view one day stay paid claims data by DRG and Physician to direct where audits should be focused. For further information on all that RTMD has to offer you can visit their website at www.rtmd.org.

Resources

Department of Health and Human Services Fiscal Year 2015 Agency Financial Report: http://www.hhs.gov/afr/fy-2015-hhs-agency-financial-report.pdf

The Supplementary Appendices for the Medicare Fee-for-Services 2015 Improper Payments Report: https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Monitoring-Programs/Medicare-FFS-Compliance-Programs/CERT/CERT-Reports-Items/Downloads/AppendicesMedicareFee-for-Service2015ImproperPaymentsReport.pdf

FY 2016 OIG Work Plan: http://oig.hhs.gov/reports-and-publications/archives/workplan/2016/oig-work-plan-2016.pdf

Short-term Acute Care Program for Evaluating Payment Patterns Electronic Report User’s Guide 18th Edition: https://www.pepperresources.org/Portals/0/Documents/PEPPER/ST/STPEPPERUsersGuide_Edition18.pdf

With the New Year looming, it is hard to believe that is has almost been a year since the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced for the first time in the history of the Medicare program explicit goals for alternative payment models and value-based payments.

Alternative Payment Model Goals

By the end of 2016 have 30% of Medicare payments in alternative payment models.

By the end of 2018 have 50% of Medicare payments in alternative payment models.

Value Based Payment Goals

By 2016 have 85% of Medicare fee-for-service payments tied to quality of value.

By 2018 have 90% of Medicare fee-for-service payments tied to quality of value.

On November 25th, Patrick Conway, M.D., MSc, Acting Deputy Administrator and Chief Medical Officer, CMS announced in The CMS Blog an updated 2016 HHS National Quality Strategy (NQS) indicating that “the main purposes of the 2016 CMS Quality Strategy update are to achieve the broad aims of the NQS and to apply the Administration’s strategy for shifting Medicare payments from volume to value.”

National Quality Strategy: By the Numbers

Three Aims

1. Better Care
2. Healthier People, Healthier Communities
3. Smarter Spending

Six Priorities

1. Make Care Safer by Reducing Harm Caused in the Delivery System
2. Strengthen Person and Family Engagement as Partners in their Care
3. Promote Effective Communication and Coordination of Care
4. Promote Effective Prevention and Treatment of Chronic Disease
5. Work with Communities to Promote Best Practices of Health Living
6. Make Care Affordable

Four Foundational Principles

1. Eliminating racial and ethnic disparities,
2. Strengthening infrastructure and data systems across all settings of care,
3. Enabling local innovations, and
4. Fostering learning organizations.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has made the six priorities goals in the CMS Quality Strategy. They identified the Four Foundational Principles to help guide their action towards meeting these goals and believe that incorporating these “will drive change to improve quality and cost of care for all. “

CMS Quality Strategy Goals: A Call to Action

To advance the three aims, the CMS Quality Strategy Goals reflect the six priorities for the NQS. There are innumerable activities being implemented to achieve this vision. The remainder of this article will provide you a glimpse of what is being done to achieve each of these Goals.

Goal 1: Making Care Safer by Reducing Harm Caused in the Delivery System

Hospital-Acquired Conditions (HACs)

On December 3rd the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) announced that data from the recent report Saving Lives and Saving Money: Hospital-Acquired Conditions Update Interim Data from National Efforts to Make Care Safer, 2010-2014 shows between 2010 and 2014:

• An estimated 87,000 fewer patients died from a HAC,
• The overall incidence of HACs has been reduced by 2.1 million for an estimated savings of $19.8 billion; and
• In 2014 alone, 37,000 fewer patients died than would have died if the rate of adverse events had remained at the 2010 level. Most of the deaths averted resulted from a reduction in rates of pressure ulcers and adverse drug events (ADEs).

HAC Reduction Program

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) established the HAC Reduction Program as an incentive for hospitals to reduce HACs. CMS released the FY 2016 results for the Program on December 10th and they estimate that the total savings in FY 2016 will be $364 million.

Nationwide 758 out of 3,308 eligible hospitals are in the worst performing quartile and will have a one percent payment reduction applied to all Medicare discharges occurring between October 1, 2015 and September 30, 2016. The number of hospitals being penalized is up from the 724 hospitals subject to a payment reduction in FY 2015.

In the FY 2016 HAC Reduction Program, hospitals with a Total HAC Score greater than 6.7500 are subject to a payment reduction. You can find your hospital Total HAC Score at https://www.medicare.gov/hospitalcompare/HAC-reduction-program.html.

Goal 2: Strengthen Person and Family Engagement as Partners in their Care

Everyone with Diabetes Counts (EDC) Program

The Quality Innovation Network Quality Improvement Organizations (QIN-QIOs) are administering the EDC Program. This program offers evidence-based diabetes self-management training and is designed to improve health outcomes and quality of life among disparate and underserved Medicare populations.

Goal 3: Promote Effective Communication and Coordination of Care

CMS cites strengthening the hospital Conditions of Participation (CoP) for Discharge Planning and Bundled Payment Initiatives as two examples to further this goal.

