Knowledge Base - Full Library

MEDICARE TRANSMITTALS – RECURRING UPDATES

July 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/MM11225.pdf

Changes to the Laboratory National Coverage Determination (NCD) Edit Software for July 2019

https://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNMattersArticles/downloads/MM11224.pdf

Quarterly Update to the National Correct Coding Initiative (NCCI) Procedure-to-Procedure (PTP) Edits, Version 25.2 Effective July 1, 2019

https://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNMattersArticles/downloads/MM11227.pdf

OTHER MEDICARE TRANSMITTALS

Billing for Hospital Part B Inpatient Services

Provides billing instructions for hospital Part B inpatient services.

https://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNMattersArticles/downloads/MM11181.pdf

Evaluation and Management (E/M) When Performed with Superficial Radiation Treatment – REVISED

Revised to clarify that providers need to bill the 25 modifier when performing E/M services with CPT code 77401.

https://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNMattersArticles/downloads/MM11137.pdf

Pub. 100-04, Chapter 29 – Appeals of Claims Decisions – Revisions

Incorporates the following policy updates to the Medicare Claims Processing Manual:

• The policy on use of electronic signatures
• Timing of signatures on transfer of appeal rights and the appointment of representative forms
• Tolling an adjudication timeframe when trying to cure a defective appointment form
• Limiting scope of redetermination review in certain instances
• Application of good cause for late filing involving beneficiary accessibility
• Application of good cause where there is a declared disaster

https://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNMattersArticles/downloads/MM11042.pdf

New Waived Tests

Informs MACs of new Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) waived tests approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

https://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNMattersArticles/downloads/MM11231.pdf

MEDICARE SPECIAL EDITION ARTICLES

Activation of Systematic Validation Edits for OPPS Providers with Multiple Service Locations

Claim information for Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) providers that have multiple service locations.

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

MEDICARE COVERAGE UPDATES

CMS Proposes Updates to Coverage Policy for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR)

CMS is updating the coverage criteria for hospitals and physicians to begin or maintain a TAVR program.

https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/cms-proposes-updates-coverage-policy-transcatheter-aortic-valve-replacement-tavr

MEDICARE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

Medicare Fast Facts

Medicare Fast Facts resources this month include:

• Proper Coding for Specimen Validity Testing Billed in Combination with Urine Drug Testing
• Provider Minute Video: The Importance of Proper Documentation

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

April 2019 Patients Over Paperwork Newsletter

Updates on ongoing work to reduce administrative burden and improve the customer experience for hospitals.

https://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Outreach/Partnerships/Downloads/April2019PoPNewsletter.pdf

GAO Report for Medicare and Medicaid:
CMS Should Assess Documentation Necessary to Identify Improper Payments

GAO examined: (1) Medicare and Medicaid documentation requirements and factors that contribute to improper payments due to insufficient documentation; and (2) the extent to which Medicaid reviews provide states with actionable information.

https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-277

April is National Occupational Therapy Month. The American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA) states on their website, “Occupational therapy practitioners enable people of all ages to live life to its fullest by helping them promote health, and prevent—or live better with—injury, illness, or disability.” In honor of OT month (and also with a nod to physical therapists and speech language pathologists) today’s article will address the issue of the correct reporting of therapy units.

Although the reporting of timed therapy codes would seem to be more difficult than untimed codes, this April’s Medicare Quarterly Provider Compliance Newsletter addresses errors identified by the Recovery Auditors for the reporting of untimed therapy codes. To cover all our bases, let’s review both.

A number of CPT codes, such as constant attendance modalities and most therapeutic procedures, specify a time frame of 15 minutes as the direct one-on-one time spent providing the therapy service to the patient. These are referred to as “timed” therapy procedure codes.

When a therapy service is not defined by a specific timeframe, it is an “untimed” therapy procedure (CPT or HCPCS) code. Untimed codes are billed with a unit of one (1) per date of service. The unit for untimed codes is one regardless of how long the evaluation or service took. Providers should enter a 1 in the ‘units bill’ column per date of service. Below is a table of the untimed therapy codes. There may be exceptions to a unit of one if a patient has more than one encounter on the same day.

