Knowledge Base - Full Library

Q:

Our hospital sometimes receives automated medical necessity denials related to a National Coverage Determination (NCD). Where can I find a listing of the acceptable ICD-10 diagnosis codes that support medical necessity for services with an NCD?

A:

Although a listing of the covered diagnoses is not available for all NCDs, you can find many of them on CMS’s Medicare Coverage General Information ICD-10.  At the bottom of the page, there is a table, “Links related to ICD-10 NCDs (as of 05/13/2019).” This table contains links to all the transmittals concerning code changes for NCDs “related to ICD-10 conversions and other coding updates specific to national coverage determinations (NCDs). These NCD coding changes are the result of newly available codes, coding revisions to NCDs released separately, or coding feedback received.”

The easiest way to find code edits for a particular NCD is to do a search for the NCD number on this webpage. Select “Find” from the Menu option or “Control+F,” and enter the NCD number in the search box. If you need to find the current ICD-10 requirements for a service, choose the latest transmittal by date that contains the NCD number you are looking for. If you are looking for the requirements for a certain point in time, select the transmittal that addresses the relevant NCD and is from the last transmittal date prior to the date you are interested in.

Once you select the correct transmittal, find the link in the transmittal to the NCD spreadsheets included with the related Change Request Transmittal (CR). This will open a file with spreadsheets for all the NCDs with revisions at the time of the date of the transmittal. Select the NCD/service you are researching and open the spreadsheet. The spreadsheets have tabs for “ICD Diagnosis,” “ICD Procedures,” and “Rule Description” which contain the expected information. Medicare contractors use these edit tables to control Medicare coverage with automated denials if a required diagnosis is not present on the claim. Being aware of the specific codes required can assist hospitals in being proactive about Medicare coverage with education and the use of Advance Beneficiary Notices (ABNs).

Notice in the title of the table referenced above, that the title includes an “as of” date. For dates after the as of date, I recommend searching the current transmittal listing for the term “NCD” or “ICD-10.” Also sign up for Medicare transmittal updates through Medicare’s Listserv Signup so that you will aware for any changes in these edits and other Medicare information. At the link above, scroll to the bottom right of the page to find a “Receive Email Updates” box where you can enter your email address to receive updates.

Even though Case Management Week is not for two weeks (October 13 – 19, 2019), the release of the Discharge Planning Conditions of Participation (CoP) Final Rule is a reason for an early celebration as evidenced by the following quote from CMS in the Final Rule.

“We believe that these final discharge planning requirements for hospitals, including LTCHs, IRFs, HHAs, and CAHs will improve transitions of care, increase a patient’s ability to access their health care information in a timely manner, and complement and align with efforts to improve interoperability across the care continuum. We also believe that these final requirements, which we discuss in further detail in subsequent sections of this final rule, are less burdensome than our initial proposed discharge planning requirements. In addition, we continue to believe in the importance of person-centered care during the discharge planning process.”

• Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Revisions to Requirements for Discharge Planning for Hospitals, Critical Access Hospitals, and Home Health Agencies, and Hospital and Critical Access Hospital Changes to Promote Innovation, Flexibility, and Improvement to Patient Care Final Rule
  

Regulatory Background

• December 13, 1994: Original publication date for the hospital discharge planning requirements at §482.43.
• Improving Medicare Post-Acute Care Transformation Act of 2014 (IMPACT Act) mandated modifications to the discharge planning or discharge summary CoPs.
• May 17, 2013: CMS released updates to Appendix A of the State Operations Manual providing revised interpretive guidelines for the Discharge Planning CoPs. Notably, this revision included “blue boxes” that CMS indicated displayed “successful practices currently found throughout the industry in the area of care transitions.”
• October 29, 2015: CMS announced proposed revisions to the discharge planning requirements for hospitals, including long-term care hospitals (LTCHs), Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities (IRFs), Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs), and Home Health (HH) agencies.
• November 2, 2018: CMS published an Extension of Timeline for Publication of Final Rule, citing “the complexity of the rule and scope of public comments” as warranting the extension. This extended publication of a final rule to November 3, 2019.
• Thursday September 26, 2019: CMS released the Final Rule which was published in the Federal Register September 30, 2019.

Key Highlights from the Final Rule

The Final Rule as published in the Federal Register is forty-nine pages long with the first twenty-eight pages detailing the final requirements for hospitals. For key stakeholders involved in discharge planning, it will be important to read the entire document. For everyone else, the rest of this article highlights hospital requirements in the form of questions and answers. Note, most answers in this article reflect CMS statements verbatim from the final rule with the exception of this first question regarding when the rule will be effective.

Question: When will the regulations in the final rule be effective?

Answer: The day after Thanksgiving on Black Friday November 29, 2019.

Question: How will beneficiaries benefit from this Final Rule?

Answer: CMS notes the following in the Final Rule Summary:

• This Rule empowers patients to be active participants in the discharge planning process, and
• Implements requirements giving patients and their families access to information that will help them to make informed decisions about their post-acute care, while addressing their goals of care and treatment preferences, which may ultimately reduce their change of being re-hospitalized.

Question: Who do the Final Hospital Discharge Planning Requirements apply to?

Answer: The final requirements apply to the following:

• Short-term acute care hospitals (including their IPPS-excluded rehabilitation or psychiatric units),
• Psychiatric Hospitals, Long Term Care Hospitals (LTCHs),
• Rehabilitation Hospitals,
• Children’s hospitals, and
• Cancer hospitals
• Distinct part psychiatric and rehabilitation units in Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs)

Question: Will the final requirements replace the current psychiatric hospital requirements?

Answer: Although these discharge planning requirements apply to psychiatric hospitals, there are several additional currently existing discharge planning requirements specific to psychiatric hospitals that are not affected by the discharge planning requirements discussed in this rule. Thus, psychiatric hospitals will still be required to meet the additional special provisions, special medical record requirements, and special staff requirements set out at §§ 482.60, 482.61, and 482.62.

Inpatient psychiatric units located in a hospital, (as opposed to psychiatric hospitals) are specialized units within a larger hospital or CAH. Inpatient psychiatric units must meet the hospital CoP requirements for the hospitals in which they are located. However, they are not required to meet the CoPs specific to psychiatric hospitals set out at §§ 482.60, 482.61, and 482.62. Therefore, these discharge planning requirements apply to inpatient psychiatric units located within a hospital or a CAH.

Question: Are hospitals required to include a patient’s DME needs in a patient’s discharge instructions?

Answer: In response to a comment CMS indicated that, we agree that considering a patient’s DME needs when planning for a patient’s post-hospital care is a best practice. While we are not mandating that providers include information on a patient’s DME needs in the patient’s discharge instructions at this time, we encourage providers to do so where appropriate.

Question: How will compliance with the Final Rule be monitored?

