Knowledge Base - Full Library

Q:

Our facility has recently started performing digital mammography, but Medicare is denying all of the charges for HCPCS codes 77063 (screening digital tomosynthesis for mammography) and G0279 (diagnostic digital breast tomosynthesis, unilateral or bilateral). Do you know what could be causing these denials?

A:

There are a couple of reasons why you could be receiving these denials. You should be able to determine the reason from the Claim Adjustment Reason Code (CARC) on your remittance.

Lack of Primary Code

One possibility is that you are reporting these add-on codes without the primary code.

• CPT code 77063 must be reported with CPT 77067 (screening mammography).
• HCPCS code G0279 is to be listed separately in addition to CPT codes 77065 (diagnostic mammogram, unilateral) or 77066 (diagnostic mammogram, bilateral).

The manual wording from the Medicare Claims Processing Manual, chapter 18 , section 20.2.1 indicates CPT code 77063 will be returned to the provider for institutional claims if billed without 77067, but HCPCS code G0279 will be denied if not reported with the appropriate code.

 “Effective for claims with dates of service January 1, 2018 and later A/B MACs (A) and (B) must assure that claims containing code G0279 also contain HCPCS code 77065 or 77066. A/B MACs (A) or (B) deny claims containing code G0279 that do not also contain HCPCS code 77065 or 77066 with an explanation that payment for code G0279 cannot be made when billed alone.”

Lack of Appropriate FDA Certification Status

We have seen denials of the two codes (77063 and G0279) on claims with a CARC of 171- “Payment is denied when performed/billed by this type of provider in this type of facility.” We believe this is related to lack of appropriate FDA certification. See CMS Transmittal R1387CP or section 20.1 of the Medicare Claims Processing Manual, chapter 18.

All facilities providing screening and diagnostic mammography services (except VA facilities) must be certified by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA maintains this data in the Mammography Quality Standard Act (MQSA) file and shares the file with CMS and their contractors weekly. The MQSA indicates whether a facility if certified to perform film or digital mammography.

CMS contractors rely on the FDA certification data contained in the MQSA file to know whether the mammography facility is certified to perform digital mammography. Contractors will deny a claim for a mammography service if the nature of the billed HCPCS code (i.e., film or digital) does not correspond to the FDA certification status listed on the MQSA file for the billing mammography facility.  This means if the FDA MQSA file does not indicate a facility is certified to perform digital mammography, the Medicare contractor will deny the HCPCS codes for these digital mammography services, i.e. HCPCS codes 77063 and G0279.

One Medicare contractor that we do not talk a lot about, especially concerning outpatient services, is the Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT) contractor. The purpose of the CERT program is to calculate the Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) improper payment rate. Improper Payments statutory requirements compel federal agencies to annually review programs they administer in order to reduce and recover improper payments. CERT measures the payment compliance of the Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) by evaluating a statistically valid stratified random sample of claims to determine if they were paid properly under Medicare coverage, coding, and billing rules. It is sort of a “report card” for the MACs. The random sampling makes CERT very different from other Medicare reviewers who select targets at potential “high risk” of noncompliance based on data analysis and findings from other reviews. In fact, the MACs often target their medical reviews based on the findings of the random CERT audits.

The reasons we do not discuss CERT findings much are the random nature of the audits and the more general types of findings that are published from CERT outpatient reviews. For outpatients, we often see errors such as missing signatures, lack of a signed order, or a missing report. CERT findings for an individual hospital are shared with that hospital and afford an opportunity to identify any potential system issues. However, a recent article by Palmetto GBA, the MAC for Jurisdictions J and M, about the top CERT errors for Jurisdiction J included some detailed examples of errors that are good lessons for all providers beyond missing signatures, orders and reports. You can find the article here. I encourage providers to check their MAC’s website for information on CERT findings for your jurisdiction.

You can read about all the common errors at the link above, but a few of them particularly caught my attention.

Psychiatric Admission

The common CERT error for psych admissions was medical records missing the physician-signed multidisciplinary treatment plan. This caught my attention because psychosis DRG 885 is a Targeted Probe and Educate review topic for Palmetto (JJ and JM) and First Coast (JN). As a result, I have written about the documentation requirements for psychiatric admissions before and one of my co-workers has recently performed an audit of psych records. Here is information about psych documentation requirements from a prior Wednesday@One article.

Psychiatric admission documentation should include:

• A psychiatric treatment plan developed within the first 3 days of admission that contains
• a substantiated diagnosis;
• short-term and long-range measurable, functional, time-framed goals;
• specific treatment modalities; and
• responsibilities of each treatment team member.
• Treatment plan updates documented at least weekly that are reflective of active treatment and that note changes in type, amount, frequency and duration of the treatments as well as the patient’s progress or lack of progress.
• Psychiatric evaluation and progress notes demonstrating clear evidence the acute psych condition requires active treatment in an inpatient psychiatric setting.
• An initial certification of psychiatric services signed by the physician and including documentation the services can reasonably be expected to improve the patient’s condition or are for diagnostic study.
• Recertifications supporting the medical necessity of continued care - the first by the 12th day of admission and then at least every 30 days thereafter.

Defibrillators/AICD—National Coverage Determination (NCD) 20.4

The common errors for Automatic Implantable Cardiac Defibrillators (AICDs) included:

• “Providers are not submitting physician progress notes to support the medical necessity of the device
• Missing formal shared decision making encounter between the patient and a physician using an evidence-based decision tool on ICDs prior to initial ICD implantation”

This is note-worthy because implantation of AICDs has a large reimbursement rate, generally over $25,000 so it would be a significant financial loss for a hospital for this service to be denied. NCD 20.4 has very detailed coverage requirements so if you perform these services, make sure you are familiar with and follow the requirements. To support the medical necessity of the service, you will need documentation from the physician’s office, such as history and physical and/or progress notes that describe the patient’s condition and the reasons the procedure is needed. You also need to include in the current medical record reports of relevant diagnostic testing and notes describing prior treatments and interventions including the patient’s response.

