Knowledge Base Category -

Are you tired of hearing about and reading about provider-based departments? If so, sorry, but some governmental agencies (for example, the Office of Inspector General (OIG), the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), and even Congress) just won’t let it go. This issue is evidently “stuck in their craw” and so the discussion continues, and continues, and continues… This article looks at information from the June 2016 OIG report concerning provider-based facilities.

What Is a Provider-Based Department?

Provider-based status is a Medicare payment designation established by the Social Security Act that allows facilities with a provider-based designation to bill Medicare as a hospital outpatient department and thereby receive higher payments. Provider-based facilities may be on campus (within 250 yards of the main buildings of the main provider) or off campus (more than 250 yards but less than or equal to 35 miles from the main buildings of the main provider). Hospitals and their provider-based departments (PBDs) have to meet specific requirements described in 42 CFR § 413.65 and CMS Transmittal A-03-030. The requirements include practice licensure, integration of clinical services and financial operations, and compliance with nondiscrimination and health and safety rules. In addition, off-campus PBDs must meet requirements for administration, supervision, and location.

Major Concerns – Cost and Increasing Numbers

According to the OIG report, “Medicare often pays over 50 percent more for services performed in provider-based facilities than for the same services performed in a non-hospital based facility (i.e., a freestanding facility). Beneficiaries generally are responsible for higher copayments for most services in provider-based facilities than in freestanding facilities.” In provider-based departments, Medicare makes a payment to the PBD based on Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) payment rates and a separate payment to physicians for their professional services.

Another concern is the increasing numbers of PBDs. Over the past seven years, there has been a 33% increase in hospital outpatient services including those provided in PBDs. One reason for the increased number of PBDs is that more and more hospitals are purchasing freestanding facilities and converting them to provider-based facilities.

Findings from Previous OIG Audits

In earlier reviews, the OIG found that CMS was not aware of the number of provider-based facilities or the increased cost associated with PBDs without a corresponding benefit. CMS has claimed that PBDs improve quality of care by offering increased beneficiary access and integration of care. CMS also has maintained that increased payments are appropriate to accommodate higher costs resulting from financial and clinical integration. But per the OIG, CMS has yet to provide any evidence provider-based facilities produce specific benefits to justify the higher costs compared to freestanding facilities.

Hospitals may voluntarily attest to provider-based status with supporting documentation required to be submitted to the Medicare Administrative Contractors for off-campus PBDs. The OIG found inconsistent reviews by the Medicare Regional Offices confirming the attestations. The OIG has also found that some physicians are receiving overpayments for services provided in PBDs if they report the incorrect place-of-service (POS) code.

Bottom line is the OIG recommended the complete elimination of provider-based status.

CMS Fixes

CMS did not concur with the OIG recommendation for eliminating provider-based status but did take some actions based on the OIG’s findings. Specifically, CMS

• Produced a set of standards (i.e., 42 CFR § 413.65) for provider-based facilities and entities designed to guard against abuse of the payment system,
• Developed a management information system that contains the results of provider-based reviews and enables CMS to monitor review status, and
• Developed detailed guidance on the proper use of place- of-service codes.

Due to continuing concerns from the OIG, the MedPAC committee, and Congress, CMS created new physician place-of-service codes to distinguish between services performed in on- or off-campus provider-based facilities. Effective January 1, 2016, physicians use place-of-service code 22 for services in on-campus provider-based facilities and place-of-service code 19 for services in off-campus provider-based facilities. Also, voluntary beginning January 2015 but mandatory effective January 1, 2016, CMS requires that hospital claims contain a specific two-digit modifier (modifier PO) for OPPS services furnished in an off-campus PBD.

Another significant development concerning provider-based status is the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA) which mandates that, effective January 1, 2017, only off-campus outpatient departments billing the OPPS for services before November 2, 2015, (grandfathered provider-based facilities) may continue to receive payment under OPPS. New off-campus provider-based facilities will be paid under payment systems equitable with independent and physician office payments. (Be on the lookout in next week’s Wednesday@One for details of how CMS proposes to handle this in the 2017 OPPS Proposed Rule.)