Discharge Planning CoP

On October 29, 2015 CMS announced proposed revisions to the discharge planning requirements that hospitals, including long-term care hospitals (LTCHs), Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities (IRFs), Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs), and Home Health (HH) agencies must meet in order to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid program. They are currently soliciting comments from the healthcare community. You can read more about this in a related article at http://www.mmplusinc.com/news-articles/item/october-29-2015-cms-releases-a-discharge-planning-proposed-rule.

Bundled Payment Initiatives

CMS recently finalized the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) Model which is set to begin on April 1, 2016 and run through December 31, 2020. CMS expects this model to result in $343 million in savings to Medicare over the 5 performance years. Notable about this model is that for the first time, selected hospitals are required to participate. You can read more about this in a related article at http://www.mmplusinc.com/news-articles/item/comprehensive-care-for-joint-replacement-model-finalized.

Goal 4: Promote Effective Prevention and Treatment of Chronic Disease

CMS indicates that more than 133 million Americans report at least one chronic condition, while many have multiple chronic conditions (MCC) affecting them at the same time. For example a person with diabetes and heart disease has multiple chronic conditions.

Million Hearts® Initiative

CMS cites being a lead partner in the Million Hearts® Initiative as one way they are promoting effective prevention and treatment of chronic disease. This initiative seeks to reduce the incidence of heart attacks and strokes by 1 million by 2017. The Million Hearts® website provides educational material for you and your patients, access to data and research, proven techniques to prevent and treat heart attack and stroke and education regarding risks, costs and consequences and ways to prevent heart disease and strokes.

Goal 5: Work with Communities to Promote Best Practices of Health Living

CMS is committed to partnering with key stakeholders to link Medicare, Medicaid, and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) beneficiaries, and the providers that serve them, with communities and resources that support good health. One specific federal effort cited by CMS is the WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (FMNP)

The FMNP is associated with the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) and was established by Congress in 1992 “to provide fresh, unprepared, locally grown fruits and vegetables to WIC participants, and to expand the awareness, use of, and sales at farmers’ markets.”

Goal 6: Make Care Affordable

Hospital Value Based Purchasing Program

This program adjusts hospital payments for inpatient services based on hospitals’ performance on measures that fall into a number of domains. For FY 2016 this program is funded by a 1.75% reduction from participating hospitals’ base operating diagnosis-related group (DRG) payments. The resulting funds are redistributed to hospitals based on their Total Performance Score (TPS).

CMS added the following measures for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016:

• IMM-2, Influenza Immunization (Clinical Process of Care domain)
• CAUTI, Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection (Outcome domain)
• SSI, Surgical Site Infection Colon Surgery & Abdominal Hysterectomy (Outcome domain)

For those interested in learning more, CMS held a National Provider call on May 12, 2015 to provide an overview of all Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting and Value-Based Purchasing Programs. Slides, an audio recording and written transcript are available on the CMS website.

One last valuable resource to find out “where we are now” is the CMS Innovation Center. The Innovation Center has a growing portfolio testing various payment and service delivery models that aim to achieve better care for patients, better health for our communities, and lower costs through improvement for our health care system. I encourage you to visit their website to find out where and what Innovation is happening in your state.

“He’s making a list and he’s checking it twice.” Are you a list maker like Santa? If so, you probably have more lists at this time of the year than usual – gift lists, shopping lists, decorating to-do lists, and family/social gatherings lists. Can you handle one more list? There is a list of requirements and information for Medicare coverage of lung cancer screening by Low Dose CT.

Medicare recently added a new preventive service for Medicare beneficiaries through the National Coverage Determination (NCD) process that allows coverage of additional preventive services that are reasonable and necessary for the prevention or early detection of illness or disability. Medicare now covers lung cancer screening by Low Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT). This is an important preventive service since lung cancer was expected to claim over 158,000 lives in the United States in 2015.

A new HCPCS procedure code to bill Medicare for this service was finally announced in the 2016 OPPS Final Rule. Providers also need to carefully review the numerous requirements of the NCD and the claim processing instructions. Medicare summarizes all of these requirements in MLN Matters Article MM9246. Review our list of 8 issues concerning LDCT lung cancer screening to make sure you know what needs to be checked off when providing this service.

1.Dates

Lung cancer screening by LDCT is covered annually for services performed on and after February 5, 2015. The implementation date is January 4, 2016. This means Medicare will begin processing claims with the new HCPCS codes on and after this date. Timely filing limits will apply so claims must be submitted within one year of the date of service. So if your facility began providing this service last February, you will need to hurry after the first of 2016 to get your claims to Medicare before your time runs out.

2.Patient Coverage Criteria

• Age 55-77 years
• Asymptomatic (no signs or symptoms of lung cancer)
• Tobacco smoking history of at least 30 pack-years (one-pack year = smoking one pack (20 cigarettes) per day for one year)
• Current smoker or one who has quit within last 15 years
• Receives a written order provided at
• a lung cancer screening counseling and shared decision making visit for the first screening
• any appropriate visit with a practitioner for subsequent screening

3.Written Order Requirements

Written orders for lung cancer LDCT screenings must be appropriately documented in the beneficiary’s medical records, and must contain the following information:

• Patient’s date of birth
• Number of actual pack-year smoking history
• Current smoking status and the number of years since quitting for former smokers
• Statement that patient is asymptomatic
• NPI of ordering practitioner