Timed therapy codes include in their CPT description the time frame of “each 15 minutes” and units are calculated based on the total time of all “timed” code services. Per the Medicare Claims Processing Manual, chapter 5, section 20.2, “Providers report these “timed” procedure codes for services delivered on any single calendar day using CPT codes and the appropriate number of 15 minute units of service.” The total number of units billed for “timed” services are based on the total time of the “timed” services according to the following chart. If more than one “timed” service is provided, add the minutes of all “timed” services together and get the total number of “timed” units to be billed. These are then divided appropriately among the various “timed” services provided. Although Medicare requires providers to report the total treatment time (timed and untimed services), do not add the minutes of “untimed” codes when calculating the units of “timed” services.

‍Pattern continues…

Do not report any units if total minutes of timed therapy services is less than 8 minutes

See Section 20.2 of Chapter 5 of the Claims Processing Manual for examples of the billing of timed codes. Here is a straight forward example from the Manual:

“Example 1 –

• 24 minutes of neuromuscular reeducation, code 97112,
• 23 minutes of therapeutic exercise, code 97110,
• Total timed code treatment time was 47 minutes.

See the chart above. The 47 minutes falls within the range for 3 units = 38 to 52 minutes.

Appropriate billing for 47 minutes is only 3 timed units. Each of the codes is performed for more than 15 minutes, so each shall be billed for at least 1 unit. The correct coding is 2 units of code 97112 and one unit of code 97110, assigning more timed units to the service that took the most time.”

Other examples in the Manual address trickier situations, such as the division of an odd number of units if both services are the same length, division of units if the number of different services exceeds the number of units, and the counting of services lasting less than 8 minutes.

One of the most common time errors I see when reviewing therapy records is the inclusion of the time of “untimed” codes in the time used to calculate code minutes. Remember, untimed codes are billed with 1 unit per day of service and “untimed” code minutes do not affect the overall units of codes.

• For example, a patient receives 25 minutes of therapeutic exercise (CPT 97110) and 10 minutes of unattended e-stim (HCPCS G0283).
• Do not add the 10 minutes of unattended e-stim to the 25 minutes of ther ex for a total of 35 minutes, limiting your total units to 2.
• In this situation, 35 minutes is the total treatment time, but the total “timed” code minutes is 25 for 2 units of ther ex (97110). The unattended e-stim, as an untimed code, is reported with units of 1.

Separate your “timed” and “untimed” minutes when determining units – untimed codes = units of one (1); timed codes = units based on total minutes of “timed” codes only.

Therapy providers should know their “timed” versus “untimed” code and keep them separate for calculating units. Again, we at MMP wish a timely Happy OT Month to all the dedicated and hard-working Occupational Therapists who help their patients “live life to its fullest.”

The kicker to the saying that “time flies when you’re having fun,” is that time also flies when you are not. However, I have been extremely fortunate over the past 10 years to actually enjoy my job. Last October marked my 10-year anniversary as an employee of Medical Management Plus, Inc. (MMP). Yes, it is nerdy that I actually enjoy reading Medicare regulations, but I do. I enjoy even more writing articles, such as this one, which I hope share Medicare and related guidance in an easy-to-read and understandable format and help our readers do their own challenging healthcare jobs better. The rapid passing of time is relevant because the very first article I wrote at MMP over ten years ago was about the 2008 AHIMA (American Health Information Management Association) article, “Managing an Effective Query Process.”

In February of this year, the Association of Clinical Documentation Improvement Specialists (ACDIS) and the American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA) jointly produced “Guidelines for Achieving a Compliant Query Practice (2019 Update).”  This Practice Brief is the recommended industry standard for provider queries and describes best practices for coding and clinical documentation improvement (CDI) professionals performing query functions. It supersedes the 2016 and all prior versions.

Coders and CDI professionals should carefully review and follow the practices described in this Brief, but other healthcare team members also need to be aware of this guidance. For example, case management, quality management professionals, and infection control clinicians educate physicians to document a certain way. Since these interactions could ultimately affect coding, these healthcare professionals need to be aware of and comply with query compliance standards. Other healthcare professionals, such as compliance, revenue cycle, patient financial services, physician groups, facility leaders, and any who work with documentation and coding also need to be familiar with this guidance. The Brief also points out that it serves as a resource for external reviewers, such as the Office of Inspector General (OIG), government contractors, payor review agencies, and others.