Remaining Problems

Although CMS has taken steps to improve its monitoring of provider-based billing, the OIG details a long list of remaining vulnerabilities related to PBDs, some of which include:

• Grandfathered facilities under the BBA will continue to generally receive higher payments (i.e., payments from both the OPPS and MPFS) for services than if the same services were provided in a freestanding facility (i.e., receiving payment only from the MPFS).
• Some hospital PBDs may be receiving overpayments because they do not meet all the PBD requirements. Due to the voluntary attestation process, CMS is unable to determine whether all provider-based facilities meet requirements to bill at the higher provider-based rate. CMS also reports challenges with the provider-based attestation review process because of difficulties obtaining supporting documentation.
• Some physicians may be receiving overpayments due to reporting of incorrect place-of-service codes. CMS has no means to ensure physicians use the correct POS codes because they do not match the facility component of a claim to the associated professional component of a claim.
• CMS cannot segregate billing by provider-based facilities, which is critical to ensuring appropriate payments and implementation of the BBA of 2015.

OIG Recommendations

The OIG continues to recommend that CMS eliminate provider-based status or equalize payment for the same services provided in different settings. If CMS does not accept these recommendations, the OIG recommends CMS:

• Implement systems and methods to monitor on- and off-campus billing by provider-based facilities to help implement the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 and better monitor billing by individual facilities.
• Require hospitals to submit attestations and supporting documentation for all of their provider-based facilities, both on and off campus with a deadline after which Medicare would deny claims for services in provider-based facilities that do not have an attestation on file with CMS.
• Determine how to address the issue of grandfathered facilities that do not meet regulatory requirements after January 1, 2017, and determine whether they may continue billing as provider-based facilities if they later come into compliance.
• Ensure that its regional offices and MACs apply provider-based requirements appropriately when reviewing documentation during their attestations reviews.
• Recover overpayments and take action to ensure hospitals and facilities improperly billing as provider-based do not receive higher provider-based payment in the future until non-compliance is corrected.

Requirements to be a PBD and Documents to Prove It

Hospitals need to understand the requirements for provider-based status, ensure that any on-campus or off-campus facilities for which the hospital is billing as provider-based meets the requirements, and be prepared to furnish appropriate documentation to CMS to support the PBD designation. The OIG report contained valuable information on the requirements and supporting documentation that is summarized below. Hospitals should read the OIG report for complete details of everything discussed in this article.

Requirement: A provider-based facility and the main provider must be operated under the same license, unless State laws prohibit this or require separate licenses.
Supporting Documentation: Copy of the State license or documentation that the State in which the facility is located requires a separate license

Requirement: Integrated clinical services including same clinical privileges, same monitoring and oversight, reporting relationship between PBD medical director and hospital chief medical officer, oversight by hospital medical staff committees, a unified medical records retrieval system, and integrated and fully accessible services.
Supporting Documentation: Information about whether professional staff of the PBD has clinical privileges at the main provider, a copy of the record retrieval policy of the main provider and provider-based facility, and examples of inpatient and outpatient service integration

Requirement: Fully integrated financial operations including costs reporting and financial status.
Supporting Documentation: Appropriate section of a main provider’s cost report or trial balance that show the provider-based facility’s revenues and expenses

Requirement: Provider-based facility is held out to the public and other payers as part of the main provider.
Supporting Documentation: Letterhead with a shared name, websites, and other examples to show that the facility is part of the main provider

Requirement: Compliance with applicable rules related to hospital anti-dumping, nondiscrimination, health and safety, Medicare agreement and Medicare payment.
Supporting Documentation: Copies of anti-dumping and nondiscrimination policies

Requirement (Off-Campus PBD): The hospital main provider must own 100-percent of the provider-based facility, have final responsibility and approval for administrative and personnel decisions, have the same governing body, and operate under the same organizational documents.
Supporting Documentation: Bylaws for the main provider and provider-based facility

Requirement (Off-Campus PBD): Hospital and PBD must have the same frequency, intensity, and level of accountability reporting relationship that exists between the main provider and one of its existing facilities plus additional requirements concerning direct supervision, monitoring, and oversight of the provider-based facility and the integration of administrative functions (e.g., billing services, payroll).
Supporting Documentation: An organizational chart that reflects reporting relationships and a list of the integrated administrative functions

Requirement (Off-Campus PBD): A provider-based facility must be located within a 35-mile radius of the main provider’s campus (with some exceptions).
Supporting Documentation: Maps indicating the location of each facility

Requirement (Off-Campus PBD): When providing treatment to a Medicare beneficiary that is not required by anti-dumping rules, off-campus PBDs must give beneficiaries written notice of potential hospital and physician co-insurance liabilities including an estimate of the amount of the additional liability before delivering the service.
Supporting Documentation: A copy of the form given to patients and a copy of policies regarding distribution of the form

It seems obvious that the discussions and changes regarding provider-based status are not over. So stay tuned for further news and be prepared for what may come.