4.Counseling and Shared Decision Making Visit

The lung cancer screening counseling and shared decision making visit may be billed by a hospital on a type of bill 12x, 13x, or 85x (CAH). The counseling visit must:

• Be furnished by a physician or qualified non-physician practitioner (meaning a Physician Assistant (PA), Nurse Practitioner (NP), or Clinical Nurse Specialist (CNS) and
• Include all of the following elements:
• Determination of beneficiary eligibility including age, absence of signs or symptoms of lung cancer, a specific calculation of cigarette smoking pack-years; and if a former smoker, the number of years since quitting;
• Shared decision-making, including the use of one or more decision aids, to include benefits and harms of screening, follow-up diagnostic testing, over-diagnosis, false positive rate, and total radiation exposure;
• Counseling on the importance of adherence to annual lung cancer LDCT screening, impact of co-morbidities, and ability or willingness to undergo diagnosis and treatment;
• Counseling on the importance of maintaining cigarette smoking abstinence if former smoker; or the importance of smoking cessation if current smoker and, if appropriate, furnishing of information about tobacco cessation interventions; and,
• If appropriate, the furnishing of a written order for lung cancer screening with LDCT.

5.Other Coverage Requirements

The NCD also contains specific requirements for eligibility criteria for the reading radiologist and the radiology imaging facility. The imaging facility criteria include data submission to a CMS-approved registry.

6.HCPCS Codes

• G0296 –Counseling visit to discuss need for lung cancer screening (LDCT) using low dose CT scan (service is for eligibility determination and shared decision making)
• G0297 –Low dose CT scan (LDCT) for lung cancer screening

7.Diagnosis and Diagnosis Code Required for Coverage

Personal history of tobacco use/personal history of nicotine dependence

• ICD-9 code V15.82 (for dates of service from February 5 – September 30, 2015)
• ICD-10 code Z87.891 (for dates of service on and after October 1, 2015)

8.Hospital Payment and Waiver of Co-insurance/Deductible

Lung cancer screening provided in a hospital outpatient setting is paid under OPPS and there is no beneficiary deductible or co-payment. The unadjusted Medicare payment amount for 2016 is $69.65 for G0296 (counseling visit) and $112.49 for G0297 (LDCT scan).

9.Frequency

LDCT for lung cancer screening is covered once per year. At least 11 full months must elapse from the date of the last screening.

The links to the actual transmittals that are listed in the MLN Matters Article do not appear to be working. You can find the full transmittals at: CMS Transmittal R3374CP and CMS Transmittal R185NCD . So get busy checking off that list! 

The Final Rule for the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) Model was released on November 16, 2015 and published in the Federal Register on November 24, 2015. Unlike the proposed January 1st start date, the final rule start date is April 1, 2016 and is most definitely not an April Fool’s Day Joke. The model will include five (5) Performance Periods that will run through December 31, 2020. CMS has indicated that through an impact analysis they “expect the CJR model to result in savings to Medicare of $343 million over the 5 performance years of the model.”

Participating hospitals need to familiarize themselves with several new terms specific to the CJR Model as provided in Table 1.

Table 1: Key CJR Model Terms and Acronyms

‍CJR Model: Key Aspects

• For the first time, hospitals in selected MSAs are required to participate. CMS indicates that they “have designed the CJR model to require participation by hospitals in order to avoid the selection bias inherent to any model in which providers may choose whether to participate. Such a design will allow for testing of how a variety of hospitals will fare under an episode payment approach, leading to a more robust evaluation of the model's effect on all types of hospitals.”

• Eligible beneficiaries who elect to receive care at these hospitals will automatically be included in the model. Patients cannot opt out of this model.

• Participant hospitals will be required to supply beneficiaries with written information regarding the design and implications of this model as well as their rights under Medicare, including their right to use their provider of choice.

• Unlike the Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) and Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) 30 Day Readmission Measure, this model will include LEJR procedures that result from hip fracture treatment rather than limiting the model conditions to only elective THA and TKA.

• CMS finalized the inclusion of any lower extremity joint procedure that results in discharge from MS-DRG 469 or 470, including ankle replacement; lower leg, ankle, and thigh reattachment; and hip resurfacing procedures. CSM acknowledges that while this volume of patients is likely to be small at any one hospital, these beneficiaries may also benefit from care redesign resulting in improved care coordination and quality that are goals of this model.

Payment

• During the performance years CMS will continue paying hospitals and other providers and suppliers according to the usual Medicare FFS payment systems.

• The Repayment requirement will not begin until Performance Year 2 (Episodes that end between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2017).

• After the completion of a performance year, the Medicare claims payments for services furnished to the beneficiary during the episode, based on claims data, will be combined to calculate an actual episode payment. The amount of this calculation, if positive, will be paid to the participant hospital. This payment will be called a reconciliation payment. If negative Medicare will require repayment of the difference between the actual episode payments and the CJR target price from a participant hospital if the CJR target price is exceeded.

• CMS will limit how much a hospital can gain or lose based on its actual episode payments relative to target prices.

Payment and Pricing: Link to Quality

Hospitals will be assigned a composite quality score annually based on their performance and improvement on the following 2 quality measures:

1. Hospital Level Risk Standardized Complication Rate (RSCR) Following Elective Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) and/or Total Knee Arthroplasty (TAK) measure (NQF #1550); and
2. Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) Survey measure (NQF #0166)

CMS intends to publicly report this information on the Hospital Compare website. Participating hospitals who successfully submit voluntary THA/TKA patient-reported outcomes and limited risk variable data will receive additional points for their composite quality score.