A term we are seeing more and more these days is “shared decision making.” The AICD NCD has the most descriptive requirements of what documentation is expected, requiring the use of an evidence-based decision tool to document the physician’s discussion with the patient about the risks versus the benefits of proceeding with the procedure. This requirement was added to NCD 20.4 in the February 2018 NCD revision, but the MACs did not implement the new NCD until March 2019. Remember however, that the effective date of the NCD revisions is February 15, 2018. For all claims your hospital submits after the implementation date, the formal SDM tool is required for dates of service on and after February 15, 2018.

Other coverage policies, both national and local, are beginning to include requirements for shared decision making. For example, it is part of NCD 20.34 for Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure (LAAC) (also known as the Watchman procedure). This NCD requires, “A formal shared decision making interaction with an independent non-interventional physician using an evidence-based decision tool on oral anticoagulation in patients with NVAF prior to LAAC. Additionally, the shared decision making interaction must be documented in the medical record.”

And in Palmetto’s new Local Coverage Determination (LCD) for Lumbar Spinal Fusion, we find the following:

“Where possible, there must be documented shared decision making with the patient or the individual who is serving as the proxy decision maker for the patient with the appropriate discussion of anticipated risks and benefits of the procedure…. Outcomes for fusion in revision surgery, usually do not lead to pain relief and as such fusion is considered a last resort treatment option only when all other treatment options have failed. This information must be communicated to the patient prior to surgery to allow for appropriate shared decision making with a well-informed patient. The medical record must reflect that this counseling was done and that the patient wished to undergo surgery with the appropriately informed consent.”

I think a well-informed patient is a good thing and I applaud CMS for beginning to make this a documented requirement. This documentation of shared decision making goes beyond a surgical consent – it should include the risks and benefits that were discussed with the patient. The tools CMS recommends for AICD and the Watchman procedure SDM make it easy to know what to include – in Palmetto’s Spinal Fusion LCD the SDM requirements are left up to the physician as to what should be included and how it should be documented. Providers should not skim over this however, as I expect Medicare reviewers will be looking for this documentation for all services that require it. I appreciate the challenge this may present for physicians especially with elderly patients who have declining cognitive abilities. In this case, the physician may need to document a discussion with a family member or friend or whoever is serving as the proxy decision maker for the patient.

Physicians and other providers can find information on the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) website about AHRQ’s SHARE Approach, “a five-step process for shared decision-making that includes exploring and comparing the benefits, harms, and risks of each option through meaningful dialogue about what matters most to the patient.”

Cataract Surgery

Speaking of the challenges of elderly patients, the CERT common error for cataract surgery caught my eye (unintended pun) because my mother has recently had cataract surgery on one eye and will undergo the second eye surgery soon. The error was the lack of documentation “to support the beneficiary’s own assessment of his/her functional status (usually in the form of a patient questionnaire).” I do not recall that I or my mother completed such a form, but had she filled it out she would have said she could see “fine.” However, we did have that discussion with the doctor, with my mother saying she could see just fine, and me insisting that lack of clear vision was causing issues with her activities of daily living. Hopefully the physician documented that conversation for justification of his and the facility’s Medicare payment.

Another common error listed for cataract surgery was that providers are only submitting documentation for the affected date of service. As you can tell from the above discussions about including diagnostic test results, prior treatments and physician office notes, documentation from only the procedure date of service would be lacking much critical information to support the services were medically necessary.

These are good lessons that contain some excellent learning points from CERT findings. Check the MAC websites (especially your own MAC’s) and review your hospital’s CERT report for more potential lessons from the CERT reviews. By being proactive, the CERT can be another education opportunity instead of just another means to deny your Medicare claims. 

At least annually, DRG classifications and relative weights are adjusted to reflect changes in treatment patterns, technology, and other factors that may change the relative use of hospital resources. This week is the third article in our series about the 2020 IPPS Proposed Rule. This week highlights proposed changes to specific MS-DRG Classifications.

Pre-MDC

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO)

In FY 2019, three new procedure codes were finalized describing different types of ECMO treatments being used (central and peripheral). However, the codes were not finalized prior to the release of the FY 2019 IPPS Proposed Rule meaning there was no proposed Major Diagnostic Category (MDC), MS-DRG or O.R. vs. Non-O.R. designation made for the new codes.  

Given this unique situation, CMS Clinical Advisors reviewed the predecessor central ECMO code (5A15223) and determined the new peripheral codes should not sequence to Pre-MDC MS-DRG 3 where the central ECMO code is assigned.

Instead the new Peripheral ECMO codes were designated as Non-O.R. Procedures impacting MS-DRG assignment for specific medical MS-DRGs. The following table reflects the differences in ECMO Procedures DRG assignment:

In the FY 2020 IPPS Proposed Rule, stakeholders expressed the following concerns:

• MS-DRG assignment for ECMO should not be based on how the patient is cannulated as most of the cost can be attributed to a patien’ts severity of illness,
• There was a lack of opportunity for public comment on the final MS-DRG assignments,
• Patient access to ECMO treatment and programs is now at risk because of inadequate payment, and
• CMS did not appear to have access to enough patient data to evaluate for appropriate MS-DRG assignment.

On review, Clinical Advisors support the assignment of the new ICD-10-PCS procedure codes for peripheral ECMO procedures to the same MS-DRG as the open central ECMO. Therefore, CMS is proposing the following:

• Reassign peripheral ECMO codes from MS-DRGs 207, 291, 296 and 870 to Pre-MDC MS-DRG 003,
• Remove ECMO from the description of these MS-DRGs, and
• Maintaining the assignment of peripheral ECMO codes of Non-O.R. affecting MS-DRG assignment.