National Medicare (CMS) and their local Administrative Contractors (MACs) are responsible for a variety of different tasks – processing and paying claims, educating providers, ensuring payments are appropriate, and verifying that providers are following the Medicare regulations. It’s a big job but, lucky for them, they have help, especially in the area of oversight. There are the Recovery Auditors, the Quality Improvement Organizations (QIOs), Supplemental Medical Review Contractors (SMRCs), Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT) auditors, and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). A recent OIG audit concerning mechanical ventilation found billing errors so the OIG offered a number of recommendations to CMS on how to make things better.

The OIG conducted a review to determine whether Medicare payments to hospitals for inpatient claims with certain MS-DRGs that required 96 or more consecutive hours of mechanical ventilation complied with Medicare requirements. MS-DRG 207 (respiratory system diagnosis) and MS-DRG 870 (septicemia or severe sepsis) both require that the patient has received 96 hours or more continuous mechanical ventilation, indicated on the claim with procedure code 96.72. These MS-DRGs pay a higher reimbursement rate than the corresponding MS-DRG assignments for a patient who did not receive 96 hours or more of ventilation.

Due to findings from previous OIG audits and the known risk of overpayments associated with mechanical ventilation, CMS has already taken actions to reduce the number of payment errors. They have claims processing edits based on the inpatient admission length of stay and also have provided education concerning the requirements for coding mechanical ventilation of 96 hours or more. One such education offering is the October 2011 Medicare Quarterly Compliance Newsletter.

In the current review, the OIG identified overpayments of $1.5 million for the specific claims reviewed. The OIG estimates overpayments of over $19.5 million for MS-DRGs 207 and 870 for the two-year audit period. Based on this finding, they determined current controls were inadequate to prevent incorrect billing and recommended additional actions by CMS to reduce payment errors. Specifically the current billing edit is based on total length of stay – the OIG recommends the edit be modified to look at the date mechanical ventilation begins and the discharge date to ensure there is sufficient time for 96 or more hours of mechanical ventilations. CMS concurred with the recommendation and replied, “Effective October 1, 2016, CMS will implement an edit to ensure correct coding of mechanical ventilation greater than 96 consecutive hours by using the mechanical ventilation procedure service date as the start date to calculate consecutive days.” CMS published official guidance for this in Transmittal 3504 from April 2016. To fulfill other recommendations from the audit Medicare will also be recouping the identified overpayments, expanding their own reviews, and providing additional education.

Hospitals need to be sure their coders understand the correct assignment of the procedure code for mechanical ventilation. Coders also need to be aware of the change in procedure code description from ICD-9 to ICD-10. The I-10 description for 5A1955Z is Respiratory ventilation, greater than 96 consecutive hours, which differs from the I-9 procedure code 96.72 description of 96 consecutive hours or more. The “greater than” description equates to a patient being on continuous mechanical ventilation for at least five (5) days, one day longer than the minimum 4 days of “96 hours or more.” This means Medicare’s new edit for October 2016 will look for less than 5 days from the date of initiation of mechanical ventilation until discharge.

Hospitals may want to consider some internal education and/or audits of claims assigned this procedure code. In other words, hospitals may want to “oversight” themselves, before oversight by Medicare or the overseers of Medicare oversight.

“Mortality rates from sepsis are higher than heart attack, stroke, or trauma. Sepsis needs to be viewed with the same urgency as these other life-threatening conditions because we know early treatment can decrease mortality.”- Craig M. Coopersmith, MD, FCCM, Task Force Member and Immediate Past President of the Society for Critical Care Medicine (SCCM)

On February 22, 2016 the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) was released at SCCM’s 45th Critical Care Congress. The new recommendations are the result of extensive efforts by a Task Force of 19 leaders in the field of sepsis that was convened by the SCCM and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). According to the SCCM announcement “the group’s recommendations have been endorsed by more than 30 medical societies from six continents, spanning disciplines from critical care and emergency medicine to infectious disease and family practice.”

Sepsis-3 Definitions

The Sepsis-3 definitions were published in the February 2016 issue of the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA). “The task force recommended that its report be designated “Sepsis-3,” recognizing the two iterations to define sepsis (1991 and 2001) and signaling the need for future study.”  

Sepsis is now defined as “life threatening organ dysfunction due to a dysregulated host in response to infection.”

SOFA (Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment) is a tool to be used to clinically characterize the septic patient.

qSOFA (quick Sequential [Sepsis-Related] Organ Failure Assessment) is a new diagnostic tool that clinicians can conduct for patients outside a hospital, in an Emergency Department or General Hospital floor setting to identify patients at risk for sepsis. The three warning signs to assess for are:

• An alteration in mental status,
• A decrease in systolic blood pressure of less than 100mm Hg; and
• A respiration rate greater than 22 breaths/min.