Program Waivers

“CMS finalized the proposal, without modification, that waivers of Medicare program rules would apply to the care of beneficiaries who are in CJR model episodes at the time the service is furnished to the beneficiary under the waiver, even if the episode is later canceled. This policy would include circumstances where a beneficiary's care is ultimately excluded from the CJR model due to a change in the beneficiary's coverage during the episode.”

CMS proposed and finalized three specific waivers of Medicare Program Rules. “The purpose of such flexibilities would be to increase LEJR episode quality and decrease episode spending or internal costs or both of providers and suppliers that results in better, more coordinated care for beneficiaries and improved financial efficiencies for Medicare, providers, and beneficiaries.”

• Home Visits Waiver
  CMS finalized their proposal, “without modification, to waive the "incident to" direct physician supervision requirement set forth at § 410.26(b)(5), to allow a CJR beneficiary who does not qualify for home health services to receive up to 9 post-discharge visits in his or her home or place of residence any time during the episode following discharge from an anchor hospitalization.”

• Billing and Payment for Telehealth Services Waiver
  CMS finalized without modification to waive the geographic site requirement and the originating site requirement to permit telehealth visits to originate in the beneficiary’s home or place of residence. Under this waiver, telehealth could not be a substitute for in-person home health services paid under the home health prospective payment system. Services must be furnished in accordance with all other Medicare coverage and payment criteria and the facility fee paid by Medicare to an originating site would be waived if the service was originated in the beneficiary’s home.

• Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) Waiver
  Beginning in performance year 2, the CJR model waives the SNF 3-day rule for coverage of a SNF stay following the anchor hospitalization. A condition to using this waiver is that the beneficiary must be transferred to SNFs rated 3-stars or higher for at least 7 of the previous 12 months on the CMS Nursing Home Compare website. CMS will post the list of qualified SNFs quarterly to the CMS website.

Beneficiary Choice and Beneficiary Notification

CMS finalized the proposal to require that participant hospitals notify beneficiaries of the requirements surrounding the model at the point of admission to the hospital. Additional detail to the content, timing and form of the notification specified in the final rule includes:

• Participant hospitals will be required to provide beneficiaries on admission with a general notice of the existence of the model and of certain beneficiary rights.

• “Participant hospitals must require as a condition of any sharing arrangement that the collaborators must notify beneficiaries of the existence of a sharing arrangement. We are modifying our regulations to specify that, in the case of physicians, this notification must occur at the point of the decision to proceed to surgery, or, in the case of other collaborators, prior to the furnishing of the first service provided by the collaborator that is related to the joint replacement.”

• As part of discharge planning, participant hospitals “must inform beneficiaries of all Medicare participating PAC providers/suppliers in an area but may identify those providers/suppliers that the hospital considers to be preferred…..the participant hospital must also as part of this specific second notice inform the beneficiary of providers/suppliers with whom a sharing arrangement exists.”

• Participant hospitals will be required to reference the most recently published CMS list of SNFs which qualify for the waiver of the 3-day rule.

Participant hospitals have from today until March 31, 2016 to plan for an April 1st, 2016 implementation date of this model. MMP strongly encourages participant hospitals to not only read the Final Rule but become very familiar with the information available on the CJR Web page.

Sometimes things in life are so complex that it becomes hard to understand them, let alone implement them or apply them in a practical manner. In healthcare, Medicare often seems to be the king of complexity. When reading Medicare regulations, sometimes the more you read, the more confused you become. You may find solace in this quote from Tom Peters, American author on business management practices – “If you’re not confused, you’re not paying attention.”

In August 2013, Medicare approved new coverage guidelines for the insertion of single and dual chamber permanent cardiac pacemakers. In summary, permanent pacemakers are covered for documented non-reversible symptomatic bradycardia due to either sinus node dysfunction or second and/or third degree atrioventricular block. National Coverage Determination (NCD) 20.8.3, as explained in MLN Matters Article MM9078 and the associated transmittals, also includes a list of conditions that are non-covered although some of these conditions will not prohibit coverage if the patient also has a covered condition (see – it’s already confusing). After a long wait, CMS finally released complex claims processing instructions for this NCD in February 2015. And they were complex – you must have one of these diagnosis codes, these diagnosis codes are ok but only with one of these other diagnosis codes, use the KX modifier on all claims, some coverage is at the discretion of the Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) – maybe too complex. Hospitals from all around the nation soon began reporting problems in getting their Medicare pacemaker claims to process.

Due to these claim processing issues, CMS rescinded and replaced the original transmittals on October 26, 2015. The revised transmittals instruct MACs to implement the NCD at the local level until CMS is able to revise the formal claims processing instructions. Providers may have to wait and see what edits, if any, their MACs put in place for these claims. However, all aspects of the NCD policy remain in effect.

So how should hospitals proceed in the mean time? Hospitals should

• Review and understand the pacemaker NCD,
• Only bill Medicare for permanent pacemaker insertion when the conditions of the policy are met,
• Submit claims with appropriate diagnosis and procedure codes,
• Seek guidance from your MAC about any other claim requirements,
• Monitor claims to make sure they are processing and paying appropriately and
• Watch for future communications from the MAC and/or CMS concerning claim requirements for pacemaker insertions.