Allogenic Bone Marrow Transplant

A request was made to create new MS-DRGs for cases that would identify patients undergoing an allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) procedure according to the donor source (related or unrelated donor source). The requester indicated this would more appropriately recognize the clinical characteristics and cost differences in allogeneic HCT cases.

CMS data analysis of MS-DRG 014 cases reporting HCT related donor source, HCT unrelated donor source and unspecified donor source had comparable average length of stay and average costs. Thus, no proposal was made to create new MS-DRGs. However, as a result of CMS’ review of procedure codes they are proposing to:

• Reassign 4 ICD-10-PCS codes for HCT procedures specifying autologous cord blood stem cell as the donor source from MS-DRG 014 to MS-DRGs 016 and 017, and
• Delete 128 clinically invalid codes from the transfusion table describing arterial access as transfusion procedures always use venous access rather than arterial access.

Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T-Cell Therapy

“Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy is a cell-based gene therapy in which a patient’s own T-cells are genetically engineered in a laboratory and used to assist in the patient’s treatment to attack certain cancerous cells. Blood is drawn from the patient and the T-cells are separated. The laboratory then utilizes the CAR process to genetically engineer the T-cells, resulting in the addition of a chimeric antigen receptor that will bind to a certain protein on the patient’s cancerous cells. The CAR T-cells are then administered to the patient by infusion.”

Two CAR T-cell therapy drugs received FDA approval in 2017 (KYMRIAH™ manufactured by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation and YESCARTA™ manufactured by Kite Pharma, Inc.). Current ICD-10-PCS procedures codes involving the CAR T-cell therapy drugs includes:

• XW033C3 (Introduction of engineered autologous chimeric antigen receptor t-cell immunotherapy into peripheral vein, percutaneous approach, new technology group 3), and
• XW043C3 (Introduction of engineered autologous chimeric antigen receptor t-cell immunotherapy into central vein, percutaneous approach, new technology group 3).

Both codes became effective October 1, 2017. Procedures described by these two ICD–10–PCS procedure codes are designated as non-O.R. procedures impacting MS–DRG assignment.

For FY 2019, CMS finalized their proposals to:

• Assign ICD-10-PCS procedure codes XW033CS and XW043C3 to Pre-MDC MS-DRG 016 for FY 2019, and
• Revise the title of MS-DRG 016 from “Autologous Bone Marrow Transplant with CC/MCC” to “Autologous Bone Marrow Transplant with CC/MCC or T-cell Immunotherapy.”
• CAR T-cell therapy was approved for new technology add-on payments in FY 2019.
  

In the FY 2020 IPPS Proposed Rule, a request was made to create new MS-DRGs for CAR T-cell therapy. The requestor noted this would improve payment in the inpatient setting. CMS does not believe enough data is available to make a change at this time. However, CMS is seeking comments on payment alternatives for CAR-T cell therapies and have proposed to continue the new technology and add-on payments for FY 2020.

MDC 1: Diseases and Disorders of the Nervous System

Carotid Artery Stent Procedures

Current logic for case assignment to MS-DRGs 034, 035, and 036 (Carotid Artery Stent Procedures with MCC, with CC, and without CC/MCC respectively) “is comprised of two lists of logic that include procedure codes for operating room (O.R.) procedures involving dilation of a carotid artery (common, internal or external) with intraluminal device(s).”

CMS identified 46 ICD-10-PCS procedures codes in the second list that do not describe dilation of a carotid artery with intraluminal device. CMS is proposing to remove these 46 codes from MS-DRGs 034, 035 and 036. (The 46 codes are available in a table on pages 19182 – 19183 of the Proposed Rule in the Federal Register.)

These 46 ICD-10-PCS codes are also assigned to MS-DRGs 037, 038, and 039 (Extracranial Procedures with MCC, with CC, and without CC/MCC, respectively.) Therefore, CMS also examined claims data for this MS-DRG group and are proposing to:

• Remove 96 ICD-10-PCS procedure codes describing dilation of a carotid artery with an intraluminal device from the logic for MS-DRG group 037-038 and 039,
• Reassign 6 ICD-10-PCS procedure codes describing dilation of a carotid artery with an intraluminal device from MS-DRG group 037, 038 and 039 to MS-DRG group 034, 035, and 036.

MDC 4: Diseases and Disorders of the Respiratory System

Pulmonary Embolism

A request was made to reassign the following three ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes for Pulmonary Embolism (PE) with acute core pulmonale from MS-DRG 176 (PE without MCC) to MS-DRG 175 (PE with MCC):

• I26.01 – Septic pulmonary embolism with acute cor pulmonale,
• I26.02 – Saddle embolus of pulmonary artery with acute cor pulmonale, and
• I26.09 – Other pulmonary embolism with acute cor pulmonale.

The requestor noted with the FY 2019 IPPS Final Rule special logic change where a Principal Diagnosis could no longer be its own CC or MCC this resulted in these three codes being assigned to MS-DRG 176 when no other MCC is present. The requestor stated MS-DRG 176 does not appropriately account for cost and resource utilization associated with these cases.

CMS claims analysis supported the requestor’s statement about cost and resource utilization. Therefore, CMS is proposing to:

• Reassign cases reporting diagnosis codes I16.01, I26.02 and I26.09 to MS-DRG 175, and
• Revise the MS-DRG 175 title to “Pulmonary Embolism with MCC or Acute Cor Pulmonale.”

The difference in RW, GMLOS and National Payment Rate are reflected in the following table.