According to the Brief, a query is a communication tool “used to clarify documentation in the health record for documentation integrity and accurate code assignment.” In addition to ensuring a medical record that accurately reflects patient complexity and the facts of the encounter, an effective query process ensures appropriate reimbursement and accurate risk-adjustment and quality of care statistics derived from claims data.

The Practice Brief states, “The objective of a query is to ensure the reported diagnoses and procedures derived from the health record documentation accurately reflect the patient’s episode of care.” Among other functions, some of the main uses of queries are to:

• Determine if a clinical condition is present when supported by clinical indicators within the record,
• Clarify conflicting documentation,
• Add specificity in certain situations,
• Establish “cause and effect” relationships, and
• Clarify when a documented diagnosis does not appear to be clinically supported.

I am not going to list all of the requirements of a compliant query and encourage those affected to read the entire Practice Brief for all the guidance provided. Here are some of the main points from the Brief that caught my attention.

Leading Queries

Bearing in mind that my background is compliance, I will start with the rule that queries should not be leading – they should not “lead” the physician or other practitioner to the preferred answer or to a specific diagnosis or procedure. Multiple choice queries are acceptable, but be sure to include options that allow the provider to explain other clinical options or to reply that the answer may be clinically undetermined. In the words of the Brief, “the choices provided as part of the query must reflect reasonable conclusions specific to the clinical scenario of the individual patient.”

Impact on Reimbursement

At one time, reimbursement seemed to be the major driver of the query process. This should not be – querying is about obtaining accurate documentation and coding, which often can affect a facility’s payment. However, keep your focus on accuracy and completeness and never include the impact on reimbursement or on quality measures in the query. It is best not to even discuss the effects of querying on reimbursement or quality measures with your physicians or others. If your records are accurate and complete, your facility will receive the appropriate reimbursement and accurate quality measures.

Specificity

Queries can be helpful for determining a more specific code in some situations. However, bear in mind “that code accuracy is not the same as code specificity.” Although some payors resist unspecified codes, there are times when unspecified codes are appropriate based on the clinical situation.

Clinical Indicators

When querying for documentation of medical diagnoses or conditions that are clinically evident, be sure to include clinical indicators that:

• “Are specific to the patient and episode of care
• Support why a more complete or accurate diagnosis or procedure is sought
• Support why a diagnosis requires additional clinical support to be reportable”

Clinical indicators can be such things as the physical exam and assessment, diagnostic findings, and treatments. Clinical indicators should be relevant and clearly support the clinical condition. More is not always better, as the Brief states, “The quality of clinical indicators—how well they relate to the condition being clarified—is more important than the quantity of clinical indicators.”

Patient History and Prior Encounters

Coding from prior encounters without documentation in the current record is not allowed, but generating a query based on information from a prior encounter may be acceptable, but only if the information is clinically pertinent to the current encounter. The Brief includes a list of example situations where information from a prior encounter could be used to query, such as specificity, baseline status, present on admission (POA) status, cause and effect, and etiology. The Brief cautions that “it is inappropriate to “mine” a previous encounter’s documentation to generate queries not related to the current encounter.”

Documentation and Retention of Queries

Sometimes it is easier to explain a situation to a provider in person. Verbal queries are acceptable, but the exchange, including the provider’s response, should be documented and maintained. And like written queries, conversations should not be leading. When documenting these interactions, be sure to include the same components you would include in a written query – the details of the discussion, the reason for the query, the clinical indicators, options discussed and the provider’s decision. Also, date, time, and sign your documentation.

It is recommended the query be part of the permanent medical record. Another option is to keep queries as part of the business record. They should be easily retrievable for auditing, monitoring, and compliance. Facilities should have a policy that addresses query retention and it should apply to all queries, regardless of provider response.

Clinical Validation and Escalation

Sometimes it may appear that a documented diagnosis is not clinically supported. These clinical validation queries can be more challenging than other types of queries. AHIMA has developed a separate Practice Brief to address these concerns titled “Clinical Validation: The Next Level of CDI.” AHIMA members can view this Brief in the AHIMA HIM Body of Knowledge at http://bok.ahima.org.  

Clinical validation may be a good time to involve a physician advisor or the chief medical officer. Facilities should have a documented escalation policy for certain situations, which may include clinical validation situations, failure to respond, or other issues. There should also be policies defining the role and expectations of those issuing the queries and the responders.

