Knowledge Base Category -

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.

Some of you may remember the television series Columbo that featured an unkempt cigar-smoking detective in a long beige raincoat. Columbo seemed to ramble on aimlessly when questioning suspects and just as they thought he was finally leaving, he would turn back to them with “just one more thing…” This month CMS added or reminded providers of several “just one more thing” items in relation to existing National Coverage Determinations (NCDs).

TAVR Hospital Program Volume Requirements

Effective May 1, 2012, Medicare covers Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) procedures under coverage with evidence development (CED) for the treatment of symptomatic aortic stenosis when:

• Furnished according to a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved indication; and
• Certain conditions are met including requirements for individual hospitals in which TAVR procedures are performed.

Hospitals must meet the volume requirements specified in the TAVR national coverage determination (NCD 20.32) in order for the TAVR procedure to be eligible for Medicare coverage. These requirements apply to each hospital site individually and hospitals that do not meet these volume requirements are not eligible for waivers or exceptions.

1. To begin a TAVR program, the hospital (without TAVR experience) must have:
2. ≥ 50 total aortic valve replacements (AVRs) in the previous year prior to TAVR, including ≥ 10 high-risk patients; and
3. ≥ 2 physicians with cardiac surgery privileges; and
4. ≥ 1000 catheterizations per year, including ≥ 400 percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) per year.
5. To continue a TAVR program, the hospital (with TAVR experience) must maintain:
6. ≥ 20 AVRs per year or ≥ 40 AVRs every 2 years; and
7. ≥ 2 physicians with cardiac surgery privileges; and
8. ≥ 1000 catheterizations per year, including ≥ 400 percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) per year.

See MLN Matters Article SE1515 for complete information.

Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) Screening

Effective June 2, 2014, Medicare covers screening for HCV as described below:

1. Once in a lifetime for individuals not at high-risk born from 1945 to 1965.
2. Use HCPCS code G0472
3. Individuals born prior to 1945 and after 1965 that do not have risk factors are not eligible for this screening
4. Once in a lifetime for individuals at high-risk of HCV regardless of birth year. “High risk” is defined as persons with a current or past history of illicit injection drug use; and persons who have a history of receiving a blood transfusion prior to 1992.
5. Use HCPCS code G0472
6. ICD-9 diagnosis code V69.8 (ICD-10 code Z72.89) “other problems related to lifestyle” is required
7. Annually for high-risk individuals who have had continued illicit injection drug use since the prior negative screening test.
8. Use HCPCS code G0472
9. Diagnosis codes required - ICD-9 code V69.8 (ICD-10 code Z72.89) AND
10. ICD-9 diagnosis code 304.91 (unspecified drug dependence continuous) (ICD-10 code F19.20)

Rural Health Clinics (RHCs), Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) and Method II Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs) are not valid facilities for HCV screening services. See MLN Matters Article MM9200 for more information. CPT code 86803, HCV rapid antibody test, is not appropriate for reporting HCV screening – use HCPCS code G0472.

Coverage of MTWA Using Non-SA Methods

Medicare has covered Microvolt T-wave Alternans (MTWA) diagnostic testing for sudden cardiac death (SCD) from ventricular arrhythmias since March 2006 but only when analyzed by spectral analysis (SA) method.

• Effective for claims with dates of service on and after January 13, 2015, CMS removed the national non-coverage of the MMA method and now allows Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) to determine coverage at their discretion of MTWA diagnostic testing for the evaluation of patients at risk for SCD using analysis methods other than SA.
• Providers should report CPT 93025 (MTWA for assessment of ventricular arrhythmias) with the –KX modifier to attest that documentation is on file verifying the MTWA was performed using a method of analysis other than SA for the evaluation of patients at risk for SCD from ventricular arrhythmias and that all other NCD criteria were met. (Claims for MTWA using spectral analysis do not require the KX modifier).
• MLN Matters Article MM9162 contains a list of the diagnosis codes approved by CMS – this list may or may not be complete based on the discretion of the MACs.
• The MACs will not automatically adjust previously denied claims based on the new coverage guidelines but providers may bring these to the MAC’s attention within timely filing.