‍MDC 5: Diseases and Disorders of the Circulatory System

Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair (TMVR) with Implant

CMS received a request to modify the current MS-DRG assignment for TMVR with implant procedures (MS-DRG 228 and 229: Other Cardiothoracic Procedures with MCC and without MCC, respectively). CMS provides a detailed discussion of the MitraClip® System (MitraClip®) for transcatheter mitral valve repair in previous rulemakings:

• FY 2014 IPPS Final Rule: CMS was unable to consider the application for a new technology add-on payment for MitraClip® because it did not receive FDA approval by the July 1, 2013 deadline.
• FY 2015 IPPS Final Rule:
• Proposal was finalized to not create a new MS-DRG or to reassign cases reporting ICD-9 procedure code 35.97 describing MitraClip® to another MS-DRG, and
• Under a new application, the request for new technology add-on payments for the MitraClip® System was approved.
• FY 2016 IPPS Final Rule: For ICD-10 based MS-DRGs to fully replicate for ICD-9-CM based MS-DRGs, ICD-10-PCS code 02UG3JZ (Supplement mitral valve with synthetic substitute percutaneous approach) which identified MitraClip® technology in ICD-10-PCS code translation was assigned to new MS-DRGs 273 and 274 (Percutaneous Intracardiac Procedures with MCC and without MCC, respectively) and continued to be assigned to MS-DRGs 231 and 232 (Coronary Bypass with PTCA with MCC and without MCC, respectively).
• FY 2017 IPPS Final Rule:
• The new technology add-on payment was discontinued.
• ICD-10-PCS code 02UG3JZ (Supplement mitral valve with synthetic substitute percutaneous approach) was reassigned from MS-DRGs 273 and 274 to the new “collapsed” MS-DRG pair MS-DRG 228 and 229 (Other Cardiothoracic Procedures with MCC and without MCC, respectively).
  

The requestor in the FY 2020 IPPS Proposed Rule believes that TMVR is more similar to the replacement procedures in MS-DRGs 266 and 267 compared to other procedures currently assigned to MS-DRGs 228 and 229 and “noted that both TMVR procedures and endovascular cardiac valve replacements use a percutaneous approach, treat cardiac valves, and use an implanted device for purposes of improving the function of the specified valve.”

In the Proposed Rule CMS indicates “Our clinical advisors continue to believe that transcatheter cardiac valve repair procedures are not the same as a transcatheter (endovascular) cardiac valve replacement.

However, they agree with the requestor and, based on our data analysis, that these procedures are more clinically coherent in that they also describe endovascular cardiac valve interventions with implants and are similar in terms of average length of stay and average costs to cases in MS-DRGs 266 and 267 when compared to other procedures in their current MS-DRG assignment. For these reasons, our clinical advisors agree that we should propose to reassign the endovascular cardiac valve repair procedures (supplement procedures)…to the endovascular cardiac valve replacement MS-DRGs.”

After additional data analysis, CMS is making the following proposals:

• Modify the structure of MS-DRGs 266 and 267 by reassigning the procedure codes describing transcatheter cardiac valve repair (supplement) procedure,
• Revise the title of MS-DRG 266 from “Endovascular Cardiac Valve Replacement with MCC” to “Endovascular Cardiac Valve Replacement and Supplement Procedures with MCC,”
• Revise the title of MS-DRG 267 from “Endovascular Cardiac Valve Replacement without MCC” to “Endovascular Cardiac Valve Replacement and Supplement Procedure without MCC,”
• Create two new MS-DRGs with a two-way severity split for the remaining (non-supplement) transcatheter cardiac valves.
• Proposed New MS-DRG 319 (Other Endovascular Cardiac Valve Procedures with MCC), and
• Proposed New MS-DRG 320 (Other Endovascular Cardiac Valve Procedures without MCC).

Pacemaker Leads

CMS noted that ICD-10-PCS procedure code 02H60JZ (Insertion of pacemaker lead into right atrium, open approach) was inadvertently omitted from the GROUPER logic for MS-DRGs 260, 261, and 262. They are proposing to add this procedure code to the list of Non-O.R. procedures that would impact MS-DRGs 260, 261, and 262 when reported as a stand-alone procedure code.

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

Knee Procedures with Principal Diagnosis of Infection

CMS received a request to add ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes M00.9 (Pyogenic arthritis, unspecified) and A54.42 (Gonococcal arthritis) to the list of principal diagnoses for MS-DRGs 485, 486, 487 (Knee Procedure with Principal Diagnosis of Infection with MCC, with CC, and without CC/MCC, respectively) in MDC 8.

Currently, when reported as the principal diagnosis, these two ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes group to MS-DRGs 488 and 489 (Knee Procedures without Principal Diagnosis of Infection with and without CC/MCC, respectively) when a knee procedure is also reported on the claim. CMS notes that neither of these codes is specific to the knee.

After analysis, CMS is proposing the following:

• Add ICD-10-CM diagnosis code M00.9 to the list of principal diagnosis codes for MS-DRGs 485, 486 and 487. Note, clinical advisors did not recommend the same for ICD-10-CM diagnosis code A54.42 as this code is not specifically indexed to include the knee or any infection in the knee.
• Add 10 additional ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes specific to the knee and describing an infection, and
• Remove 8 ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes from the list of principal diagnosis for MS-DRG 485, 486 and 487 as they do not describe an infection of the knee.

Scoliosis: Neuromuscular and Secondary Scoliosis and Kyphosis

Requests were made to add ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes describing neuromuscular scoliosis and ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes describing secondary scoliosis and secondary kyphosis to the list of principal diagnosis codes for MS-DRGs 456, 457, and 458 (Spinal Fusion except Cervical with Spinal Curvature or Malignancy or Infection or Extensive Fusions with MCC, with CC, without CC/MCC, respectively).