Two or more of the warning signs increases the risk of a hospitalized patient having a longer length of stay in an ICU or to die in the hospital.

The task force stresses that SOFA and qSOFA are not intended to be used as a “stand alone definition of sepsis.”

Septic Shock is now defined as “a subset of sepsis in which particularly profound circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities substantially increase mortality.” The task force identified the following two new criteria for diagnosing septic shock:

• “Persisting hypotension requiring vasopressors to maintain MAP ≥65 mm Hg;” and
• “Blood lactate level ≥2 mmol/L despite adequate volume resuscitation.”

Sepsis (lay definition) the recently published definition that “sepsis is a life-threatening condition that arises when the body’s response to infection injures its own tissues,” was endorsed by the task force as it is consistent with the new Sepsis-3 definition.

Severe Sepsis was deemed “redundant” by the task force, “as sepsis has a mortality rate of 10 percent or higher, making the condition already severe.”

Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) “The current use of 2 or more SIRS criteria to identify sepsis was unanimously considered by the task force to be unhelpful.”

While SIRS due to a localized infection can no longer be coded as sepsis in ICD-10, Coding and CDI Professionals need to be mindful that at this time the code set definitions of sepsis and severe sepsis remain the same.

“Quality is never an accident; it is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, intelligent direction and skillful execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives.”- William A. Foster

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) began releasing Hospital Medicare Compliance Review (Compliance Reviews) Reports in early 2011. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 Compliance Reviews became part of the OIG’s Work Plan. Although the name of the project may have changed since 2012, Compliance Reviews remain a part of the Work Plan in FY 2016.

FY 2012 OIG Work Plan Project

• Medicare Inpatient and Outpatient Payments to Acute Care Hospitals (New)

We will review Medicare payments to hospitals to determine compliance with selected billing requirements. We will use the results of these reviews to recommend recovery of overpayments and identify providers that routinely submit improper claims. Prior OIG audits, investigations, and inspections have identified areas that are at risk for noncompliance with Medicare billing requirements. Based on computer matching and data mining techniques, we will select hospitals for focused reviews of claims that may be at risk for overpayments. Using the same data analysis techniques, we will identify hospitals that broadly rank as least risky across compliance areas and those that broadly rank as most risky. We will then review the hospitals’ policies and procedures to compare the compliance practices of these two groups of hospitals. We will also survey or interview hospitals’ leadership and compliance officers to provide contextual information related to hospitals’ compliance programs. (OAS; W-00-11-35538; various reviews; expected issue date: FY 2012; work in progress; and OEI; 00-00-00000; expected issue date: FY 2012; new start)

FY 2016 OIG Work Plan Project

• Selected inpatient and outpatient billing requirements

We will review Medicare payments to acute care hospitals to determine hospitals’ compliance with selected billing requirements and recommend recovery of overpayments. Prior OIG audits, investigations, and inspections have identified areas at risk for noncompliance with Medicare billing requirements. Our review will focus on those hospitals with claims that may be at risk for overpayments. (OAS; W-00-12-35538; W-00-13-35538; W-00-14-35538; W-00-15-35538; various reviews; expected issue date: FY 2016)

Compliance Reviews by the Numbers

As of February 2016, the OIG has released over 140 Compliance Reviews. According to these reviews, collectively this group of hospitals was overpaid $76,447,380.00. Adding insult to injury, in 2013 the OIG began extrapolating their findings. To date, 21 hospitals have been subject to extrapolation, including the most recent hospital Compliance Review released on February 3, 2016 for the University of Minnesota Medical Center for 2012 and 2013.

Extrapolating overpayments has exponentially increased the amount hospitals are to refund to the Contractor. Collectively, the $7,780,049.00 overpaid by 21 hospitals was extrapolated to $66,495,541.00. When you add this subset of hospitals to the overall amounts, the $76,447,380.00 that all hospitals were overpaid increased to $135,262,862.00 to be refunded to the Contractor. Now let’s take a closer look at the most recent Report released.

Medicare Compliance Review of University of Minnesota Medical Center for 2012 and 2013

The objective of this review was to “determine whether University of Minnesota Medical Center (the Hospital) complied with Medicare requirements for billing inpatient and outpatient services on selected types of claims.”

Audit Scope

This Compliance Review covered $24,360,864 in Medicare payments to the hospital for 3,351 claims potentially at risk for billing errors. The OIG selected a stratified random sample of 255 claims with payments totally $2,370,592. Claims consisted of 75 inpatient and 180 outpatient claims with dates of service in Calendar Year 2012 and 2013.