Another complex NCD was also in the news recently. On October 30, 2015, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced 70 settlements with 457 hospitals in 43 states for more than $250 million related to cardiac devices that, according to the DOJ, were implanted in Medicare patients in violation of Medicare coverage requirements. This issue involved implantable cardioverter defibrillators, or ICDs. Per the DOJ announcement:

“Medicare coverage for the device, which costs approximately $25,000, is governed by a National Coverage Determination (NCD). The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services implemented the NCD based on clinical trials and the guidance and testimony of cardiologists and other health care providers, professional cardiology societies, cardiac device manufacturers and patient advocates. The NCD provides that ICDs generally should not be implanted in patients who have recently suffered a heart attack or recently had heart bypass surgery or angioplasty. The medical purpose of a waiting period -40 days for a heart attack and 90 days for bypass/angioplasty - is to give the heart an opportunity to improve function on its own to the point that an ICD may not be necessary. The NCD expressly prohibits implantation of ICDs during these waiting periods, with certain exceptions. The Department of Justice alleged that from 2003 to 2010, each of the settling hospitals implanted ICDs during the periods prohibited by the NCD.”

The lesson to be learned here is that your hospital, as a provider, must follow Medicare coverage requirements at the national (NCD) and local (LCD) level even when these requirements are complex, confusing, or just plain onerous. If your hospital fails to do so, it risks non-payment, recoupment, and/or penalties. 

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

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

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

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

STORYLINE

January 7, 2015

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

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

July 6, 2015

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

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

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

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

Will there be a Happy Ending?

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

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

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

‍ Resource

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

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

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

October 1, 1851: First Hawaiian stamp is issued.

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

October 1, 1890: Yosemite National Park forms.

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

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

October 1, 1955: “Honeymooners” premieres.

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

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

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

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

Documentation and Coding Adjustment

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

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

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

Finalized Changes to Specific MS-DRG Classifications for FY 2016

MDC 5: Diseases and Disorders of the Circulatory System

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

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

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

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

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

Spinal Fusion

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

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

MDC 14: Pregnancy, Childbirth and the Puerperium

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

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

Finalized Changes to the Postacute Care Transfer MS-DRGs

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) Final Rule builds on the CMS’s recurring theme of moving the health care system toward paying for quality rather than quantity as CMS indicates in a related Fact Sheet “the Administration has set measurable goals and a timeline to move the Medicare program, and the health care system at large, toward paying providers based on quality, rather than the quantity of care they give patients. The final rule includes policies that advance that vision and of several final rules that reflect a broader Administration-wide strategy to create a health care system that results in better care, smarter spending, and healthier people.”

This article highlights Fiscal Year 2016 IPPS Final Rule (CMS-1632-F) Payment Rate changes and changes to the Quality Programs.

Finalized Changes to Payment Rates for IPPS Participating Acute Care Hospitals

• Hospitals that successfully participate in the Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting (IQR) Program and are meaningful electronic health record (EHR) users will see a 0.9% increase in operating payments.
• Hospitals that do not successfully participate in the Hospital IQR Program and submit the required quality data will see a one-fourth reduction in their Market Basket update.
• Hospitals that are not meaningful EHR users will see a one-half reduction in their Market Basket update.
• Additional Potential Penalties
• Hospital Value Based Purchasing (VBP) Program: Hospitals will either receive an incentive bonus or a penalty potentially as high as 3%.
• Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP): Hospitals will be penalized up to 3% for excessive readmission rates.
• Hospital Acquired Condition (HAC) Reduction Program: 1% penalty for hospitals in the lowest performing quartile.

Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting (IQR) Program

Pneumonia Cohort Expanded

CMS finalized proposed cohort refinements to the following two previously adopted Pneumonia measures:

• The Hospital 30-Day All-Cause, Risk-Standardized Mortality Rate (RSMR) following Pneumonia Hospitalization measure
• The Hospital 30-Day All-Cause, Risk-Standardized Readmission Rate (RSRR) following Pneumonia Hospitalization measure

CMS defines “cohort” as the hospitalization, or “index admission,” that is included in each measure to determine if a patient died within 30 days of the index admission in the case of the Mortality Measure or if the patient was readmitted within 30 days in the case of the Readmission Measure.

For the FY 2017 payment determination and subsequent years the cohort for both measures has been expanded to include:

• Patients with a principal discharge diagnosis of pneumonia (the current reported cohort),
• Patients with a principal discharge diagnosis of aspiration pneumonia (new); and
• Patients with a principal discharge diagnosis of sepsis (excluding severe sepsis) with a secondary diagnosis of pneumonia coded as present on admission (POA).

More interesting than the actual cohort changes are the reasons cited by CMS for making the change.

• “Recent evidence has shown an increase in the use of sepsis and respiratory failure as principal diagnosis codes among patients hospitalized with pneumonia. Pneumonia patients with these principal diagnosis codes are not currently included in the measure cohort, and including them would better capture the complete patient population of a hospital with patients receiving clinical management and treatment for pneumonia.
• Second, “efforts to evaluate changes over time in pneumonia outcomes could be biased as coding practices change.”