After analysis, CMS is proposing to add 5 codes describing neuromuscular scoliosis and 8 codes describing secondary scoliosis and secondary kyphosis to the list of principal diagnosis codes for MS-DRGs 456, 457, and 458. CMS also identified 34 ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes describing conditions involving the cervical region that are not clinically appropriate for assignment to MS-DRGs 456, 457, and 458. CMS has proposed to remove these 34 codes from this MS-DRG group.

MDC 11: Diseases and Disorders of the Kidney and Urinary Tract

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL)

Data analysis revealed a steady decline in inpatient cases reporting urinary stones and an ESWL procedure over the past five years. CMS indicates that due to an ESWL procedure being a Non-O.R. procedure and the decreased usage of this procedure in the inpatient setting, clinical advisors believe there is no longer a reason to subdivide the MS-DRGs for urinary stones (MS-DRGs 691 &692, and 693 & 694) based on ESWL procedures.

CMS is proposing to:

• Delete MS-DRGs 691 and 692 (Urinary Stones with ESW Lithotripsy with CC/MCC and without CC/MCC respectively) and
• Revise the MS-DRG title for MS-DRGs 693 and 694 from “Urinary Stones without ESW Lithotripsy with MCC” and “without MCC”, respectively to “Urinary Stones with MCC” and “Urinary Stones without MCC.”

MDC 12: Diseases and Disorders of the Male Reproductive System

Currently, four ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes describing body parts with male anatomy are assigned to MDC 5 (Diseases and Disorders of the Circulatory System) in MS-DRGs 302 and 303 (Atherosclerosis with MCC and without MCC, respectively).

There was a request to review these codes and consider reassignment to MDC 12. Based on this request and claims data analysis, CMS is proposing to reassign these four codes from MDC 5 in MS-DRGs 302 and 303 to MDC 12 in MS-DRGs 729 and 730 (Other Male Reproductive System Diagnosis with CC/MCC and without CC/MCC, respectively).

MDC 14: Pregnancy, Childbirth and the Puerperium

Proposed Reassignment of Diagnosis Code 099.89 (Other specified Diseases and Conditions complicating pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium)

CMS is proposing to reclassify ICD-10-CM diagnosis code 099.89 (Other specified diseases and conditions complicating pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium) from a postpartum condition to an antepartum condition.

If finalized, coding logic would assign a case with an O.R. procedure and this code to MS-DRGs 817, 818, or 819 (Other Antepartum Diagnoses with O.R. Procedure with MCC, with CC, and without CC/MCC, respectively).

When no O.R. procedure is reported on the claim, the logic would assign the case to MS-DRGs 831, 832, and 833 (Other Antepartum Diagnoses without O.R. Procedure with MCC, with CC, and without CC/MCC, respectively).

MDC 23: Factors Influencing Health Status and Other Contacts with Health Services

Proposed Assignment of Diagnosis Code R93.89 (Abnormal finding on diagnostic imaging of other specified body structures)

There was a request to reassign ICD-10-CM diagnosis code R93.89 from MS-DRGs 302 and 303 (Atherosclerosis with MCC and without MCC, respectively) in the Circulatory MDC 5 to MDC 23. The requestor did not suggest a specific MS-DRG assignment in MDC 23.

After analysis, CMS is proposing to reassign ICD-10-CM diagnosis code R93.89 to MS-DRGs 947 and 948 (Signs and Symptoms with MCC and without MCC, respectively).

Review of Procedure Codes in MS-DRGS 981 through 983 and 987 through 989

Adding Procedures Codes Currently Grouping to MS-DRGS 981 – 983 and 987 – 989 into MDCs

Annually, CMS conducts a review of procedures resulting in assignment to the O.R. and non-extensive O.R. Procedures Unrelated to Principal Diagnosis MS-DRG Groups (981-983 and 987-989). This review is done on the basis of volume, by procedure, to see if it is more appropriate to move a procedure to a surgical MS-DRG for the MDC where the Principal Diagnosis falls.

There are several proposals being made to move diagnosis and procedures codes back into a specific MDC for FY 2020. For those interested, you can find these proposals on pages 19216 – 19229 of the Proposed Rule in the Federal Register.

MMP strongly encourages key stakeholders at your facility take the time to review this proposed rule and submit comments. CMS is accepting comments through 5 p.m. EDT on June 24, 2019. 

Q:

In our Cancer Center, we are giving the drug Rasburicase (Elitek) by infusion. Should we charge this as a chemotherapy infusion or as a therapeutic infusion?

A:

Rasburicase is classified as an antihyperuricemic drug, so you should report the infusion as a therapeutic infusion – not as a chemotherapy infusion.

This is the second article in a series of 2020 IPPS Proposed Rule Articles. Last week’s article provided details of the significant proposed changes to the CC and MCC severity designations. This week we take a look at proposed payment rate changes and the wage-index adjustment proposal being touted by CMS as a key priority of “Rethinking Rural Health.”

Proposed Payment Rate Changes by the Numbers

“By law, CMS is required to update payment rates for IPPS hospitals annually, and to account for changes in the prices of goods and services used by these hospitals in treating Medicare patients, as well as for other factors. This is known as the hospital “market basket.” The IPPS pays hospitals for services provided to Medicare beneficiaries using a national base payment rate, adjusted for a number of factors that affect hospitals’ costs, including the patient’s condition and the cost of hospital labor in the hospital’s geographic area.”

• 3.2% is the projected market basket update for general acute care hospitals paid under the IPPS that successfully participate in the Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting (IQR) Program and are meaningful electronic health record (EHR) users.
• 3.7% is the CMS estimated total increase in IPPS payments for FY 2020.
• $4.7 Billion is the increase in total Medicare spending on inpatient hospital services, including capital, projected by CMS for FY 2020.

Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP)

• 2,599 is the number of hospitals that CMS estimates will have base operating DRG payments reduced based on their hospital readmission rates.
• $550 Million the estimated amount CMS will save in FY 2020 as a result of decreased payments to the estimated 2,599 hospitals.

Hospital Inpatient Quality Report (IQR) Program

CMS estimates that proposed changes for this program will result in changes to the information collection burden compared to previously adopted requirements. Specifically, the proposal to adopt the Hybrid Hospital-Wide All-Cause Readmission (Hybrid HWR) measure. Estimated impact of this change:

• 2,211 hours in total collection burden increase, and
• $83,266 total cost increase for all participating IPPS hospitals annually.

Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program

This program is a budget neutral program because “by law, the amount available for value-based incentive payments under the program in a given year must be equal to the total amount of base operating MS-DRG payment amount reduction for that year.”

• $1.9 Billion is the estimated amount available for value-based incentive payments for FY 2020 discharges.

“Rethinking Rural Health:” Proposed Changes to the Inpatient Hospital Wage Index

Public Comments

In the FY 2019 IPPS Proposed Rule, CMS solicited comments, suggestions and recommendations for changes to the Medicare inpatient hospital wage index. Fast forward to the April 2019 release of the FY 2020 IPPS Proposed Rule where CMS shares that “many of the responses received…reflect a common concern that the current wage index system perpetuates and exacerbates the disparities between high and low wage index hospitals.” There was also a concern “that the calculation of the rural floor has allowed a limited number of States to manipulate the wage index system to achieve higher wages for many urban hospitals at the expense of hospitals in other states, which also contributes to wage index disparities.”

Inpatient Hospital Wage Index, What is it?

In the April 23, 2019 Press Release CMS Advances Agenda to Re-Think Rural Health and Unleash Medical Innovation, CMS notes the following about the Inpatient Hospital Wage Index:

• It specifies how inpatient payment rates are adjusted to account for local differences in wages that hospitals face in their respective labor markets,
• It is intended to measure differences in hospital wage rates across geographic regions,
• It is updated annually based on wage data reported by hospitals, and
• Hospitals located in areas with wages less than the national average receive a lower Medicare payment rate than hospitals located in areas with wages higher than the national average.

An example provided in the Press Release is that of hospital in a rural community receiving about $4000 in payment for treatment of a Medicare beneficiary with pneumonia while a hospital in a high wage area could receive nearly $6,000 for the same case due to differences in the wage index. CMS goes on to note that, “high wage index hospitals, by virtue of higher Medicare payments, can afford to pay their staff more, allowing the hospitals to continue operating as high wage index hospitals. Conversely, low wage index hospitals often cannot afford to pay wages that would allow them to climb to a higher wage index. Over time, this creates a downward spiral that increases the disparity in payments between high wage index and low wage index hospitals, and payment for rural hospitals and other low wage index hospitals decline.”

FY 2020 Inpatient Hospital Wage Index Proposals

Stopping the “Downward Spiral”

First, CMS is proposing to increase the wage index for hospitals with a wage index value below the 25th percentile wage index. For FY 2020, the 25th percentile wage index value across all hospitals is 0.8482.

Specifically, the increase would be equal to half the difference between the otherwise applicable final wage index value for a year for that hospital and the 25th percentile wage index value for that year across all hospitals.

To better understand what the increase would be, CMS provides the following example in the Proposed Rule:

• First, assume the wage index for a geographically rural Alabama hospital is 0.6663,
• Second, note the 25th percentile wage index value for FY 2020 is 0.8482.
• Third, determine half the distance between the hospital wage index and the 25th percentile (0.8482 – 0.6663/2) = 0.0910
• Fourth, add the Rural Alabama hospital wage index with half the difference to get the new FY 2020 wage index value for the hospital (0.6663 + 0.0910) = wage index 0.7573.

This proposal would be effective for at least 4 years beginning in FY 2020.

Budget Neutrality

Second, CMS believes that “it would be appropriate to maintain budget neutrality for the low wage index policy proposed…by adjusting the wage index for high wage index hospitals.” Specifically, CMS is proposing to identify high wage index hospitals as hospitals in the highest quartile. This would be hospitals above the 75th percentile wage index across all hospitals for a fiscal year.

The methodology would be analogous to methodology used for hospitals below the 25th percentile. Following is the example provided in the Proposed Rule:

• First, assume high wage index Hospital A has a wage index value of 1.7351,
• Second, CMS notes that based on data for the proposed rule, the 75th percentile wage index value is 1.0351.
• Third, determine the distance between the hospital wage index and the 75th percentile (1.7351 – 1.0351) = 0.7000,
• Fourth, CMS would estimate the uniform multiplicative budget neutrality factor needed to reduce those distances for all high wage index hospitals so the estimated decreased payments offset the estimated increased aggregate payments to low wage index hospitals. For FY 2020 the estimated factor is 3.4 percent. Therefore, Hospital A’s wage index would be reduced by 0.0238 (Prior distance of 0.7000 x 0.034) = 0.0238.
• Fifth, the new wage index for Hospital A would be 1.7113 (that is, current value 1.7351 – wage reduction of 0.0238) = 1.7113.

To help mitigate any significant wage index decreases, CMS is “proposing to place a 5-percent cap on any decrease in a hospital’s wage index from the hospital’s final wage index in FY 2019. In other words, we are proposing that a hospital’s final wage index for FY 2020 would not be less than 95 percent of its final wage index for FY 2019.”

Rural Floor Calculation Change

Commenters to the FY 2019 Proposed Rule “indicated that another contributing systemic factor to wage index disparities is the rural floor….for discharges on or after October 1, 1997, the area wage index applicable to any hospitals that is located in an urban area of a State may not be less than the area wage index applicable to hospitals located in rural areas in that State.”