Risk Areas

Specific “risk areas” identified as being at risk for noncompliance with Medicare billing requirements included:

• Inpatient Rehabilitation Claims,
• Inpatient claims billed with high-severity-level DRG codes,
• Inpatient and Outpatient manufacturer credits for replaced medical devices,
• Outpatient dental claims,
• Outpatient claims billed with modifier -59,
• Outpatient claims billed for Doxorubicin Hydrochloride; and
• Outpatient claims billed for Herceptin.

Note that manufacturer credits for replaced medical devices and outpatient dental claims are also stand-alone projects within the FY 2016 Work Plan. This should be a red flag for hospitals to make sure you are in compliance with these two “risk areas.” A valuable resource is readily available in the specific findings in the report where the OIG provides references such as the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and the CMS Provider Reimbursement Manual (PRM) as guidance for compliance with billing requirements.

Audit Findings

The Hospital complied with Medicare billing requirements for 125 of the 255 inpatient and outpatient claims reviewed. The remaining 130 claims resulted in overpayments of $565,286, specifically:

• 29 Inpatient claims had billing errors, resulting in overpayments of $261,886, and
• 101 Outpatient claims had billing errors, resulting in overpayments of $303,400.

The OIG indicated that “these errors occurred primarily because the Hospital did not have adequate controls to prevent the incorrect billing of Medicare claims within the selected risk areas that contained errors.” On the basis of this sample, the OIG extrapolated that the hospital received overpayments of at least $3,266,841 for the audit period and recommended that the Hospital refund this amount to the Medicare contractor.

Looking at the dollars to be refunded, it is easy to see why Compliance Reviews continue to be a part of the OIG’s annual Work Plan. While Compliance Reviews are a part of the OIG Work Plan, hospitals should consider closely monitoring “risk areas” in these reports as an additional tool in your annual and ongoing compliance assessment, plan and actions.

Hospitals are constantly being scrutinized to ensure they are following Federal rules and regulations for billing, coding, referrals, etc. In addition to the host of Medicare claim reviewers, there are also those entities that are specifically looking for fraud and abuse, such as the Zone Program Integrity Contractors (ZPICs) and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). When the rules are unclear or the issue is not specifically addressed, some hospitals prefer to “err on the side of caution” just to make sure there is no chance of bad consequences in the future. Such has been the case with the issue of billing Medicare patients for the self-administered drugs (SADs) they receive as hospital outpatients.

Most SADs are not covered under Medicare Part B but are covered under Medicare Part D. Since most hospital pharmacies do not participate in Medicare Part D, this leaves the Medicare patient liable for the self-administered drugs they receive while a hospital outpatient. Since Medicare does not regulate the billing by hospitals of non-covered drugs to Medicare beneficiaries, their only advice for hospitals has been: “a hospital’s decision not to bill the beneficiary for non-covered drugs potentially implicates other statutory and regulatory provisions, including the prohibition on inducements to beneficiaries, section 1128A (a) (5) of the [Social Security] Act, or the anti-kickback statute, section 1128B (b) of the Act.” This statement is enough to make a hospital nervous for sure.

So until the end of October 2015, the question remained, does CMS require hospitals to bill and collect (or make good faith efforts to collect) their usual and customary charges for SADs that are not covered by Medicare Part B (Noncovered SADs) to comply with OIG’s fraud and abuse authorities? And the answer is …No.

On October 29, 2015, the OIG issued a policy statement assuring hospitals they would not be subject to administrative sanctions for discounting or waiving amounts Medicare beneficiaries may owe for self-administered drugs (SADs) they receive in outpatient settings when those drugs are not covered by Medicare Part B. This is good news for hospitals – it will relieve the time and resources for submitting bills to patients and will allow hospitals to avoid the negative patient perception that results from such bills.

The OIG does include some conditions for this exemption from their general policy*:

• This Policy Statement applies only to discounts on, or waivers of, amounts Medicare beneficiaries owe for Noncovered SADs that the beneficiaries receive for ingestion or administration in outpatient settings;
• Hospitals must uniformly apply their policies regarding discounts or waivers on Noncovered SADs (e.g., without regard to a beneficiary’s diagnosis or type of treatment);
• Hospitals must not market or advertise the discounts or waivers; and
• Hospitals must not claim the discounted or waived amounts as bad debt or otherwise shift the burden of these costs to the Medicare or Medicaid programs, other payers, or individuals.