Medicare can be fastidious – picky, particular, specific, precise, even downright finicky in their coding, billing, and documentation requirements. By now, most of us are used to their demands for precision. For example, we are all aware that the units billed must match the dosage, amount, or time specified in the physician’s order. But in the July 2015 OPPS Update, CMS points out an instance related to hyperbaric oxygen treatments (HBO) where this does not hold true.

When a physician orders a 90-minute HBO treatment, he or she expects that the patient will be placed at 100% oxygen for 90 minutes. In billing for HBO treatments, providers are allowed to include not only the time at 100% oxygen but also the time for descent, air breaks, and ascent. In that case, the units billed for HBO will be greater than the units equivalent to the 90 minutes specified in the order.

Effective January 1, 2015, CMS discontinued the old code that had been used to report HBO for years (C1300) and replaced it with new HCPCS code G0277 which has the same description as the old code - Hyperbaric oxygen under pressure, full body chamber, per 30 minute interval. Here are the key points to keep in mind when billing G0277 for HBO services:

• The total number of billable 30-minute intervals would not be based solely on the amount of time noted on the physician order.
• The total number of 30-minute intervals billable under G0277 should be calculated by including:
• Time spent by the patient under 100% oxygen,
• Time for descent,
• Time for air breaks, and
• Time for ascent.
• You must go at least 16 minutes into the next 30-minute interval in order to bill an additional unit. For example:
• 46-75 minutes = 2 units
• 76-105 minutes = 3 units
• 106-135 minutes = 4 units
• HBO is typically prescribed for an average of 90 minutes (at 100% oxygen)
• A common scenario to fulfill an HBO order for 90 minutes of treatment would be 90 minutes of therapeutic HBO, 10 minutes descent, 10 minutes air breaks and 10 minutes ascent for a total of 120 minutes which would equal 4 units of G0277.
• In general, CMS does not expect that a physician order for 90 minutes of HBO therapy would exceed 4 billed units of HCPCS code G0277.

And one more thing Medicare is picky about is their coverage requirements. In addition to getting the correct units on the claim, providers need to be sure the patient qualifies for HBO services in accordance with Medicare’s National Coverage Determination and any Local Coverage Determinations or Articles. The NCD for Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy (20.29) includes a long list of covered conditions and an even longer list of non-covered indications. HBO is used as an adjunctive treatment and /or after conventional therapy has failed for a number of the covered conditions so review the policy carefully. Be sure that documentation in your medical record provides the details of any conservative or standard treatments in order to support the use of HBO as an adjunctive therapy.

HBO covered conditions include:

1. Acute carbon monoxide intoxication,
2. Decompression illness,
3. Gas embolism,
4. Gas gangrene,
5. Acute traumatic peripheral ischemia. HBO therapy is a valuable adjunctive treatment to be used in combination with accepted standard therapeutic measures when loss of function, limb, or life is threatened.
6. Crush injuries and suturing of severed limbs. As in the previous conditions, HBO therapy would be an adjunctive treatment when loss of function, limb, or life is threatened.
7. Progressive necrotizing infections (necrotizing fasciitis),
8. Acute peripheral arterial insufficiency,
9. Preparation and preservation of compromised skin grafts (not for primary management of wounds),
10. Chronic refractory osteomyelitis, unresponsive to conventional medical and surgical management,
11. Osteoradionecrosis as an adjunct to conventional treatment,
12. Soft tissue radionecrosis as an adjunct to conventional treatment,
13. Cyanide poisoning,
14. Actinomycosis, only as an adjunct to conventional therapy when the disease process is refractory to antibiotics and surgical treatment,
15. Diabetic wounds of the lower extremities in patients who meet the following three criteria:
16. Patient has type I or type II diabetes and has a lower extremity wound that is due to diabetes;
17. Patient has a wound classified as Wagner grade III or higher; and
18. Patient has failed an adequate course of standard wound therapy.