Answer: As with all CoPs, compliance with these requirements will be monitored by CMS, State Survey Agencies (SAs), and national accrediting organizations (AOs) through surveys.

Question: Does CMS plan to provide sub-regulatory guidance focused on how to implement the final rule?

Answer: CMS has indicated that they will provide sub-regulatory interpretive guidance after the publication of this final rule, which will provide further clarification for implementing the final discharge planning requirements.

Question: Will providers be required to give a copy of the discharge plan to caregivers?

Answer: While we are not requiring providers to give a copy of the discharge plan to caregivers, patients can request a copy of their medical record, including the discharge plan, from the hospital, in their requested form and format, as required by newly revised § 482.13(d)(2) (as discussed below), and the hospital must comply with the patient’s access request as required by the HIPAA Privacy Rule at 45 CFR 164.524. Similar requirements exist for HHAs and CAHs as well.

Question: Who are the specific “Practitioners” and/or “Qualified Personnel” that can provide a list of Post-Acute Care (PAC) Providers to a patient?

Answer: Our use of the broad term “practitioner” encompasses all practitioners, including non-physician practitioners, which may be operating within a hospital. Providers may utilize the appropriate practitioners that they believe will effectively conduct a patient’s discharge planning process. For those reasons, the discharge planning CoPs do not include requirements specific to individual practitioner categories.

The regulations text, as written, does not explicitly state who must provide the list of PAC providers to the patient or their representative. In addition, the regulation text does not prohibit hospitals from including any qualified personnel it chooses in this part of the discharge planning process. Typically, the list of PAC providers is given to patients or their representative by a social worker or registered nurse (who is a case manager). The hospital must identify in its discharge planning policy the qualified personnel who will be involved in the discharge planning process and must execute their discharge planning process in accordance with their policies.

Question: What Quality Measure Data should be provided to the patient?

Answer: We proposed and finalized without modification, to require that hospitals assist patients, their families, or their caregivers/support persons in selecting a PAC provider by using and sharing data that includes, but is not limited to HHA, SNF, IRF, or LTCH data on quality measures and data on resource use measures. Furthermore, the hospital would have to ensure that the PAC data on quality measures and data on resource use measures is relevant and applicable to the patient’s goals of care and treatment preferences. We would also expect the hospital to document in the medical record that the PAAC data on quality measures and resource use measures were shared with the patient and used to assist the patient during the discharge planning process.

Section 1899B(i) of the Act requires that PAC providers, hospitals and CAHs take into account quality, resource use, and other measures in the discharge planning process. We understand that commenters had concerns about using appropriate data that would be comparable to the data that would be gathered and provided in accordance with the requirements of the IMPACT Act…We therefore expect providers to make reasonable efforts to use the quality and resource use measure data that are currently available to them until all of the measures stipulated in the IMPACT Act are finalized and publicly reported. Additional explanations, resources, instructions, and help on how to use the IRF Compare, HH Compare, Nursing Home Compare, and Long-Term Care Hospital Compare websites are currently available on the following pertinent websites:

• https://www.medicare.gov/inpatientrehabilitationfacilitycompare/.
• https://www.medicare.gov/homehealthcompare/search.html.
• https://www.medicare.gov/nursinghomecompare/search.html.
• https://www.medicare.gov/longtermcarehospitalcompare/.

While the data from these sources are not available in “real time,” the data are posted as soon as feasible. Providers should use these data sources to assist patients as they choose a PAC provider that aligns with the patient’s goals of care and treatment preferences, and we would also expect providers to document all efforts regarding this requirement in the patient’s medical record.

Question: What is CMS’ expectation regarding interpreting and discussing quality data with the patient, family, or caregiver/support person?

Answer: We believe that providers have the ability and knowledge to interpret and discuss the publicly available data on quality and resource use measures at the most basic levels. We note that we do not expect providers to give overly detailed and complex analyses of the quality and resource use data, which may only serve to confuse patients and/or their caregivers, nor do we expect providers to attempt to provide patients and their caregivers with data that do not exist regarding PAC facilities. We expect providers to put forth their best effort to answer patient questions regarding the data. We also encourage providers to refer to www.medicare.gov for additional resources and help. Further information regarding specific measures mandated by the IMPACT Act will be available in forthcoming regulations. Finally, we also encourage providers to consult the sub-regulatory interpretive guidance that will be available after publication of the final rule.

Question: Can a hospital use other sources of PAC provider quality data?

Answer: Providers can use additional available information to assist patients as they select a PAC provider, so long as the information presented aligns with the patient’s goals of care and treatment preferences. The IMPACT Act in no way limits providers’ ability to augment the information provided to patients. All attempts to assist patients should be documented in the medical record.

Furthermore, these discharge planning requirements do not prohibit providers from giving patients information regarding coverage of a selected PAC by the patient’s insurance or specifics on out of pocket costs for PAC providers. Providers may give this information to patients if they choose. However, we do not expect providers to have definitive knowledge of the terms of a patient’s insurance coverage or eligibility for postacute care, or for Medicaid coverage, but we encourage providers to be generally aware of the patient’s insurance status. We do not believe that it is appropriate to mandate such a requirement here, as these CoPs provide basic requirements for the discharge planning process.

Question: What is CMS guidance regarding “Patient Choice” and patient steering?

Answer: We understand the commenter’s concerns regarding patient steering. However, we believe compliance with the revised CoP and the fraud and abuse laws, including the physician self-referral law and Federal anti-kickback statute, is achievable.

We believe that hospitals, HHAs and CAHs will be in compliance with this requirement if they present objective data on quality and resource use measures specifically applicable to the patient’s goals of care and treatment preferences, taking care to include data on all available PAC providers, and allowing patients and/or their caregivers the freedom to select a PAC provider of their choice.

Providers will have to document all such interactions in the medical record. In addition, we expect hospitals to comply with the requirements in § 482.43(c) and inform the patient and/or the patient’s representative of their freedom to choose among participating Medicare providers and suppliers of post-discharge services, while not specifying or otherwise limiting the qualified providers or suppliers that are available to the patient.

Question: How does CMS plan to monitor for compliance with “Patient Choice”?

Answer: We remind providers that compliance with these requirements will be assessed through on-site surveys by CMS, SAs, and AOs and that purposeful patient steering (that is, directing patients and/or their caregivers to PAC providers that do not align with the patient’s goals of care and treatment preferences) could lead to a determination of provider noncompliance with the requirements in this rule. We also note that physician self-referral violations may result in imposition of penalties set out under section 1877(g) of the Act.

Question: Can hospitals tailor the data on quality measures and data on resource use measures to the individual patient?