CMS Adds Seven New Measures to the Hospital IQR Program

CMS finalized seven new measures for the FY 2018 and 2019 payment determinations and subsequent years. The following table highlights the new measures and the year the measure will be included in a hospital’s payment determination.

CMS Removes Nine Measures from the Hospital IQR Program

For the FY 2018 payment determination and subsequent years, CMS finalized the removal of the following nine chart-abstracted measures:

1. STK-01 Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis
2. STK-06 Discharged on Statin Medication*
3. STK-08 Stroke Education*
4. VTE-1 Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis*
5. VTE-2 Intensive Care Unit Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis*
6. VTE-3 Venous Thromboembolism Patients with Anticoagulation Overlap Therapy*
7. IMM-1 Pneumococcal Immunization
8. SCIP-Inf-4 Cardiac Surgery Patients with Controlled Postoperative Blood Glucose
9. AMI-7a Fibrinolytic Therapy Received Within 30 Minutes of Hospital Arrival*

Note: Measures with an asterisk (*) were finalized to be removed from chart abstraction but are being retained as Electronic Clinical Quality Measures (eCQM) for the FY 2018 payment determination and subsequent years as proposed.

Hospital Value Based Purchasing (VBP) Program

In the Final Rule CMS estimates that the total amount available for value-based incentive payments for FY 2016 is $1,499,107,502, based on the December 2014 update of the FY 2014 MedPAR file. This estimate will be updated for the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule, using the March 2015 update of the FY 2014 MedPAR file.

As required by section 1886(o)(7)(B) of the Act, incentive payments will be funded for FY 2016 through a reduction to the FY 2016 base operating DRG payment for each discharge of 1.75 percent.

CMS finalized the removal of two current measures effective with the FY 2018 program year.

• IMM-2 Influenza Immunization
  Note: CMS does believe that “this measure should continue to be part of the Hospital IQR Program measure set because it is the only measure that addresses the Best Practices to Enable Healthy Living goal in the CMS Quality Strategy and priority of the same name in the National Quality Strategy.”

• AMI-7a Fibrinolytic Therapy Received within 30 Minutes of Hospital Arrival

CMS finalized a New Care Coordination Measure for the FY 2018 Program Year.

• 3-Item Care Transition Measure (CTM-3) that will add the following three questions to the HCAHPS (Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems )Survey:

1. During this hospital stay, staff took my preferences and those of my family or caregiver into account in deciding what my health care needs would be when I left.
2. Strongly disagree
3. Disagree
4. Agree
5. Strongly Agree
   
   
6. When I left the hospital, I had a good understanding of the things I was responsible for in managing my health.
7. Strongly disagree
8. Disagree
9. Agree
10. Strongly Agree
11. When I left the hospital, I clearly understood the purpose for taking each of my medications.
12. Strongly disagree
13. Disagree
14. Agree
15. Strongly Agree
16. I was not given any medication when I left the hospital

Note: The CTM-3 measure was developed by Eric Coleman, MD, MPH, Professor of Medicine & Health at the Division of Health & Policy Research at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus. Dr. Coleman is the founder and director of The Care Transitions Program (www.caretransitions.org).

CMS indicated that they intend to propose in future rulemaking the inclusion of non-ICU locations in the Catheter Association Urinary Tract Infection (CAUTI) and Central Line-Associated Blood Stream Infection (CLABSI) measures beginning with the FY 2019 program year. “Selected ward (non-ICU) locations are defined as adult or pediatric medical, surgical, and medical/surgical wards [79 FY 50061; 78 FR 50787].”

CMS finalized a Hospital 30-day All-Cause, Risk-Standardized Mortality rate Following Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Hospitalization Measure for the FY 2021 Program Year.

CMS indicates that this measure “is appropriate for the Hospital VBP Program because it addresses a high volume, high cost condition, and chronic lower respiratory disease (including COPD) is the third leading cause of mortality in the United States. The measure aligns with the CMS Quality Strategy Goal of Effective Prevention and Treatment.”

Hospital Acquired Conditions (HAC) Reduction Program

Even though there were no proposals to add or remove measures for FY 2016, the CMS reminds readers that in the FY 2015 IPPS Final Rule they finalized the following measures for the FY 2016 Program:

• AHRQ PSI – 90 Composite

This measure currently consists of the following eight component indicators:             

• PSI-3 Pressure ulcer rate,
• PSI-6 Iatrogenic pneumothorax rate,
• PSI-7 Central venous catheter-related blood stream infections rate,
• PSI-8 Postoperative hip fracture rate,
• PSI-12 Perioperative pulmonary embolism or Deep vein thrombosis rate,
• PSI-13 Postoperative sepsis rate,
• PSI-14 Postoperative Wound dehiscence rate; and
• PSI-15 Accidental puncture and laceration rate.
• CDC Central Line-Associated Bloodstream infection (CLABSI),
• Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection (CAUTI); and
• Colon and Abdominal Hysterectomy Surgical Site Infection (SSI).

As part of the National Quality Foundation maintenance review process, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is considering adding the following to the PSI Composite measure:

• PSI-9 Perioperative hemorrhage rate,
• PSI-10 Perioperative physiologic metabolic derangement rate; and
• PSI-11 Post-operative respiratory failure rate.