Again, this is a high-level overview of the Practice Brief on Compliant Queries. The Brief contains much more information, including query examples in Appendix B, which I found to be particularly enlightening. Be sure to read the entire Brief carefully – study it, discuss it with other stakeholders within your facility, and use it to develop your policies, procedures and practices. Be sure to include initial training for new employees and on-going education for all employees. Also, watch for updated guidance - I will not promise to be around in another 10 years to share the information.

When I was growing up, there were lots of television commercials about cigarettes (remember the Marlboro man?), but none about prescription drugs. Things change. Today television commercials featuring tobacco products are banned, but the airwaves are inundated with advertisements for prescription medications. I am not sure that is any wiser choice than the cigarette commercials, but that is the way it is. You may also notice that the generic name of a large number of the medicines advertised end with the letters “mab.” This means the drug is a monoclonal antibody. Even if there had been television advertisements for drugs when I was growing up, they would not have been MABs, because those drugs were not even developed back then. I am sure there are a lot of things that can be said about monoclonal antibodies, but two such statements could be - first, they offer new hope to many with certain conditions and second, “cha-ching!” meaning of course they are expensive drugs.

As a payor of healthcare services, specifically drugs in this case, Medicare wants to ensure the drugs they are paying for are appropriate (medically necessary), administered to the patient, and follow Medicare and evidence-based guidelines. Add this to the high costs of some of these drugs and it is not surprising that a number of Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) are auditing certain drugs under their Targeted Probe and Educate (TPE) audits. Specifically, Palmetto GBA (Jurisdictions J and M) and Novitas (Jurisdictions H and L) include the review of several drugs in their TPE Medical Reviews. As the name indicates, TPE reviews focus on individualized provider education. The MACs also offer educational resources that are available to all through their websites. Palmetto has recently added the following “checklists” for drugs to their website as well as an article about Prolia (Denosumab).

Neulasta Checklist

Prolia Checklist 

Rituxan Checklist 

Remicade Checklist 

Avastin Checklist 

These checklists include the basic requirements for the billing of any drug administered to outpatients –

• A signed and dated physician’s order that includes the dosage, frequency, and route of administration
• Documentation supporting the need for the drug and the patient’s diagnosis – this may require the hospital to obtain the physician’s office notes discussing the patient’s condition and treatment
• The units billed, the units ordered, and the units administered to the patient must all match
• A protocol was followed as specified in the package insert (FDA approved) or in accepted drug compendia for off-label uses
• Medicare and MAC-specific coverage requirements for the drug are met
• The medical record includes documentation of the administration of the drug with date, time, route, dose, and patient response

Some drugs require additional documentation such as the patient’s weight or body surface area to calculate dosage or other documentation based on coverage requirements. For example, the drug Prolia (denosumab) requires documentation the patient is taking calcium and vitamin D supplements or the reasons why not and documentation the patient has had an x-ray or DEXA scan.

The benefit of these checklists is that if you use them and make sure you submit all of the required documentation upon request for records for Medicare review, your chances of being paid by Medicare are much better than if you didn’t follow a checklist. Is this a Medicare contractor being nice to providers?!? Well, things change.

“I’m late, I’m late! For a very important date! Not time to say ‘hello, goodbye,’ I’m late, I’m late, I’m late!”

• The White Rabbit in Lewis Carroll’s classic story, Alice in Wonderland

Yesterday, April 16th was National Healthcare Decisions Day and the first National Care Transitions Awareness Day. Although this article is a day later, it is never too late to put the patient first.

April 16th: National Healthcare Decisions Day (NHDD)

NHDD is an initiative of The Conversion Project which is dedicated to helping people talk about their wishes for end-of-life care. According to the NHDD website, this day “exists to inspire, educate and empower the public and providers about the importance of advance care planning. NHDD is an initiative to encourage patients to express their wishes regarding healthcare and for providers and facilities to respect those wishes, whatever they may be.”

Effective January 1, 2016, the CMS began paying for Advance Care Planning (ACP) under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) and the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS). ACP is a face-to-face service between a physician (or other qualified health professional) and the patient discussing advance directives with or without completing relevant legal forms.