Answer: Providers must use and share data on quality measures and data on resource use measures that are relevant and applicable to the patient’s goals of care and treatment preferences. While we believe that resource use data can be helpful to all patients, providers can tailor the specific data that are given to patients so that the data are applicable to the patient’s specific medical condition or circumstance. The provider should ensure that the data given to patients aligns with the patient’s ultimate goals of care and treatment preferences.

Question: Please clarify the protocols that providers would be expected to follow if a patient refused to agree to be discharged to a PAC facility chosen on the basis of the supplied quality data and/or family preferences, especially when no other safe options exist in the area.

Answer: We expect hospitals, HHAs, and CAHs to document the patient’s refusal in the medical records and continue to make reasonable efforts to work with the patient and/or the patient’s caregiver to find appropriate substitutions. However, we note that Medicare and Medicaid participating facilities are surveyed regularly to assure quality, and we believe that Medicare facilities in good standing can be trusted to provide services safely.

Question: How often should a hospital assess their discharge planning process?

Answer: While we are not establishing a specific timeframe requirement in order to preserve flexibility for hospitals and CAHs, we would recommend that a hospital or CAH to do its periodic review every 2 years at a minimum. In addition, hospitals and CAHs would still have the flexibility to perform this review more frequently than every 2 years if they wish to do so.

We therefore are finalizing a provision at § 482.43(a)(7) (as originally proposed at § 482.43(c)(10)) that would require a hospital (or a CAH) to assess its discharge planning process on a regular basis, which would include ongoing, periodic review of a representative sample of discharge plans, including those patients who were readmitted within 30 days of a previous admission, to ensure that the plans are responsive to patient post-discharge needs.

Question: Did CMS finalize the proposal to require the discharge planning process to certain categories of outpatients, including but not limited to patients receiving observation services?

Answer: No, CMS did not finalize this proposal and noted in the final rule that “we agree with commenters that the requirement needs to be scaled back in its scope and applicability to a more flexible requirement. We also agree that the proposed requirement could potentially have the unintended consequence of shifting hospital resources away from those patients most in need of a discharge plan.”

Question: What is the finalized discharge planning process for hospitals?

Answer: After consideration of the comments we received on the proposed rule, we are revising proposed § 482.43(b), to be finalized as § 482.43(a) introductory text and (a)(2), to require that the hospital’s discharge planning process identify, at an early stage of hospitalization, those patients who are likely to suffer adverse health consequences upon discharge in the absence of adequate discharge planning, and must provide a discharge planning evaluation for those patients so identified, as well as for other patients upon the request of the patient, patient’s representative, or patient’s physician. A discharge planning evaluation must include an evaluation of a patient’s likely need for appropriate post-hospital services, including, but not limited to, hospice care services, post-hospital extended care services, and home health services; such evaluation must also determine the availability of those services.

Question: Who is required to coordinate the discharge needs evaluation and development of a discharge plan for a patient?

Answer: Any discharge planning evaluation or discharge plan required under this paragraph must be developed by, or under the supervision of, a registered nurse, social worker, or other appropriately qualified personnel.

Question: It was proposed that hospitals must begin to identify anticipated discharge needs for each applicable patients within 24 hours after admission or registration, and the discharge planning process is completed prior to discharge home or transfer to another facility and without unduly delaying the patient’s discharge or transfer. If the patient’s stay was less than 24 hours, the discharge needs would be identified prior to the patient’s discharge home or transfer to another facility. Was this finalized?

Answer: The identification of needs within 24 hours Proposal was removed from the final rule. CMS did finalize modifying 482.43(a) to state that the hospital must identify at an early stage of hospitalization all patients who are likely to surer adverse health consequences upon discharge if there is no adequate discharge planning. The hospital must provide a discharge planning evaluation for those patients so identified as well as for other patients upon the request of the patient, the patient’s representative, or patient’s physician.

Question: How often must a hospital re-evaluate the discharge planning process?

Answer: CMS finalized that a hospital’s discharge planning process must require regular re-evaluation of the patient’s condition to identify changes that require modification of the discharge plan. The discharge plan must be updated, as needed, to reflect these changes.

Question: What must be included in a discharge planning evaluation?

Answer: A discharge planning evaluation must include an evaluation of a patient’s likely need for appropriate post-hospital services, including, but not limited to, hospice care services, post-hospital extended care services, and home health services, and non-health care services and community based care providers, and must also determine the availability of the appropriate services as well as of the patient’s access to those services.

Question: How should hospitals involve the patient and his or her care giver in the discharge planning process?

Answer: The discharge planning evaluation must be included in the patient’s medical record for use in establishing an appropriate discharge plan and the results of the evaluation must be discussed with the patient (or the patient’s representative).

Hospitals must have an effective discharge planning process that focuses on the patient’s goals and preferences and includes the patient and his or her caregivers/support person(s) as active partners in the discharge planning for post-discharge care. The discharge planning process and the discharge plan must be consistent with the patient’s goals for care and his or her treatment preferences, ensure an effective transition of the patient from hospital to post-discharge care, and reduce the factors leading to preventable hospital readmissions. These requirements are included in the introductory paragraph at § 482.43.

Similarly, we understand that situations may arise where patients may be uncooperative or may refuse to participate in the discharge planning process. We also expect hospitals and CAHs to document the patient’s refusal to participate in the discharge planning process, and that such attempts to incorporate the patient and/or the patient’s caregiver in the discharge planning process were made, in the medical record.

Question: CMS proposed an extensive list of minimum elements (i.e. demographics, advance directives, functional status assessment) that would need to be provided when a patient transfers to another health care facility. Was this proposal finalized?

Answer: While we are not requiring an extensive list of items as originally proposed, we still expect facilities to send certain necessary medical information that is critical to the care of the patient and pertinent to the patient’s specific medical status at the time of discharge. We also believe facilities should have discretion to send the most relevant information within the required necessary medical information, consistent with “clinical relevance” as defined in the Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Record Incentive Program final rule (80 FR 62761, October 16, 2015) (“2015 Meaningful Use Rule”). Other important and pertinent information that should be conveyed at discharge or transfer would be current diagnoses (including any behavioral health issues of mental health and substance abuse), laboratory results (including Clostridium difficile and multi-drug resistant organism status, as well as any antibiotic susceptibility testing, as applicable), and patient functional status, to name just a few broad areas of medical information that we believe are critical to patient care.

Question: What did CMS propose regarding the Requirements for Post-Acute Care Services and was it finalized?

Answer: We proposed to further clarify that the PAC providers mentioned in the IMPACT Act, specifically LTCHs and IRFs (rehabilitation hospitals and rehabilitation units of hospitals and CAHs), would also be subject to the proposed revision to the hospital CoPs in order to provide consistency with the IMPACT Act. We proposed that for patients who are enrolled in Managed Care Organizations (MCOs), the hospital must make the patient aware that the patient or caregiver needs to verify the participation of HHAs or SNFs in their network. If the hospital has information regarding which providers participate in the managed care organization’s network, it must share this information with the patient and must document in the patient’s medical record that the list was presented to the patient. The patient or their caregiver/support persons must be informed of the patient’s freedom to choose among providers and to have their expressed wishes respected, whenever possible. The final component of the retained provision would be the hospital’s disclosure of any financial interest in the referred HHA or SNF. However, this section would be revised to include IRFs and LTCHs.