*(Ordinarily routine discounts and costs waivers of amounts owed by Medicare beneficiaries would potentially implicate the Federal anti-kickback statute, the civil monetary penalty and exclusion laws related to kickbacks, and the Federal civil monetary penalty law prohibiting inducements to beneficiaries.)

This OIG policy statement does not require a hospital to waive the amounts owed by Medicare beneficiaries for SADs. It is still the hospital’s decision whether to waive these charges or to bill the patient. At least now, hospitals will no longer feel obligated to bill the patient to prevent getting in trouble with the government.

This week we introduce a new area of focus for our weekly Wednesday@One newsletter – Hospital Compliance. Most of what Medical Management Plus already does relates to compliance because we are all about Medicare’s rules and regulations, but a more intense focus on Compliance never hurts. The newsletter this week includes articles on Compliance 101 and hospital issues addressed in Medicare’s Quarterly Compliance Newsletter. One of the challenges of Hospital Compliance is deciding where to direct your efforts, as there are many issues to consider. One suggestion is to follow the leader - follow the lead of Medicare contractors and entities that pursue improper payments, fraud, waste, and abuse within the Medicare program.

Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) – In addition to processing Medicare claims, MACs perform medical reviews, provide education to providers, and establish coverage requirements. Being familiar with their medical review topics, LCDs, and education offerings will help lead you to what the MACs think are “risk” areas. MMP publishes new medical review announcements and findings from all the MACs in the Wednesday@One newsletter on the third week of the month. Recent review topics for MACs include:

• Laboratory BNP Test (Cahaba)
• High-cost drugs (Palmetto, Noridian JE)
• Pulmonary Rehab (Palmetto)
• Kwashiorkor (Novitas)
• Joint Replacements (Cigna)
• Facet Joint Injections (Noridian JF)

Supplemental Medical Review Contractor (SMRC) – Strategic Health Solutions is the SMRC and performs “tasks aimed at lowering the improper payment rates and increasing efficiencies of the medical review functions of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.” One of their main tasks is to perform nationwide medical reviews as directed by CMS. You may want to consider their topics as your topics for addressing risks. Their website includes a list of their current projects and their completed projects. Current projects include the following topics:

• Electrodiagnostic testing
• Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT)
• Bariatric Surgery
• Blepharoplasty Services

Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT) – CMS uses the CERT program to calculate the Medicare Fee-for-Service improper payment rate. CERT publishes an annual report that can be found on the CERT website.  The major errors identify by CERT reviews include:

• Lack of or insufficient documentation to support services
• Incorrect patient status
• Failure to meet medical necessity
• Coding errors

Program for Evaluating Payment Patterns Electronic Report (PEPPER) – A link from the CERT website labeled as “Hospital Specific Improper Payments Information and Training Resources” connects readers directly to the PEPPER Resources website. PEPPER can help guide a hospital’s auditing and monitoring activities by comparing your hospital’s statistics for discharges and services vulnerable to improper payments to the statistics of other hospitals in your state, MAC jurisdiction and nationally. This helps you identify where your hospital is an outlier. Some of the current PEPPER targets are:

• Stroke Intracranial Hemorrhage
• Septicemia
• Medical/Surgical DRGs with CC or MCC
• Excisional Debridement
• Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
• Syncope
• Thirty Day Readmissions
• One-Day and Two-Day Stays

Office of Inspector General (OIG) – The OIG protects the integrity of Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) programs as well as the health and welfare of program beneficiaries. They publish an annual Work Plan that describes their target areas for the coming year and then perform audits throughout the year of the risk areas identified in the Work Plan. Compliance departments can use the Work Plan and the audit findings to select areas at risk of fraud, waste, and abuse within healthcare. Some of the topics addressed in the OIG 2015 Work Plan Mid-Year Update include:

• Outlier payments
• Provider-based status
• Mechanical ventilation
• Compliance reviews of Medicare billing requirements
• Dental claims
• Hospital wage data
• Kwashiorkor
• Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)

Recovery Auditors (RAs or RACs) – The mission of the Recovery Audit program is to identify and correct Medicare improper payments. Each RAC has their own website that list the issues they are reviewing to identify Medicare overpayments and underpayments. This is another great source for hot topics for your hospital compliance program. Although the RAC program has had to step back some lately, CMS recently released the report to Congress of the 2014 RAC activity which reported $2.39 billion of overpayments were collected, and $173.1 million of underpayments repaid to providers. For updates on the RA program, see the Medicare Recovery Audit Program webpage. We are still awaiting the Recovery Audit program to move forward to the next Scope of Work, but until then the current RACs have begun to post some new issues for review. For hospitals, these include:

• Cardiac PET Scan (Cotiviti, formerly Connolly)
• Sacral Nerve Stimulation for Urinary and Fecal Incontinence (Performant)
• Rambizumab (Performant)
• Cataract Surgery Once in a Lifetime (Performant)
• Bariatric Surgery (Performant)
• MS-DRG Validation: Cardiac Defibrillator Implantation (Performant)
• MS-DRG Validation: Permanent Cardiac Pacemaker Implant (Performant)
• Back and Neck Procedure except Spinal Fusion (CGI Federal)

Following Medicare’s lead is an easy way to begin to put together your hospital compliance plan. It gets harder, of course, as you consider what risk areas may be specific to your facility, but at least it is a place to start.

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

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

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

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) regularly posts reports of their audit findings. A number of these reports relate to hospital payment errors, although the reports often address the same issues from hospital to hospital. However, I always read through the findings to see if there are any new twists to the issues and to remind myself of these OIG target areas – in other words to see what’s in it for me.

Recently the OIG released three reports of hospital audits – two related to drug payment errors and one general compliance review. Here are a couple of issues from these reports worth noting.

Non-covered Use of Reteplase

The drug reteplase (HCPCS code J2993 – injection, reteplase, 18.1 mg) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat cardiac conditions using a single-use dose. The OIG identified a billing error that occurred when a provider billed Medicare for one full single-use dose of reteplase when they had actually split a single dose into multiple doses and used them as a thromblytic agent to clean dialysis patient catheters. This is a non-covered use of reteplase and resulted in an overpayment to the facility. (OIG Report Drug Overpayments Jurisdiction 13)

Bundled IMRT Planning Services

In the OIG Medicare Compliance Review of Good Samaritan Hospital, the OIG identified that the hospital had billed separately for services performed as part of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) planning resulting in an overpayment. These services are included in the payment for IMRT planning even when provided on a different date of service.

Hospitals are to report CPT code 77301 for IMRT planning. The Medicare Claims Processing Manual, Chapter 4, section 200.3.2 states that “Payment for the services identified by CPT codes 77014, 77280-77295, 77305-77321, 77331, 77336, and 77370 is included in the APC payment for IMRT planning when these services are performed as part of developing an IMRT plan that is reported using CPT code 77301.” Therefore these codes should not be billed in addition to IMRT planning (CPT 77301), regardless if provided on the same or different dates of service, unless they are not provided as part of developing the IMRT treatment plan.

A quick review of OIG reports relating to hospital findings is a great way to become familiar with the OIG target areas and to evaluate issues against your hospital’s practices. Better to be proactive than regretfully reactive.

The term “argue back” is listed as an idiom in an on-line dictionary, similar to the phrases “answer back”, “talk back” or “back talk”. Parents often reprimand their children for “talking back”. However in the grown-up world, making a persuasive argument to support your opinion is not only acceptable, but often necessary to achieve fair and just outcomes. But then again, sometimes life just isn’t fair.

As of this month, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) is approaching 100 reports on Medicare compliance reviews of hospitals. There are similarities between the reports: the issues are often the same, and the reviews are based on computer matching, data mining and data analysis techniques to identify at-risk claims. There are differences between the reports: some hospitals have a much greater overpayment than others and some refund amounts are extrapolated from the overpayment amounts while others are not. We at MMP have not been able to determine a pattern for which audits result in extrapolation versus those that do not.

Last week, the OIG published the report on Compliance Review of University of Cincinnati Medical Center that is particularly interesting. So what makes this report stand out among all the many compliance reviews?

• The refund amount of $9,818,296 was extrapolated from an overpayment amount of $603,267 (to date refund amounts have been extrapolated on only 10 of 99 compliance reviews).
• The refund amount of almost $10 million is the largest of all the compliance reviews. In fact, only three other reviews topped $2M refund and no other refund amounts prior to this one (even other extrapolated reviews) exceeded $5M.
• The University of Cincinnati Medical Center (UCMC) vehemently argued their case at great length against some of the OIG’s decisions from the audit. They make some interesting points in their arguments as noted below.

UCMC believes the OIG claim selection method contains a judgmental bias toward inclusion of claims likely to have overpayments and exclusion of claims likely to have underpayments. The biased findings are further magnified by the use of extrapolation.