The Annual Wellness Visit, Health Risk Assessment and Advance Care Planning

My husband recently had an office visit with his Primary Care Physician and for the first time his Physician discussed advance directives and even sent him home with a blank copy of an advance directive that he could complete. My husband also said that between him and his Physician they filled out what seemed “like a million” forms answering questions about his health history.

While writing this article, I realized this office visit was probably my husband’s Annual Wellness Visit (AWV). Section 4103 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) established a Medicare Annual Wellness Visit beginning in 2011. An AWV is covered by Medicare once every 12 months and entails the Physician developing or updating a personalized prevention plan, and performing a Health Risk Assessment.

The Health Risk Assessment involves collecting and analyzing health-related data used by health providers to evaluate the health status or health risk of an individual. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)’s A Framework for Patient-Centered Health Risk Assessments, “chronic illnesses account for an estimated 83% of total U.S. health spending and virtually all (99%) of Medicare’s expenditures are for beneficiaries with at least one chronic condition.

One component of the Health Risk Assessment (HRA) is voluntary Advanced Care Planning.  Minimum elements for voluntary ACP services include a discussion about the following:

• Future care decisions that may need to be made,
• How the beneficiary can let others know about care preferences,
• Caregiver identification, and
• Explanation of advanced directives, which may involve the completion of standard forms.

You can learn more about the Annual Wellness Visit in an MLN Booklet (ICN905706) and more about Advanced Care Planning in an MLN Advance Care Planning Fact Sheet.

April 16, 2019: First National Care Transitions Awareness (NCTA) Day

Even with Annual Wellness Visits and Health Risk Assessments, Medicare patients get admitted to the hospital. Unfortunately, of the approximately 2.6 million Medicare beneficiaries who are discharged from a hospital, one in five are readmitted within 30 days, at a cost of over $26 million every year.¹ 

According to the CMS Effective Care Transitions, Improve Cost Savings Graphic and Fact Sheet:

• Nationally, inadequate care coordination and care transitions are responsible for $30-54 billion in wasteful spending,
• 57% of Providers report things fall through the cracks when patients transfer from one facility to another,
• 50% of Hospital-Related medical errors are attributed to poor communication during transitions of care, and
• Chronically ill patients will see an average of 16 physicians per year.

Yesterday, April 16, 2019 marked the first National Care Transitions Awareness (NCTA) Day. This day is meant to raise awareness about the importance and value of care transitions and care coordination. In an FAQ Session posted on the CMS Quality Improvement Organization (QIO) website, Jean Moody-Williams and Dr. Adebola Adeleye share the inspiration behind NCTA Day.

“Health care can be very complex, and it requires effective coordination efforts as beneficiaries’ transition from one point of care to another, such as from a hospital to a nursing home. Effective care transitions require a team-based approach that treats people holistically — addressing their socioeconomic circumstances, cultural beliefs and values, as well as their health care needs.

To practice this same holistic approach for the care of our beneficiaries, CMS mobilized a team of individuals across the agency representing the various aspects of our care transitions programs and initiatives to form the CMS CTPAC Affinity Group. This group works to align our care transitions efforts by improving communication and coordination, and eliminating duplication across our programs. 

Early on in our discussions, the CTPAC Affinity Group identified the need to increase awareness and promote action around care transitions and expectations during the process, especially in the beneficiary population. One of our priorities at CMS is to put patients first, and we believe beneficiaries are an essential part of the health care team. If people are well informed about ways to improve their care, they can become more active participants. Ultimately, active patient participation helps us at CMS be more effective in advancing quality care and patient safety as people transition through the health care continuum.”

Staying Connected After NCTA Day

CMS invites you to join their Care Transitions Listserv to receive future communications about upcoming events and opportunities. You can register at https://www.healthcarecommunities.org/NCTA. You can also learn more about Care Transitions from CMS leadership on their YouTube channel.

Source

¹The CMS Community-based Care Transitions Program webpage at: https://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/CCTP/).

On March 26, 2019 CMS published a Proposed Decision Memo for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) (CAG-00430R). In a related CMS Press Release CMS noted they would continue to cover TAVR under Coverage with Evidence Development (CED) when furnished according to an FDA-approved indication.

TAVR Background

CMS first released National Coverage Determination (NCD) 20.32 Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) with an effective date of May 1, 2012. At that time, TAVR was considered a new technology for use in treating patients with aortic stenosis where a biprosthetic valve is inserted percutaneously using a catheter and implanted in the orifice of the native aortic valve.