After consideration of the comments, CMS finalized this proposal without modification.

Question: What is CMS’ expectation regarding providing PAC lists?

Answer: We would allow a hospital the flexibility to implement the requirement to present its list of HHAs, SNFs, IRFs, or LTCHs in a manner that is most efficient and least burdensome in its particular setting. For HHA, SNF, and dialysis services, a hospital can access a list from the CMS Web site, at http://www.medicare.gov, or develop and maintain its own list of HHAs and SNFs. We expect that providers have the most current list of providers that is available to them at the time. When the patient requires home health services, the CMS Web site list can be accessed based on the geographic area in which the patient resides. When the patient requires post hospital extended care services, the CMS Web site list would be accessed based on the geographic area requested by the patient. Or, in the rare instance when a hospital does not have Internet access, the hospital can call 1–800–MEDICARE (1–800–633–4227) to request a printout of a list of HHAs or SNFs in the desired geographic area… We expect discharge planning to facilitate patient choice in any post hospital extended care services, even though the statute does not require a specific list beyond HHAs, SNFs, IRFs, and LTCHs. The proposed requirement at § 482.43(f)(2) is also important because it requires the hospital, as part of the discharge planning process, to inform the patient or the patient’s representative of their freedom to choose among participating Medicare providers and suppliers of post discharge services and must, when possible, respect the patient’s or the patient’s representative’s goals of care and treatment preferences, as well as other preferences they express. The hospital must not specify or otherwise limit the qualified providers or suppliers that are available to the patient. We do encourage hospitals to provide any information regarding PAC providers that provide services that meet the needs of the patient. Hospitals must not develop preferred lists of providers. If the hospital has information regarding a PAC provider’s specialized services, we encourage that this information be provided to the patient as well as any culturally specific needs that the PAC providers are able to address (for example, the patient’s foreign language needs, and their cultural dietary needs or restrictions).

Question: Should a hospital be required to document the actual list of post-acute care referrals presented to the patient as a means for surveyors to determine the adequacy of the post-discharge options presented to the patient?

Answer: We agree with the need to ensure that surveyors appropriately determine that hospitals are providing patients referred to HHAs, SNFs, IRFs, or LTCHs a list of providers that contains appropriate and sufficient options in accordance with this requirement. We think it is important to allow hospitals the flexibility to determine the manner in which they document in the patient’s medical record that the list of PAC providers was presented to the patient or to the patient’s representative. We expect that surveyors will ask to see this documentation as part of the survey process.

Question: What do hospitals need to do to prepare for implementation of the final rule?

Answer: Hospitals will need to review their current policies and procedures and update them so that they comply with the modified requirements, which will be a one-time burden on each hospital.

Note, this article is limited to requirements for hospitals as defined earlier in the article. It does not cover the Home Health Agency or Critical Access Hospital portions of the final rule.

MMP will be watching and alert our readers when CMS publishes sub-regulatory guidance.

To date, Palmetto GBA has posted twenty-three DRG and procedure specific articles on their CERT Topics webpage (JJ Part A CERT General Information or JM Part A CERT General Information). As September comes to a close and in honor of Atrial Fibrillation Awareness Month, today we highlight two recent additions to this growing list of articles.

DRGs 273 & 274: Percutaneous Intra-cardiac Procedure with MCC and without MCC respectively

Left Atrial Appendage Closure (LAAC) procedures are performed as a stroke prevention measure in certain patients with atrial fibrillation. National Coverage Determination (NCD) 20.34 outlines the indications for CMS to consider this procedure to be a medically necessary service.

The CERT denials of inpatient claims for LAAC article highlights the following reasons for denials:

• Missing documentation to support the need for the LAAC procedure. Reminder, CMS covers this procedure for patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.
• The submitted medical records were missing evidence of a formal shared decision making interaction with an independent non-interventional physician using an evidence-based decision tool on oral anticoagulation in patients with non-ventricular atrial fibrillation prior to LAAC.

DRG 266: Endovascular Cardiac Valve Replacement with MCC

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Repair (TAVR) procedures are performed to treat symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. NCD 20.32 outlines the indications for CMS to consider this procedure to be a medically necessary service.

The CERT denials of inpatient claims for TAVR article highlights the following two reasons for denials:

• Missing documentation to support the need for the TAVR procedure. Note, this procedure is used for the treatment of aortic stenosis when furnished according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) - approved indications.
• The submitted medical records were missing evidence that two cardiac surgeons had independently examined the patient face-to-face and evaluated the patient’s suitability for open aortic valve replacement (AVR) surgery. Both surgeons must document the rationale for their clinical judgment and that the rationale was available to the heart team.

Note: The requirement has changed from two cardiac surgeons independently examining the patient to a cardiac surgeon and an interventional cardiologist with the release of the June 2019 Decision Memo (CAG-00430R).

To date, out of the twenty-three articles, only Psychoses (DRG 885) and Renal Failure (DRG 682) have come under scrutiny in the Targeted Probe and Educate (TPE) Program. While not officially on the list, we have heard from a client that they have received requests for Spinal Fusion records. DRG 460 Spinal Fusion was one of the first of these articles posted. As a reminder to providers in one of the two Palmetto jurisdictions, Palmetto finalized Local Coverage Determination (LCD): Lumbar Spinal Fusion (L37848) this year that is effective for services performed on or after 05/06/2019. 

MMP will continue to follow Palmetto’s websites for any future articles.

One of the most complicated phrases in Southern lexicon is “bless your heart.” It can convey concern, empathy, pity, spitefulness, rudeness, or plain meanness. Whatever the intended meaning, if you are on the receiving end of this catchphrase, something is not going well for you.

This is my third article in the Wednesday@One newsletter about Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) in the last six weeks. When a topic appears that many times in such a short timeframe, it means it is difficult; likely to have serious impact, either financially or in work processes; and hospitals need to pay attention. I focus on hospitals because they are MMP’s target client, but the AUC requirements affect more than just hospitals. This adds an additional layer of difficulty by requiring communication and coordination between the various providers.