UCMC disagreed with 50 of 57 claims the OIG determined were “incorrectly billed as inpatient.” Some of the reasons for disagreement were:

• Some were for inpatient-only procedures
• Reviewers based review decision on information that was not available to the admitting physician at the time of admission
• The hospital was not allowed to have discussion with the reviewers regarding their decisions or request re-review of the cases
• Extrapolation is not appropriate because decisions are judgmental and case-specific, and the potential effect of Part B rebilling is not considered in the extrapolation amount

It is interesting to note that on the seven cases UCMC concurred with, they cite lack of documentation to support the clinical decision of the physician to admit the patient, physician receptiveness to the involvement of RN Case Managers, and interpretation of third party vendor services as weaknesses in existing internal controls.

UCMC was cited for failing to pursue credits for replaced devices. According to UCMC’s response, the Medicare Claim Processing Manual (CMS Pub. 100-04, Sec. 100.8, Replaced Devices Offered Without Cost or With Credit) does not require hospitals to pursue manufacturers for credits on replaced devices. Medicare policy only requires that hospitals report credits actually received where the credit is more than 50% of the cost of the replacement device. UCMC argues that the prudent buyer principle is applicable to defining allowable costs for Medicare cost reports but does not apply to Medicare claims-based audits.

On June 2, 2014, the American Hospital Association (AHA) submitted a letter to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services also objecting to the OIG hospital compliance audits. The AHA arguments are similar to those made by UCMC and include:

• OIG audits redundant to RAC reviews thereby being unduly burdensome to hospitals
• The OIG misconstrued and misapplied numerous Medicare regulations and policies
• The OIG used flawed sampling and extrapolation methods to estimate overpayments and refunds
• The OIG audits do not take into consideration Part B payments that may have been appropriate for the hospital to receive by their own admission
• They are in violation of reopening time frames and MAC statutory limits on extrapolation

For complete details, read the AHA's letter.

The “arguing back” of both UCMC and the AHA is well thought out, supported by references, and clearly explained, but whether either will prevail concerning their arguments and/or planned appeals remains to be seen.

Anything can be improved. That is true in all aspects of life, but when you are talking about a large bureaucratic governmental entity, it is a given. But don’t worry; the government has other large, bureaucratic entities to oversee large, bureaucratic entities… Is it a wonder our national budget is out of control?

One of the top priorities of the Office of Inspector General (OIG) is to improve Medicare oversight and reduce fraud, waste, and abuse in the Medicare program. In testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee on May 20, 2014, the OIG Regional Inspector General for Office of Evaluation and Inspections, Jodi D. Nudelman, explained three areas that are key to improving the Medicare program for taxpayers and beneficiaries. Hospitals should pay close attention to these issues as they will likely have an effect on future reimbursement.

The Two-Midnight Hospital Policy Must Be Carefully Evaluated

OIG evaluations of hospitals’ use of observation stays and short inpatient stays prior to the implementation of the new policy showed that Medicare and Medicare beneficiaries paid significantly more for short-stay inpatient care than for observation services even though the conditions treated and the treatment rendered were often the same. There was a wide variation between hospitals on their use of observation versus short inpatient stays. Another concern was that observation care of three nights or more does not meet the criteria to qualify a patient for skilled nursing facility (SNF) care under the Medicare.

It is still unclear whether the new two-midnight policy will increase the number of inpatient admissions or the number of observation stays. The OIG continues to be concerned about the same issues as identified prior to implementation of the new rule. The OIG believes careful evaluation of the impact of the new policy is needed to ensure that policymakers consider payment variations for Medicare and beneficiaries, differing hospital practices, and the impact on post-hospital SNF care.

CMS Should Strengthen its Oversight of RACs and Follow through on Vulnerabilities That Lead to Improper Payments

The OIG recommends that CMS enhance its follow-through on improper payment vulnerabilities identified through RAC audits including evaluating the effectiveness of actions taken to address vulnerabilities. They also recommended that CMS’s evaluations of the Recovery Auditors include information on the RAC’s ability, accuracy, and effectiveness in identifying overpayments.

The Medicare Appeals System Needs Fundamental Changes

Some of the OIG’s concerns with the appeal process were that most appeals were submitted by a small percentage of providers and a large number of denials were overturned at the ALJ level due to differing interpretations of Medicare policies and differences in the content, organization, and format of the case files at the ALJ level from the files at the QIC level of appeal. The OIG recommendations for the appeal process were:

• Clarification of Medicare policies
• Training on Medicare policies
• Standardized, electronic case files
• Increased CMS participation in ALJ hearings
• Quality assurance process to review ALJ decisions

As the OIG testimony concluded, “Clear policies, strong oversight of contractors, and an appeals system that is effective, efficient, and fair are critical to” an effective and efficient Medicare program.