TAVRs are performed in a cardiac catheterization lab or a hybrid operating room/cardiac catheterization lab with advanced quality imaging and with the ability to safely accommodate complicated cases that may require conversion to an open surgical procedure. The interventional cardiologist and cardiothoracic surgeon jointly participate in the intra-operative technical aspects of TAVR.

NCD 20.32 allows for coverage of the TAVR Procedure under Coverage with Evidence Development (CED) with specific conditions being met, appropriate volume requirements and a heart team and hospitals participation in a prospective, national, audited registry. For indications not approved by the FDA, CMS covers TAVR under CED when a patient is enrolled in a qualifying clinical study.

Registry and Clinical Study Approvals by CMS can be found on the CMS Coverage with Evidence Development TAVR webpage. https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coverage/Coverage-with-Evidence-Development/TAVR.html

TAVR Hospital Volumes

TAVR procedures are on the Medicare Inpatient Only Procedure List and sequence to the MS-DRG Pair 266 and 267 (Endovascular Cardiac Valve Replacement with MCC and without MCC respectively). In CMS Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 through 2017, this MS-DRG pair also included ICD-10-PCS codes for replacement of pulmonary valves. In FY 2018 an additional 4 mitral valve codes and 8 new tricuspid valve codes were also added to this MS-DRG pair.

To provide you with a glimpse into these types of procedures, I utilized Medicare Fee-for-Service paid claims data from our sister company RealTime Medicare Data (RTMD) for CMS FY 2015 through 2018. The following table highlights an increase in volumes and average charges and a decrease in actual average payment and average length of stay (ALOS) for Medicare Fee-for-Service paid claims in Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee.

‍Proposed Decision Memo: Changes and CMS’ Request for Comments

The Decision Memo proposes to update “the coverage criteria for hospitals and physicians to begin or maintain a TAVR program. The proposed decision provides more flexibility in how providers can meet the requirements performing TAVR, while continuing to ensure good health outcomes for patients receiving the procedure.”

The CMS Press Release notes they are also seeking to gather additional information and specifically proposed “a question regarding the relationship between other metrics and patient health outcomes, which could inform a future change to replace the volume criteria with a different metric.”

Key stakeholders at your hospital should take the time to read the Proposed Decision Memo and provide public comments. There is a 30-day public comment period ending April 25th and a final decision will be issued no later than 60 days after the conclusion of the 30-day public comment period. All public comments may be submitted at https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/indexes/nca-open-for-public-comment-index.aspx.

Link to NCD 20.32: https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/details/ncd-details.aspx?NCDId=355&ncdver=1&bc=AAAAgAAAAAAAAA%3d%3d&

CMS released MLN Matters Article MM11181 titled “Billing for Part B Hospital Inpatient Services” on March 22, 2019. This is not a new rule at all, but has been around since 2013. In the 2014 Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) Final Rule CMS-1599-R, effective October 1, 2013, CMS first allowed the billing of certain Part B services when an inpatient hospital admission is determined to not be reasonable and necessary for payment under Medicare Part A. Prior to this rule change, the billing of Part B inpatient services on a 12x type of bill (TOB) was limited to those occasions when the Medicare beneficiary did not have Part A coverage or the Part A benefits were exhausted.

The new policy specifically stated, “Medicare will allow payment under Part B of all hospital services that were furnished and would have been reasonable and necessary if the patient had been treated as a hospital outpatient, rather than admitted to the hospital as an inpatient.” The determination that the patient did not meet inpatient criteria could have been from 1) a denial by Medicare or 2) the result of a hospital “self-audit” after the patient was discharged. There are rules for the hospital self-audit.

• It must follow Medicare Conditions of Participation UR guidelines (42 CFR 428.30);
• It must be made by a physician member of the UR committee if the attending physician concurs, or by 2 physician members of the UR committee if the attending does not concur;
• The attending physician must be consulted; and
• The patient must be notified of the decision in writing within 2 days.