You can refer back to my previous articles for more details about the requirements – Appropriate Use Criteria Is Coming Soon and Clarification of AUC Requirements for Emergency Conditions. In this week’s article, I want to offer some suggestions on how you might approach the process. AUC requires the ordering practitioner to consult an interactive, electronic tool known as a Clinical Decision Support Mechanism (CDSM) prior to ordering advanced imaging studies (CTs, MRs, NM studies and PET scans) to determine if the study is appropriate for the patient’s condition or signs and symptoms. That information, including which CDSM was consulted, or why a CDSM was not consulted if applicable, must be communicated to the facility performing the technical portion of the test and to the interpreting radiologist. Finally, the facility and the interpreting professional must append modifiers and sometimes HCPCS codes to their claims conveying the AUC information to Medicare. 2020 is a testing year but once the program is fully implemented, claims without the appropriate information will not be paid. The goal of the program is to ultimately be able to identify practitioners who overutilize or inappropriately utilize advanced imaging studies and require those practitioners to get a prior approval (PA) for advance imaging studies. The desired outcome is reduced costs and radiation exposure by eliminating unnecessary advanced imaging studies.

If I still worked in Compliance in a hospital, how would I approach this? Who needs to be involved? What questions need to be considered? How can we make the process work?

As with most issues, after you are familiar with the requirements, you will need to start with a meeting of the key players. The necessary team members may vary among facilities and you may not think of everyone for the first meeting. Here are some departments you will likely want to include – compliance, information technology, business office/billing, registration, scheduling, radiology, and the emergency department. At your first meeting, you will want to make sure everyone understands what the requirements are and what role they will likely play in the process. An excellent resource to share with team members is the Appropriate Use Criteria MLN Fact Sheet.

Also, I recommend developing a list of questions that must be answered, such as:

• Where and how does our facility receive orders for advanced imaging tests? Who are these orders communicated from and to?
• Are the practitioners who order advanced imaging exams aware of the new requirements and where are they on preparedness? What can we do to educate the ordering physicians/NPPs?
• Are there hospital clinics or hospital-employed practitioners that must use a CDSM? If so, have we/they selected a CDSM to be purchased and installed? Who and when will users be trained on the CDSM?
• Can IT develop queries in the electronic scheduling and ordering system to gather the needed information? Can these queries select the appropriate CPT/HCPCS code(s) and modifiers and push them to the claim?
• How will the facility share this information with the interpreting professional?
• Are there other facility departments that need to be involved?
• How do we determine if a patient in the emergency room meets the emergency condition exception or not? If not, who in the ED is responsible for checking the CDSM and entering the information?

I found over the years that as much as I wracked my brain prior to such a meeting, once the meeting occurred, many other questions and issues arose from the meeting members. That is definitely what you want and how you start! As you answer the questions, you will begin to develop ideas on how the process will work and how information will be communicated between parties and eventually to the claim.

The key to success is working with smart people who work well as a team and are dedicated to making the process a success. If you do not have such people working with you, good luck and “bless your heart.”

MEDICARE TRANSMITTALS – RECURRING UPDATES

2020 Annual Update of Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) Codes for Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) Consolidated Billing (CB) Update

https://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNMattersArticles/downloads/MM11441.pdf

Annual Clotting Factor Furnishing Fee Update 2020

The clotting factor furnishing fee for 2020 is $0.226 per unit.

https://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNMattersArticles/downloads/MM11435.pdf

Influenza Vaccine Payment Allowances - Annual Update for 2019-2020 Season

https://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNMattersArticles/downloads/MM11428.pdf

October 2019 Integrated Outpatient Code Editor (I/OCE) Specifications Version 20.3

https://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNMattersArticles/downloads/MM11412.pdf

October 2019 Update of the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS)

Includes numerous new and revised codes.

https://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNMattersArticles/downloads/MM11451.pdf

October Quarterly Update for 2019 Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics and Supplies (DMEPOS) Fee Schedule

https://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNMattersArticles/downloads/MM11433.pdf

October 2019 Quarterly Average Sales Price (ASP) Medicare Part B Drug Pricing Files and Revisions to Prior Quarterly Pricing Files

https://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNMattersArticles/downloads/MM11343.pdf

Quarterly Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) Drug/Biological Code Changes - October 2019 Update

https://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNMattersArticles/downloads/MM11422.pdf

OTHER MEDICARE TRANSMITTALS

Implementation to Exchange the List of Electronic Medical Documentation Requests (eMDR) for Registered Providers via the Electronic Submission of Medical Documentation (esMD) System – REVISED

Article revised on August 26, 2019, to reflect changes made to the eMDR registration screens within NPPES. The article includes illustrations of the new screens that providers will have to complete in order to register to receive the eMDRs.

https://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNMattersArticles/downloads/MM11003.pdf

Implementation of the Award for the Jurisdiction H Part A and Part B Medicare Administrative Contractor (JH A/B MAC)

Announces the Jurisdiction JH A/B MAC re-competition procurement that was recently awarded to Novitas Solutions, Inc., the incumbent contractor for this workload.

https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Transmittals/2019Downloads/R2358OTN.pdf

Billing for Hospital Part B Inpatient Services

Reminder of the policy regarding billing instructions for hospital Part B inpatient service claims, including the allowance of Revenue Code 0240 on 012x Type of Bills (TOB).

https://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNMattersArticles/downloads/MM11413.pdf

MEDICARE SPECIAL EDITION ARTICLES

Medicare Part B Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule: Revised Information for Laboratories on Collecting and Reporting Data for the Private Payor Rate-Based Payment System – REVISED

Revised on September 5, 2019, to delete incorrect information in the section titled Only Applicable Information Attributed to non-Hospital Patients is Reported.

https://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNMattersArticles/downloads/SE19006.pdf

Activation of Systematic Validation Edits for OPPSProviders with Multiple Service Locations – Update – REVISED

Revised on September 5, 2019, to announce a delay of full implementation until April 2020.

https://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNMattersArticles/downloads/SE19007.pdf

MEDICARE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

Medicare Fast Facts

Medicare Fast Facts resources this month include:

• Bill Correctly for Device Replacement Procedures

https://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNProducts/Fast-Facts.html?DLSort=1&DLEntries=10&DLPage=1&DLSortDir=descending

OTHER MEDICARE UPDATES

Case Review Connections, Fall 2019

KEPRO Quarterly Acute Care Newsletter

https://keproqio.com/bene/newsletter/2019Summeracute

In the August 20, 2019 Wednesday@One, we published an article about Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) which will enter the Educational and Operations Testing Period beginning January 1, 2020. During this phase, providers are encouraged to participate, but claims will not be denied for lack of AUC claim elements. In that article, I stated, “It is confusing to me why applicable settings include hospital emergency departments when patients with an emergency medical condition are exempt.” I reached out to CMS for further clarification and they directed me to the CY 2019 Physician Fee Schedule final rule on page 59699 (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-11-23/pdf/2018-24170.pdf) for more information about this exception. I appreciated their prompt response and I think it actually did answer my question.

After reading the above reference and the section of the Social Security Act which it references, I determined that the difference in the exception versus all services provided in a hospital emergency department depends on differing definitions of the term “emergency.”