CMS is proposing to remove the urban to rural reclassifications from the calculation of the rural floor beginning in FY 2020. You can read a detailed discussion about this on pages 19396 – 19398 of the FY 2020 IPPS Proposed Rule in the Federal Register.

April 29, 2019 CMS.Gov Newsroom Article: “What they are Saying / CMS Advances Agenda to Re-Think Rural Health and Unleash Medical Innovation”

Less than a week after the FY 2020 IPPS Proposed Rule was released, CMS posted a CMS.Gov Newsroom Article with reaction from key healthcare stakeholders to the Proposed Rule. Since I live in Alabama and work for a company located in Birmingham, I wanted to share what Alabama leaders are saying about “Rethinking Rural Health.”

Executive Vice President and Chief Policy Officer Danne Howard
Alabama Hospital Association

“We could not be more grateful to CMS Administrator Seema Verma and her staff for listening to our concerns and taking action,” Howard said.  “Alabama has been penalized for decades by this flawed formula, which has resulted in some states being paid three times as much as Alabama’s hospitals for the exact same procedure.  Alabama’s entire congressional delegation worked tirelessly in a non-partisan manner to make this happen, and we specifically would like to acknowledge Sens. Richard Shelby and Doug Jones and Rep. Bradley Byrne for leading the charge.”

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala)

“The Medicare Wage Index has negatively affected Alabama hospitals for over 20 years,” said. [sic], who wrote a letter last month signed by the state’s congressional delegation to Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Seema Verma requesting a change to the index. After two decades of working to address a problem that significantly contributes to heightened hospital closures throughout our state, I am glad to see Administrator Verma and CMS taking steps to solve this dire issue. I look forward to continuing my work with the agency to make sure that this sort of careless imbalance is eliminated moving forward.”

Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala)

“The decision by CMS to propose a new reimbursement formula is welcome news and a great first step for the health care providers across our state who have struggled for years with an inexplicably low reimbursement rate,” the senator said. “These hospitals provide care to all Alabamians, regardless of their insurance status, and they have to absorb the costs when that care isn’t reimbursed. That puts the entire system on slippery financial footing and can hurt the broader community if a hospital is forced to close its doors.”

CMS is accepting comments to the Proposed Rule no later than 5 p.m. EDT on June 24, 2019.

Resources:

CMS 2020 IPPS Proposed Rule Home Page: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/FY2020-IPPS-Proposed-Rule-Home-Page.html

CMS Fact Sheet Announcing Release of 2020 Proposed Rule: https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/fiscal-year-fy-2020-medicare-hospital-inpatient-prospective-payment-system-ipps-and-long-term-acute

CMS April 23, 2019 Press Release: CMS Advances Agenda to Re-think Rural Health and Unleash Medical Innovation: https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/cms-advances-agenda-re-think-rural-health-and-unleash-medical-innovation

A few weeks ago, our monthly coverage article addressed facet joint injections. In that article , as I always do, I stressed the importance of verifying the requirements of the Local Coverage Determination (LCD) for your particular Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) jurisdiction. This is important because different MACs may have different coverage and documentation requirements for a particular service as described in their LCDs. Your medical records should support the requirements of your jurisdiction’s LCD. It is also important to keep up with revisions and new LCDs to know when requirements change. All of the MACs have a listserv that includes information on updated LCDs as well as a monthly publication that generally gives more details of the LCD revisions. I recommend providers sign up for their MAC’s listserv and watch for LCD revisions and updates. And did you know the specifics of each LCD revision are listed in a table at the end of the LCD?

Sometimes a MAC will retire one LCD and replace it with a new one – this would be the time to look for significant changes to the coverage and documentation requirements. And although it does not happen often, sometimes a jurisdiction may transition from one MAC to another. This happened in 2018 to Jurisdiction J (Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee) when they transitioned from Cahaba GBA to Palmetto GBA. As part of this transition, Palmetto evaluated all of the LCDs for both Cahaba and Palmetto and made determinations of which LCDs to retire and which to keep for both of their Jurisdictions, J and M. This created a responsibility on Jurisdictions J and M providers to become familiar with any new LCDs, though since more Palmetto LCDs were retained than Cahaba LCDs, it is a larger burden on providers in Jurisdiction J.

One example is the Facet Joint Injection policy. Here at MMP, we compared the retired Facet Joint Injection Cahaba policy against the current Palmetto policy and identified over 15 significant differences between the two policies. Some of the differences noted are:

• Palmetto requires moderate to severe pain while Cahaba required average pain greater than 6 on a numeric rating scale of 1-10;
• Palmetto allows a maximum of 5 sessions per year including both lumbar IA and lumbar medial branch nerve block while Cahaba’s frequency was 6 lumbar sessions per year, specified as up to 2 diagnostic and 4 therapeutic for the first year, and up to 4 therapeutic facet injection sessions the second year;
• Palmetto’s policy includes steroid dose restrictions while Cahaba’s did not address this;
• Diagnostic facet joint injections are not allowed by Palmetto but were by Cahaba (Palmetto only allows diagnostic injections for medial branch nerve block technique); and
• Cahaba did not allow therapeutic intra-articular facet joint injections whereas in the Palmetto LCD therapeutic injections are allowed for both intra-articular and medial branch nerve block technique.

For a pdf-formatted chart of all the differences between the two policies, click here. This will allow Jurisdiction J providers to 1) educate their physicians on any new and/or different coverage and documentation requirements and 2) audit their records through an internal or contracted audit against the new Palmetto requirements to verify compliance with the Palmetto LCD. As with all things Medicare, it is always a challenge to stay up to date.

Q:

Our claims for FDG PET scans are being denied when reported with a personal history diagnosis code, Z85.XXX. Why is this happening?