CMS also expanded what could be billed on a 12x TOB under Part B for these “reasonable and necessary inpatient admission denials” to include surgeries, drugs and therapeutic services such as coronary and peripheral interventions. Services requiring an outpatient status such as observation services and ED visits, and routine inpatient services cannot be billed under Part B inpatient billing. Note that the routine inpatient services include drug administrations, blood transfusions, and nebulizer treatments provided by floor nurses and should not be reported on a Part B inpatient claim. CMS provides a list of revenue codes that should not be submitted on a “reasonable and necessary inpatient denial” 12x TOB in section 240.1 of chapter 4 of the Medicare Claims Processing Manual. When a revenue code can be sometimes covered and sometimes not covered, providers should use Medicare guidance and the HCPCS code to determine if the service is covered.

If the “reasonable and necessary inpatient denials” Part B rebilling rule is six years old, what was the purpose of this latest MLN article? Again, CMS did not really change any rules, but added verbiage to the Claims Processing Manual clarifying the need for a Part A claim prior to submitting the Part B claim. In order to submit a Part B 12x claim after a hospital self-audit, the hospital must:

• Submit a Part A claim indicating that the provider is liable under section 1879 of the Act for the cost of the Part A services. This is a no-pay inpatient claim, type of bill 110. If the hospital has already submitted a regular inpatient claim (111 TOB), it must adjust the Part A claim to make the provider liable.
• The Part B 12x type of bill may be submitted for these “reasonable and necessary inpatient denials” only after the Part A claim is denied or a no-pay claim is submitted.

Also, the Part B inpatient claim is subject to the timely filing requirements described in the Medicare Claims Processing Manual, Chapter 1, Section 70.

This new MLN Matters Article (MM11181) also makes some modifications to the list of revenue codes that are not allowed on a 12x TOB for “other circumstances.” These circumstances would be for Medicare patients who are not entitled to benefits under Part A, have exhausted their Part A benefits, or receive services not covered under Part A. Part B inpatient claims for these circumstances restrict the types of services that can be billed much more than the “reasonable and necessary inpatient denials” Part B rebilling.

For more information about Part B Inpatient billing, see sections 240.1 and 240.2 of Chapter 4 of the Medicare Claims Processing Manual and sections 10.1 and 10.2 of Chapter6 of the Medicare Benefits Policy Manual. And remember for Part B rebillling, it is always A before B.

The expression 'the writing is on the wall' is used whenever an inevitable result or imminent danger has become apparent. It comes from the biblical story in the book of Daniel of God writing a warning to King Belshazzar on the wall. The Phrase Finder website

Local Coverage Determinations (LCDs) are determinations by Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) as to whether or not a particular item or service is covered in accordance with section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act. LCDs may expand on the requirements of a National Coverage Determination or address certain services that do not have an NCD but for which the MAC has concerns about the efficacy and necessity of the service. In other words, the MAC may need to describe the particular requirements that must be met and documented in the medical record to support the medical necessity of the service. Sometimes you can tell a lot about the potential risk of non-compliance simply by the number of MACs that have a coverage policy for a particular service – sort of “the writing on the wall” for providers. One such service is facet joint injections – all 12 MAC jurisdictions have an LCD describing coverage requirements for this service.

The reasons for this widespread concern about facet injections can be found in the LCD Introduction paragraph from the Palmetto LCD:

“Facet joint injection techniques are used in the diagnosis and/or treatment of chronic neck and back pain. However, the evidence of clinical efficacy and utility has not been well-established in the medical literature, which is replete with non-comparable and inadequately designed studies. Further, there is a singular dearth of long-term outcomes reports. This is particularly problematic given the steroid dosages administered. These drugs alone may develop the relief experienced by patients but are associated with serious adverse health events and could as well be administered orally. Hence, ongoing coverage requires outcomes reporting as described in this LCD to allow future analysis of clinical efficacy.”

This basically says that the efficacy of this procedure is not proven and there are serious risks so, in order for facet injections to be covered, providers must have documented proof of the need and outcomes that show the treatment works. There is variation between the policies, so be sure to read the LCD for your jurisdiction and follow the requirements of that policy. However, it is often helpful to review other policies for a better understanding of the procedure and potential concerns.