The exception for following the AUC guidelines does not apply to section 1867(a) of the Act which is where the requirement for an appropriate medical screening examination is set forth. This section states,

• “In the case of a hospital that has a hospital emergency department, if any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under this title) comes to the emergency department and a request is made on the individual’s behalf for examination or treatment for a medical condition, the hospital must provide for an appropriate medical screening examination within the capability of the hospital’s emergency department, including ancillary services routinely available to the emergency department, to determine whether or not an emergency medical condition (within the meaning of subsection (e)(1)) exists.”

We all know that many patients present to the emergency department for conditions that are not really “emergencies” as defined further in the Act. Advanced imaging services provided for these types of conditions will be required to follow the AUC guidelines.

It is only those “serious jeopardy” emergency conditions as defined in section 1867(e)(1) of the SSA that are exempt from the AUC requirements. This section of the Act defines “emergency medical condition” to mean

• a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in—
• placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy,
• serious impairment to bodily functions, or
• serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part; or
• with respect to a pregnant woman who is having contractions—
• that there is inadequate time to effect a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or
• that transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or the unborn child.

The discussion in the 2019 MPFS Final Rule does clarify that the exception to using AUC includes “instances where an emergency medical condition is suspected, but not yet confirmed. This may include, for example, instances of severe pain or severe allergic reactions. In these instances, the exception is applicable even if it is determined later that the patient did not in fact have an emergency medical condition.”

Even though I think I understand the distinction between less severe conditions of ED patients and those with conditions placing the patient’s health in serious jeopardy, impairment or dysfunction, I am curious to see how CMS will make this determination for payment purposes once consultation and reporting of use of AUC is required. For example, an ED claim with a diagnosis of GERD could have been a patient presenting with chest pain, a condition that could potentially place the patient’s health in serious jeopardy. Is CMS going to perform a complex review to determine if AUC is required or not? If so, what documentation would they expect to see in the ED record to support that an emergency medical condition was suspected? I guess we will just have to wait and see how it all plays out.

Q:

Are there any Medicare guidelines for when it is appropriate to bill hydration therapy?

A:

Yes, there are some. Novitas, the Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) for Jurisdictions H and L (JH and JL); Palmetto (JJ and JM MAC), and Noridian (JE and JF MAC) all have coverage articles that address hydration therapy. In addition, Novitas (JH/JL) has a Local Coverage Determination (LCD) for Hydration Therapy, which contains the most exhaustive listing of indications and limitations for hydration.

In May, HMS, the Recovery Auditor for Region 4, posted approved RAC issue 0137, Intravenous Hydration Administration: Medical Necessity and Documentation Requirements. The details of this issue state:

• “Necessity for administration of hydration should be supported within medical documentation. Routine administration of IV fluids, pre/post operatively while the patient is NPO for example, without documentation supporting signs and/or symptoms including those of dehydration or fluid loss is not supported as medically necessary. It is important to distinguish the medical necessity of hydration from the use of fluid administration intended only to initiate flow or to keep the vein open. When the sole purpose of the IV fluid administration is to establish and/or maintain vascular access or patency of the IV line, the service is neither diagnostic nor therapeutic and must not be separately reported.”

The Noridian article includes this statement:

• “Medical necessity is supported in the evaluation performed by the provider (usually on the same day) and involves the clinical assessment of the patient. Documentation of the assessment should describe symptoms warranting HYDRATION, such as those associated with dehydration, the inability to ingest fluids, abnormal fluid losses, abnormal vital signs, and/or abnormal laboratory studies, such as an elevated BUN, creatinine, glucose or lactic acid. Nausea itself does not necessarily indicate fluid volume depletion nor support necessity of fluid repletion.”

Even if you are a provider in another jurisdiction, hydration therapy must be medically necessary as this is required of all Medicare services. You can use the information from the MAC and RAC sources mentioned above for guidance and direct any specific questions concerning coverage of hydration therapy to your regional MAC.

What is Structural Heart Disease?

In recent years, we have seen several of our clients expand their Cardiology Services into the field of Structural Heart. So, what exactly is structural heart disease? In my quest for understanding, I found several different definitions of structural heart disease, the two most pertinent to the focus of this article are from the Journal of American College of Cardiology and the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

“The term “structural heart disease” entered the adult cardiology lexicon in 1999 and currently encompasses the base of knowledge and competencies surrounding noncoronary cardiac procedures such as transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), percutaneous mitral repair, and left atrial appendage exclusion.”

• Structural Heart Disease, Curt J. Daniels, Michael J. Landzberg, Robert H. Beekman ,Journal of the American College of Cardiology May 2015, 65 (20) 2260-2261; DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.12.075

The Cardiovascular Research Foundation defines structural heart disease as covering “a wide range of cardiac conditions, including valvular heart disease and defects in the muscular structure of the heart. The disease may be congenital, as well as acquired. As the American population ages, acquired disease, such as calcific (senile) aortic stenosis and mitral regurgitation has increased in importance, with 12% of adults over the age of 75 being diagnosed with the disease. The past two decades have seen a revolution in the treatment of structural heart disease with transcatheter therapies being developed for valve repair and replacement, closure of defects such as ASD (atrial septal defects), and isolation of the left atrial appendage to reduce embolic risk in atrial fibrillation. Patients who previously could only undergo high risk surgical aortic valve replacement or were completely inoperable can now be treated with a transcatheter approach, often with only a one night stay in the hospital.”

Structural Heart Procedures

With an understanding of structural heart disease, the rest of this article focuses on Medicare Fee-for-Service documentation requirements for the three procedures described in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology’s definition of structural heart disease, specifically:

• Left Atrial Appendage Closure (LAAC) or WATCHMAN™ Procedure,
• Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR), and
• Transcathater Mitral Valve Repair (TMVR) or MitraClip Procedure.

In addition to documentation requirements, there are very specific billing requirements for the claims to be paid. You can read about the billing requirements in the related article in this week’s newsletter.

Left Atrial Appendage Closure “WATCHMAN™”

The FDA approved the WATCHMAN™ closure technology in March of 2015. This procedure is indicated to reduce the risk of thromboembolism from the Left Atrial Appendage in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). CMS published the National Coverage Determination (NCD) for Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure (20.34) with an effective date of February 8, 2016.