CMS indicates that the potential inclusion of these measures would be a significant change and that they would engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking prior to requiring the reporting of a revised composite for the HAC Reduction Program.

Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP)

CMS Expands the Pneumonia Readmission Measure Cohort

CMS finalized a refinement to the pneumonia readmissions measure which would expand the cohort for the FY 2017 payment determination and subsequent years. As discussed earlier in this article, CMS defines “cohort” as the hospitalizations or “index admissions,” that are included in the measure.

Currently, this measure includes hospitalizations for patients with a principal discharge diagnosis of pneumonia indicating viral or bacterial pneumonia. CMS finalized a modified version of their proposal to include patients with a principal discharge diagnosis of pneumonia or aspiration pneumonia, and patients with a principal discharge diagnosis of sepsis (excluding severe sepsis) with a secondary diagnosis of pneumonia coded as POA.

CMS indicates that “the purpose of expanding the cohort of the current pneumonia readmission measure is to include a broader spectrum of pneumonia patients and respond to changes in coding practices that were potentially biasing estimates of the performance of hospitals.”

A related Fact Sheet indicates that the “CMS is also continuing to monitor the impact of socioeconmomic status on provider results in our quality programs, and is working with the National Quality Forum as they undertake a two-year trial to test sociodemographic factor risk adjustment. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation is currently researching the impact of sociodemographic status as directed by the Improving Medicare Post-Acute Care Transformation Act of 2014 (IMPACT Act), and CMS will closely examine the findings presented in their reports to Congress and related Secretarial recommendations at such time as they are available.”

Do You Know Your Hospital’s Readmission Penalty?

With hospitals facing financial challenges, do you know your Hospital’s Readmission Penalty for the coming Fiscal Year? Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a nonprofit national health policy news service and on August 3rd, Jordan Rau of KHN released the article Half of Nation’s Hospitals Fail Again To Escape Medicare’s Readmission Penalties. This article provides the reader a link to a PDF file of Medicare Readmission Penalties by Hospital for all four years of the program (FY 2013 through FY 2016).

The entire article can be accessed at: http://khn.org/news/half-of-nations-hospitals-fail-again-to-escape-medicares-readmission-penalties/?utm_campaign=KHN%3A+Afternoon+Edition&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=21032373&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--tfj9Nw4n9neCfizWv04BocrIp3tC95xA5l23W02GylGLyB4LwwY-TqyPtYDzFc3SMx6mV8RP_X1MzflMnd3EhbTYe4g&_hsmi=21032373

The entire Final Rule can be accessed at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-08-17/pdf/2015-19049.pdf.

For those closely involved with Quality Initiatives in your facility here is list of where you can find the specific Quality Program Updates in the Final Rule pdf.

• Hospital Readmission Reduction Program is on pages 206-219,
• Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program is on pages 220-246,
• Hospital-Acquired Condition (HAC) Reduction Program is on pages 246 – 257; and
• Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting (IQR) Program is on pages 316-380.

The summer heat is brutal these days. Everyone is looking for ways to beat the heat – staying inside in air conditioned comfort, jumping in a pool or under a sprinkler, and drinking lots and lots of water. But there are conditions and illnesses that result in dehydration at any time of the year where infusion of fluids is needed for treatment. What is required by Medicare in order for hydration services to be covered?

A couple of weeks ago, the Wednesday@One included an article about the July 2015 Medicare Quarterly Provider Compliance Newsletter. The Compliance Newsletter mentioned Recovery Auditor findings for hydration services lacking medically necessary diagnoses required by a Novitas Local Coverage Determination (LCD). At Medical Management Plus, we receive numerous questions related to hydration services, so this week I offer some guidance for hydration services based on the Novitas LCD, another LCD and three coverage Articles from various Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs).

CPT instructions require the administration of a hydration infusion of more than 30 minutes in order to allow the coding of hydration as an initial service. Hydration of 30 minutes or less is not separately billable. This means hydration must last at least 31 minutes in order to bill it. If there is no documented stop time, the duration of the hydration infusion is unknown and should not be billed.

There must be a practitioner’s order for hydration therapy and documentation of the reason a patient needs hydration in the medical record.

Hydration for the following reasons is not considered medically necessary therapeutic hydration and is not covered by Medicare.

• Hydration to maintain vascular access/vessel patency is not covered.
• Fluids used solely to administer drugs is considered incidental hydration and not separately billable.
• Administration of fluids with blood transfusions or between chemotherapeutic agents to flush lines is not separately billable.

Covered indications for hydration services vary between the different coverage articles and LCDs:

• Palmetto’s Article (A53402) simply states hydration must be medically reasonable and necessary for a clinical condition that warrants hydration.
• Noridian’s Articles (A53857 and A50359) states, “Routine administration of IV fluids without documentation supporting signs and/or symptoms including those of dehydration or fluid loss is not supported as medically necessary.”
• Novitas’s LCD (L32738) indicates coverage for clinical manifestations of dehydration or volume depletion and in conjunction with chemotherapy. Hydration with chemotherapy is covered only when the infusion is prolonged and done sequentially (done hour(s) before and/or after administration of chemotherapy), and when the volume status of a beneficiary is compromised or will be compromised by side effects of chemotherapy or an illness.
• Cahaba’s LCD (L32290) lists four different medically necessary reasons for hydration:
• Documented volume depletion,
• In conjunction with chemotherapy (same restrictions as Novitas policy),
• Some endocrine conditions such as hypercalcemia, and
• As an adjunct to the treatment of hypotension.