A:

CMS Transmittal 2200 (CR 10859) added the following note concerning PET scans for oncologic conditions (NCD 220.6.17) when reported with a personal history diagnosis:

“Note: Whenever a personal history diagnosis code (Z85.XXX) is on a claim, the claim must also contain a diagnosis code from the list of covered C, D or R diagnosis codes.”

The transmittal referenced above includes a link to the NCD spreadsheet updates for the PET Scan diagnosis codes. You can find the updated list of covered diagnosis codes for PET scans and all other NCD ICD-10 code updates at the Medicare coverage ICD-10 webpage.

Q:

In ICD-9, there were several Coding Clinics that instructed us to sequence Acute Renal Failure as the principal diagnosis when a patient is admitted with Acute Renal Failure due to Dehydration. Has this advice changed in ICD-10?

A:

Yes, this advice has changed per Coding Clinic, First Quarter 2019, page 12.  Effective with discharges March 20, 2019, either Dehydration or Acute Kidney Injury could be sequenced as the principal diagnosis based on the reason for admission. Querying the physician is advised when the reason for admission is unclear. Coding Clinic has specified, “There is no rule that acute kidney injury should always be sequenced first.”

The MACs have begun selecting Acute Renal Failure DRGs for review.  Please review your cases with this Coding Clinic in mind.

Reference:

Coding Clinic, First Quarter 2019, page 12. 

Over the past several years, there has been a trend for hospitals to acquire and operate more off-campus, outpatient provider-based departments (PBDs). As this shift in place of service has occurred, CMS has made several adjustments to promote site-neutral payments and gather data on the number of such entities and the services they provide. We have seen a transition to a different payment system for new off-campus PBDs at 40% of the usual OPPS rates, modifiers for services provided in new and existing off-campus PBDs, and new edits enforcing requirements for reporting the address of the service location on the claim. The good news for this last requirement is that Medicare continues to give hospitals one more chance to get it right before turning on the edits.

MLN Matters Article SE19007 describes the claim requirements related to the service location address and gives a new implementation date of July 2019. Basically, the requirement is that “Medicare outpatient service providers report the service facility location for an off-campus, outpatient, provider-based department of a hospital in the 2310E loop of the 837 institutional claim transaction. Direct Data Entry (DDE) submitters also must report the service facility location for an off-campus, outpatient, provider-based department of a hospital.” The hard part is that the reported addresses must be an exact match to the information on the Medicare enrollment Form CMS-855A submitted by the provider and entered into the Provider Enrollment, Chain and Ownership System (PECOS). In CMS testing to date, many providers are not reporting the correct service facility location on the claim that produces an exact match with the Medicare enrolled location as based on the information entered into the PECOS. Most of the discrepancies have to do with spelling variations, such as “Road” versus “Rd.”

The MLN article gives specific examples of the required claim reporting for different scenarios based on where the services were provided as seen in the table below:

These are not new requirements but were discussed in CRs 9613 and 9907, both of which were effective on January 1, 2017. CMS released MLN Matters Article SE18023 in October 2018 and originally planned to turn on the edits that would reject claims if the addresses were not an exact match in April 2019. As stated above, this latest MLN SE Article delays the implementation until at least July 2019 with additional testing prior to that date.  Another positive is that in the April 2019 system update, the FISS maintainer, at the direction of CMS, has made the practice location address screen available to providers in DDE. This will allow providers to ensure the service location address they are reporting is an exact match to the PECOS address. Another helpful resource is a list of Questions and Answers published by CGS, the Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) for Jurisdiction 15.

SE19007 also discusses the use of modifiers PO and PN. Modifier PO is reported on line items for all excepted items provided at an off-campus PBD and modifier PN is reported on line items for all non-excepted items provided at an off-campus PBD. As a reminder, non-excepted off-campus PBDs are those off-campus provider-based departments of a hospital that were not furnishing or billing for services before November 2, 2015. Non-excepted off-campus PBDs are paid under the physician fee schedule (PFS) instead of under OPPS at a rate equal to 40% of the OPPS. Non-excepted services are reported with the PN modifier to trigger the reduced payment. Excepted off-campus PBDs report modifier PO to allow CMS to gather data and monitor billing patterns but, at this time most services continue to be paid under OPPS at regular OPPS payment rates. Beginning in 2019, there is a 30% reduction in payment for clinic visit services (HCPCS G0463) from the regular OPPS rates when provided at excepted off-campus PBDs. This reduction increases to a 60% reduction for 2020 which will equal the 40% of OPPS payment rate received by the non-excepted off-campus PBDs but again, at this time, only for clinic visits for the excepted off-campus PBDs.

Once the edits are turned on, be that July or later, claims submitted with service location addresses that are not an exact match to PECOS will Return to the Provider (RTP). Facilities should take advantage of this implementation delay, the new DDE screen showing the PECOS address, and the expanded reporting instructions to make sure you have it right.

Q:

We are being told that it is Alabama Medicaid Policy that we can obtain a physician order for inpatient admission after discharge on a Medicaid patient that has emergency room charges, observation charges and surgery charges. Is this true?

A:

Chapter 19 of the Alabama Medicaid Provider Billing Manual is specific for hospitals and includes the following regarding patient status orders:

Medicaid will utilize Alabama Medicaid and Pediatric Inpatient Care Criteria (SI/IS) for utilization review, billing and reimbursement purposes.

• It is the hospital’s responsibility to utilize its own physician advisor.
• The attending physician and/or resident may change an order up to 30 days after discharge, as long as the patient met criteria for inpatient or observation charges.”

Both the Alabama Medicaid and Pediatric Inpatient Care Criteria and a link to Chapter 19 can be accessed on the Alabama Medicaid Hospital Services webpage at http://www.medicaid.alabama.gov/content/4.0_Programs/4.4_Medical_Facilities/4.4.1_Hospital_Services.aspx