Checklist for hospitals performing WATCHMAN™ procedure

• This procedure is on the Medicare Inpatient-Only Procedure (IPO) List
• The patient must have non-valvular atrial fibrillation,
• The patient must have a CHADS2 score ≥ 2 OR CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥3,
• The patient must participate in a formal Shared Decision Making Encounter (SDM) with an independent non-interventional physician using an evidence based decision tool on oral anti-coagulation in patients with non-ventricular atrial fibrillation prior to procedure.
• Documentation of the SDM must be in the medical record.
• The patient must be suitable for short-term Warfarin but deemed unable to take long-term anticoagulation following the conclusion of the SDM encounter.
• The patient must be under the care of Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) of medical professionals.
• The procedure must be performed by an interventional cardiologist, electrophysiologist, or cardiovascular surgeon who meets the criteria outlined in the NCD to perform the procedure.
• The patient must be enrolled in, and the MDT must participate in a prospective, national audited registry.
• Read the NCD carefully and make sure you are following all of Medicare’s requirements.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR)

TAVR is for the treatment of symptomatic aortic valve stenosis where a biprosthetic valve is inserted percutaneously using a catheter and implanted in the orifice of the native aortic valve. CMS published the National Coverage Determination (NCD) Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) (20.32) in May 2012. In June of this year, CMS published a Final Decision Memo making updates to the NCD. One significant change was to change the requirement that two cardiac surgeon’s document a face-to-face encounter with the patient prior to the procedure to requiring a cardiac surgeon and an interventional cardiologist. You can read more about the new decision memo in a related MMP article by Debbie Rubio in a July 2019 edition of the Wednesday@One. The following excerpt is from that article:

Checklist for hospitals that perform the TAVR procedure:

• This procedure is on the Medicare IPO List.
• The patient must have symptomatic aortic valve stenosis;
• The patient must be under the care of a heart team and the heart team's interventional cardiologist(s) and cardiac surgeon(s) jointly participate in the intra-operative technical aspects of TAVR;
• The hospital must have the appropriate infrastructure for the procedure;
• Your medical record must contain documentation of the face-to-face patient examinations by a cardiac surgeon and an interventional cardiologist (experienced in the care and treatment of aortic stenosis) evaluating the patient’s suitability for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), TAVR or medical or palliative therapy;
• Assess your hospital and heart team volumes to be sure you meet the requirements for performing the procedure under the new Decision Memo; and
• Read the new Decision Memo carefully and make sure you are following all of Medicare’s requirements.

Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair (TMVR) MitraClip

The FDA approved the first TMVR device on October 24, 2013. Abbott Vascular’s MitraClip® was approved “for the percutaneous reduction of significant symptomatic mitral regurgitation (MR ≥ 3+) due to primary abnormality of the mitral apparatus [degenerative MR] in patients who have been determined to be at prohibitive risk for mitral valve surgery by a heart team, which includes a cardiac surgeon experienced in mitral valve surgery and a cardiologist experienced in mitral valve disease, and in whom existing comorbidities would not preclude the expected benefit from reduction of the mitral regurgitation.” CMS published the National Coverage Determination (NCD) for Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair (TMVR) (20.33) with an effective date of August 7, 2014.

On August 14, 2019, at the request of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS), and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI), CMS opened a National Coverage Analysis (NCA) Tracking Sheet for Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair (TMVR) (CAG-00438R). The expected release of a Proposed Decision Memo is February 14, 2020.

The issue identified in the NCA is that currently this procedure is covered for the treatment of degenerative (primary) mitral regurgitation (MR) involving a structural abnormality. However, there are two types of MR and currently this procedure is not covered for the treatment of functional (secondary) MR which is a distinct condition that generally results from left ventricular dysfunction.

Checklist for hospitals that perform the TMVR procedure:

• This procedure is on the Medicare IPO list.
• The ICD-10-CM diagnoses supporting medical necessity for service provided both describe a nonrheumatic condition. Documentation in the medical record must specify if the valve insufficiency is Nonrheumatic or rheumatic as the Second Quarter 2019 Coding Clinic guidance advises that ICD-10-CM assumes aortic and mitral valve disease is rheumatic in nature when it is not described as non-rheumatic.
• Currently, the procedure is approved for the treatment of significant symptomatic degenerative MR.
• The patient must have a face-to-face encounter by a cardiothoracic surgeon experienced in mitral valve surgery and a cardiologist in mitral valve disease. The encounter must evaluate the patient’s suitability for mitral valve surgery and determination of prohibitive risk, and both must have documented their rationale for their clinical judgement in the medical record.
• The patient must be under the care MDT of healthcare professionals.
• Assess your hospital infrastructure and heart team volumes to be sure you meet the requirements for performing this procedure.
• The heart team’s interventional cardiologist or a cardiothoracic surgeon must perform the TMVR.
• Read the NCD carefully and make sure you are following all of Medicare’s requirements.

This article is meant to help providers with a structural heart program perform a self-assessment to validate that your claims support the medical necessity requirements outlined in the NCDs. This article is also meant to be a starting point for those providers considering or in the early stages of a structural heart program become knowledgeable about the CMS medical necessity. Additionally, MMP has developed procedure specific tip sheets. Click here to download the tip sheet for Left Atrial Appendage Closure (LAAC), here for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR), and here for Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair (TMVR).

Medicare has National Coverage Determinations (NCDs) that describe the requirements that must be performed and documented for the cardiac services of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR), Left Atrial Appendage Closure (LAAC), and Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair (TMVR). Be sure to read the other article in this week’s Wednesday@One that discusses these requirements. Hopefully your cardiology department is familiar with the NCDs and has implemented processes to ensure the documentation in your records supports Medicare’s requirements. But isn’t it frustrating if all the requirements are met and appropriately documented, to have your Medicare claim denied, rejected, or returned due to missing claim elements? And in addition to the frustration, your facility is delaying or missing out on your Medicare DRG payments.

Claims for these services obviously must include the appropriate procedure codes and diagnosis codes. In addition, since all of these cardiac services are covered under Coverage with Evidence Development (CED), the claims must include a secondary diagnosis code, condition code, and value code related to the clinical trial/registry. All three of these procedures are inpatient-only procedures and would be billed on an inpatient claim, type of bill, 11x and paid under a Medicare DRG payment.

Specifically, for each procedure the following is required on the institutional inpatient claim:

Left Atrial Appendage Closure (LAAC) (Watchman procedure):

• Procedure Code - 02L73DK (Occlusion of Left Atrial Appendage with Intraluminal Device, Percutaneous Approach)
• One of the following diagnosis codes –
• I48.0 - Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation
• I48.1 - Persistent Atrial Fibrillation
• I48.2 - Chronic Atrial Fibrillation
• I48.91 - Unspecified Atrial Fibrillation
• Secondary diagnosis code – Z00.6 - Encounter for examination for normal comparison and control in clinical research program
• Condition Code 30 - Qualified Clinical Trial
• Value Code D4 and corresponding 8-digit clinical trial number (Clinical trail and/or registry numbers can be found on Medicare’s CED website.)