A 2014 review of HBO claims by Medicare’s Supplemental Medical Review Contractor revealed an error rate of 58%. Although over half of the denials were for lack of response to the document request, other medically reviewed claims lacked documentation in the submitted medical records to support the HBO services as medically reasonable and necessary. The documentation did not include:

• Specific timelines and goals for therapy. For example, the documentation simply stated “continue HBO” or “until healed”
• Radiology and pathology reports confirming diagnosis such as osteomyelitis or gas gangrene
• Monitoring for improvement or lack of improvement

In addition, when documentation was provided, descriptions of diabetic wounds did not meet Wagner Criteria for Grade three (III) or four (IV) wounds and therapy was provided beyond the 30 days allowed under Medicare coverage guidelines.

So before you bill for HBO make sure your patients meet the criteria for coverage and that you correctly calculate the number of units to report. If not, picky Medicare may decide to “pick” on you!

In 1735, Benjamin Franklin noted that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Although Franklin was actually addressing fire safety, this axiom is also true in reference to health. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in an article about the National Prevention Strategy states that “Increasing the focus on prevention in our communities will help improve America's health, quality of life and prosperity.” And in the long run, prevention reduces health care costs for patients, providers, and insurers. So it is not surprising that CMS is continuing to expand Medicare preventive and screening services.

On April 13, 2015, CMS released a Final Decision Memorandum expanding the coverage of HIV Screening for Medicare beneficiaries. Medicare has offered coverage of HIV screening since December 2008, but only covered the screening for individuals with certain high-risk factors or during pregnancy. This latest decision memo expands coverage to an annual screening for all Medicare beneficiaries between the ages of 15-65.

The complete list of covered conditions for HIV screening includes:

• A maximum of one, annual voluntary screening for all adolescents and adults between the age of 15 and 65, without regard to perceived risk;
• A maximum of one, annual voluntary screening for adolescents younger than 15 and adults older than 65 who are at increased risk for HIV infection. Increased risk for HIV infection is defined as follows:
• Men who have sex with men
• Men and women having unprotected vaginal or anal intercourse
• Past or present injection drug users
• Men and women who exchange sex for money or drugs, or have sex partners who do
• Individuals whose past or present sex partners were HIV-infected, bisexual or injection drug users
• Persons who have acquired or request testing for other sexually transmitted infectious diseases
• Persons with a history of blood transfusions between 1978 and 1985
• Persons who request an HIV test despite reporting no individual risk factors
• Persons with new sexual partners
• Persons who based on individualized physician interview and examination are deemed to be at increased risk for HIV infection.
• A maximum of three, voluntary HIV screenings of pregnant Medicare beneficiaries: (1) when the diagnosis of pregnancy is known, (2) during the third trimester, and (3) at labor, if ordered by the woman’s clinician.

In addition to the list of covered conditions, testing for HIV screening must also meet the following requirements.

• An FDA approved laboratory test or point of care test
• Testing in accordance with FDA approved labeling and compliant with CLIA regulations
• Ordered by the patient’s physician or practitioner within the context of a healthcare setting
• Performed by an eligible Medicare provider or supplier for these services

Remember that Medicare Administrative Contractors’ (MACs) claims processing systems may not yet be ready to accept claims under the new coverage conditions. Within a few months, Medicare will publish a transmittal updating the National Coverage Determination Manual and claims processing instructions if needed, with an effective date by which MACs should be prepared to accept claims under the new guidelines.

In related news, Medicare released a proposed decision memorandum on April 16, 2015 that proposes the coverage of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) testing for screening for cervical cancer. The memo recommends HPV testing once every five years for asymptomatic beneficiaries aged 30 to 65 in conjunction with the Pap smear test. CMS is currently accepting comments on this proposal and will respond to public comments in a final decision memorandum.

Moving healthcare towards a focus on prevention will hopefully improve the physical and financial health of America. Unfortunately today, the US spends more per capita on healthcare than many other nations, but does not have better health outcomes to show for it. Maybe this “ounce of prevention” will bring forth that “pound of cure.”