There are a few additional restrictions in some policies other than those already mentioned:

• Cahaba and Novitas LCDs state that rehydration with the administration of an amount of fluid equal to or less than 500 ml is not reasonable and necessary.
• Cahaba also claims rehydration should only take a few hours, so the medical necessity of hydration lasting beyond 12 hours must be supported by documentation.
• The Noridian articles do not specify a certain rate of infusion but do clarify that to qualify as medically necessary hydration, the rate of infusion should support performance of this service for rapid replenishment.

If your MAC jurisdiction has a coverage policy for hydration services, please read it carefully to learn all of the indications and limitations of coverage. If your MAC does not have a policy that addresses hydration, the guidelines in the policies referenced here may provide some guidance for your hospital. Continue to monitor your MAC’s draft and new policies for any future requirements for hydration services.

We all realize that to be effective in our jobs, we must have the cooperation of others and this is especially true when it comes to healthcare. Physicians rely on hospitals to provide the tools and services they need to care for their patients, and hospitals rely on physicians to utilize those services appropriately and to provide sufficient documentation to support coding, billing and payment. The Medicare Quarterly Compliance Newsletter for July is now available and provides several examples of issues where team work between physicians and hospitals is a must. Most of the articles in this quarter’s edition focus on physician issues, but there are a couple of articles that relate to hospital outpatient services and some instructions in the physician articles that will benefit hospitals as well.

Bevacizumab Medical Necessity (page 15 in the Compliance Newsletter)

Recovery Auditors have an automated edit to identify claims for Bevacizumab, J9035, that are incorrectly paid when they do not contain a diagnosis code required by a Local Coverage Determination (LCD). After a general description of Medicare requirements for drug coverage and identification of a specific CGS LCD that list diagnoses for a number of drugs and biologicals used to treat cancer and other acute and chronic conditions, the article discusses Medicare coverage of off-label drug usage. Drugs used for indications other than those in the approved labeling may be covered under Medicare if it is determined that the use is medically accepted, taking into consideration the major drug compendia, authoritative medical literatures, and/or accepted standards of medical practice. Some local coverage policies have been expanded to include off label usage in accordance with CMS Policy for Off Label Usage.

The Medicare Benefit Policy Manual, Chapter 15, section 50.4.5, provides guidance on the off-label use of drugs and biologicals in an anti-cancer chemotherapeutic regimen. Per the manual, “In general, a use is identified by a compendium as medically accepted if the:

1. indication is a Category 1 or 2A in NCCN, or Class I, Class IIa, or Class IIb in DrugDex; or,
2. narrative text in AHFS-DI or Clinical Pharmacology is supportive.

A use is not medically accepted by a compendium if the:

1. indication is a Category 3 in NCCN or a Class III in DrugDex; or,
2. narrative text in AHFS or Clinical Pharmacology is “not supportive.”

The complete absence of narrative text on a use is considered neither supportive nor non-supportive.”

Contractors may also determine to cover off-label uses that are supported by clinical research based on evaluation of evidence in certain specified peer-reviewed medical literature. FDA-approved drugs and biologicals may also be considered for use in the determination of medically accepted indications for off-label use if determined by the contractor to be reasonable and necessary. Refer to the complete manual instructions for specific details of coverage.

There are also a number of LCDs and Articles that address the coverage of chemotherapeutic use of Bevacizumab and off-label uses of drugs.

Providers also need to bear in mind that some Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) are performing probe reviews and targeted reviews on anti-cancer drugs including Bevacizumab. These reviews have significant denial rates due to lack of medical necessity, failure to follow established protocols and lack of documentation, such as physician’s orders.

So What Should Providers Do to Ensure Coverage of Anti-Cancer Treatments

• Be aware of any coverage policies in your MAC jurisdiction and follow the diagnosis requirements.
• For off-label use not included as covered in your MAC’s LCD, verify that your off-label usage is supported by Medicare approved standards in the pharmaceutical compendia or accepted peer-reviewed medical literature. Appeal any denials and be sure to include the supporting medical literature with your appeal.
• Follow established and accepted protocols for anti-cancer chemotherapeutic regimens.
• Make sure the documentation of services is complete and sufficient to support your billing.
• Be aware of probe and targeted reviews by your MAC for anti-cancer drugs and monitor your denial rates. Take corrective actions based on denial reasons.

Other issues related to hospitals identified in the July Compliance Newsletter include:

• Claims lacking medical necessity for hydration services based on LCD requirements (page 22)
• Physician claims with insufficient documentation for nasal endoscopy (pg 7), lithotripsy (pg 9), and lumbar spinal fusion (pg 12). Although these reviews focused on physician services, hospital payment may also be affected as it is often dependent on the physician’s documentation. Hospitals must work with physicians to make sure the documentation for these services includes:
• The correct date of service;
• The reason for performing the procedure;
• The results of the procedure;
• A physician’s signature; and/or
• A signature log or attestation for an illegible signature.

As often is the case, the hospital’s payment for services is dependent on the physician’s documentation and treatment choices. It must be a team effort for all providers to follow Medicare requirements and get the reimbursement they deserve.