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR):

• Procedure Code – One of the following procedure codes –
• 02RF37Z (Replacement of Aortic Valve with Autologous Tissue Substitute, Percutaneous Approach),
• 02RF38Z (Replacement of Aortic Valve with Zooplastic Tissue, Percutaneous Approach),
• 02RF3JZ (Replacement of Aortic Valve with Synthetic Substitute, Percutaneous Approach),
• 02RF3KZ (Replacement of Aortic Valve with Nonautologous Tissue Substitute, Percutaneous Approach),
• 02RF37H (Replacement of Aortic Vavle with Autologous Tissue Substitute, Transapical, Percutaneous Approach),
• 02RF38H (Replacement of Aortic Valve with Zooplastic Tissue, Transapical, Percutaneous Approach),
• 02RF3JH (Replacement of Aortic Valve with Synthetic Substitute, Transapical, Percutaneous Approach), or
• 02RF3KH (Replacement of Aortic Valve with Nonautologous Tissue Substitute, Transapical, Percutaneous Approach)
• Procedure Code - X2A5312 (Cerebral Embolic Filtration, dual filter in innominate artery and left common carotid artery, percutaneous approach) when used
• One of the following diagnosis codes –
• I35.0 - Nonrheumatic aortic (valve) stenosis
• T82.222A - Displacement of biological heart valve graft, initial encounter (Code for when a previously placed valve was malpositioned or became displaced)
• T82.857A - Stenosis of cardiac prosthetic devices, implants and grafts, initial encounter (Code for when the previously placed valve developed stenosis prematurely)
• T82.223A - Leakage of biological heart valve graft, initial encounter (Code for when the previously placed valve developed regurgitation prematurely)
• Z45.09 - Encounter for adjustment and management of other cardiac device (Code for when the previously placed valve developed stenosis or regurgitation as an expected occurrence as it degenerates towards end-of-life)
• Secondary diagnosis code – Z00.6 - Encounter for examination for normal comparison and control in clinical research program
• Condition Code 30 - Qualified Clinical Trial
• Value Code D4 and corresponding 8-digit clinical trial number

Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair (TMVR) (MitraClip procedure):

• One of the following Procedure Codes
• 02UG3JZ - Supplemental Mitral Valve with Synthetic Substitute, Percutaneous approach
• 02QG3ZE - Repair Mitral Valve created from Left Atrioventricular Valve, Percutaneous Approach
• 02QG4ZE - Repair Mitral Valve created from Left Atrioventricular Valve, Percutaneous Endoscopic Approach
• 02UG37E - Supplement Mitral Valve created from Left Atrioventricular Valve with Autologous Tissue Substitute, Percutaneous Approach
• 02UG38E - Supplement Mitral Valve created from Left Atrioventricular Valve with Zooplastic Tissue, Percutaneous Approach
• 02UG3JE - Supplement Mitral Valve created from Left Atrioventricular Valve with Synthetic Substitute, Percutaneous Approach
• 02UG3KE - Supplement Mitral Valve created from Left Atrioventricular Valve with Nonautologous Tissue Substitute, Percutaneous Approach
• 02UG3KZ - Supplement Mitral Valve with Nonautologous Tissue Substitute, Percutaneous Approach
• 02UG47E - Supplement Mitral Valve created from Left Atrioventricular Valve with Autologous Tissue Substitute, Percutaneous Endoscopic Approach
• 02UG48E - Supplement Mitral Valve created from Left Atrioventricular Valve with Zooplastic Tissue, Percutaneous Endoscopic Approach
• 02UG4JE - Supplement Mitral Valve created from Left Atrioventricular Valve with Synthetic Substitute, Percutaneous Endoscopic Approach
• 02UG4KE - Supplement Mitral Valve created from Left Atrioventricular Valve with Nonautologous Tissue Substitute, Percutaneous Endoscopic Approach
• 02WG37Z - Revision of Autologous Tissue Substitute in Mitral Valve, Percutaneous Approach
• 02WG38Z - Revision of Zooplastic Tissue in Mitral Valve, Percutaneous Approach
• 02WG3JZ - Revision of Synthetic Substitute in Mitral Valve, Percutaneous Approach
• 02WG3KZ - Revision of Nonautologous Tissue Substitute in Mitral Valve, Percutaneous Approach
• One of the following diagnosis codes –
• I34.0 - Nonrheumatic mitral (valve) insufficiency
• I34.1 - Nonrheumatic mitral valve prolapse
• Secondary diagnosis code – Z00.6 - Encounter for examination for normal comparison and control in clinical research program
• Condition Code 30 - Qualified Clinical Trial
• Value Code D4 and corresponding 8-digit clinical trial number

MACs will fully reject inpatient claims for these cardiac procedures when billed without the appropriate procedure, diagnosis, or clinical trial codes. Hospitals that perform these procedures need to put processes in place for communication between the clinical department, coding, and the billing office so that the appropriate claim elements are added. Internal claim processing edits to halt claims with one of the applicable procedure codes may be an option to verify appropriate diagnosis codes and allow the addition of the clinical trial codes.

Refer to the NCDs and corresponding claims processing instructions for complete Medicare requirements.

NCD 20.32 TAVR,  NCD 20.33 TMVR, and NCD 20.34 LAAC. 

Q:

Our hospital laboratory sometimes sends an employee to a patient’s home or to a nursing home to collect a specimen. What are the Medicare billing requirements for this service?

A:

WPS, the Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) for Jurisdictions 5 and 8, recently published an article about Travel Allowance for Phlebotomy and Specimen Collection. Medicare will pay a travel allowance at a per mile rate for distances that are greater than 20 miles (HCPCS code P9603) or at a flat rate for distances of 20 miles or less (HCPCS code P9604). The lab employee must actually collect a specimen by venipuncture or catheterization; Medicare does not reimburse for travel to pick up a pre-collected specimen. For the travel to be covered, the associated laboratory test must be reimbursed. To ensure coverage of the lab test, be sure to have a signed and dated physician’s order or progress note that specifies the test(s) requested, the lab results, a medical diagnosis and relevant signs and symptoms, documentation supporting medical necessity, and documentation that the physician used the lab results in treating the patient.

One of the more stringent requirements for coverage of the travel allowance is that “the patient must be in a nursing facility where there was no qualified staff to collect the specimen or homebound” according to the WPS article. Should a claim for travel allowance be reviewed by a Medicare contractor, there must be documentation supporting one of these requirements. The article provides further details on what makes a patient considered “homebound.”

Another thing to keep in mind is that services must be pro-rated depending on the number of patients for each trip, including both Medicare and non-Medicare patients. For example, if a technician goes to a nursing home and collects from 5 patients, of which 4 are Medicare patients, then the total round-trip miles and/or travel charge would be divided by 5 to determine the mileage or amount that could be billed to each of the four Medicare patients. The WPS article includes specific examples to help providers understand this requirement.

If you have additional questions about the travel allowance, contact your regional MAC.