Demonstrating Need

Almost all of the policies require an initial evaluation that includes history and an appropriately focused musculoskeletal and neurological physical examination, as well as pertinent diagnostic tests or procedures justifying the possible presence of facet joint pain. Be sure to include in this documentation:

• Documentation of pain – A pain severity description (mild, moderate, or severe) or a numeric pain scale rating (1-10) is generally required – check your local LCD to determine which specific pain description the policy requires. For example, Palmetto requires the pain to be moderate or severe while the Novitas policy requires average pain levels of 6 or greater. Also address the duration of the pain (usually 3 months), and make sure it complies with your jurisdiction’s LCD requirements.
• The pain results in a functional impairment – if the pain is bad enough to justify the procedure, it is bad enough to cause a functional impairment – difficulty with walking, bending, lifting, or some other specific activity of daily living.
• Conservative treatments have been tried and failed – be specific on what was tried – drugs, therapy, etc. If there are contraindications that prevented trying some conservative treatments, document that also.
• The pain is facet in nature. Some policies require that the pain be predominately axial and not associated with radiculopathy or neurogenic claudication or non-facet pathology.

Demonstrating Efficacy

Because of the concerns noted above about the risks and efficacy of facet joint injections, diagnostic injections must be done first to show the patient will receive relief.

From the Palmetto LCD:

• Dual medial branch blocks (a series of two MBBs) are necessary to diagnose facet pain due to the unacceptably high false positive rate of single MBB injections.
• A second confirmatory MBB is allowed if documentation indicates the first MBB produced significant relief of primary (index) pain ≥ 50% as evidenced by documented functional improvement, increased range of motion, a decreased requirement for pain medications and duration of relief is consistent with the agent employed.
• Intra-articular facet block will not be reimbursed as a diagnostic test unless medial branch blocks cannot be performed due to specific documented anatomic restrictions.

Again, confirm the requirements for diagnostic injections and the required outcome for your local LCD.

In addition, there are requirements for the percent and duration of pain relief from therapeutic injections that must be met before Medicare will cover a repeat injection if needed.

Procedure Requirements

A dated, signed and legible procedure note must describe the details of the facet injection, including “a description of the techniques employed, nerves injected and sites(s) of injections, drugs and doses with volumes and concentrations, as well as pre and post-procedural pain assessments.”

Other requirements from the Palmetto LCD include:

• Facet joint interventions (diagnostic and/or therapeutic) must be performed under fluoroscopic or computed tomographic (CT) guidance.
• Hard or digital copy images documenting the needle position and contrast medium flow must be retained and submitted if requested.
• Limits on the volume and dosage of drugs.
• Limits on the number of injections in a specified time frame.
• Performed by appropriately trained providers whose qualifications meet the requirements of the LCD.

You may also want to read a prior Wednesday@One article that discussed the findings of a Noridian medical review of facet joint injections. The Noridian articles referenced in the W@1 article are no longer available, but the article includes details of Noridian’s education.

As you can see, there are a lot of requirements and supporting documentation necessary to meet the facet joint injection LCDs. Would your facility’s medical records hold up to the scrutiny of a Medicare reviewer? If not, you may be at risk of claim denials or recoupments should you be reviewed. My recommendation is to be proactive by reading your MAC’s LCD and then making sure you follow the requirements and document appropriately. Seven MACs for 12 Jurisdictions with eight Facet Joint LCDs (Noridian assigns separate LCD ID numbers to each of their 2 jurisdictions) – the writing is on the wall.

Q:

A Colonoscopy was performed to identify the source of GI bleeding in a patient.  The physician diagnosed arteriovenous malformation (AVM) of the large intestine.  However, this condition is assigned to a congenital code, Arteriovenous Malformation of Digestive System Vessel (Q27.33), which is not specifically documented in the record.  In prior ICD-9-CM Coding Clinics, we did not use the congenital codes and were instructed to code AVM to Angiodysplasia.  Is this still the case in ICD-10-CM?

A:

Yes, assign a code for Angiodysplasia of Colon with Hemorrhage (55.21) for the bleeding AVM of the large intestine.  These codes are not assigned to a congenital code as they are believed to be degenerative in nature.

Vascular Ectasias, also known as Angiodysplasias and Arteriovenous Malformations are dilated vessels that develop in the cecum and ascending colon.  They occur in people >60 years of age and are the most common cause of lower GI bleeding.  They appear as bright red, can be flat or raised and covered by thin tissue.

References:

Coding Clinic:

                3rd Quarter 2018, page 21

                4th Quarter 1990, page 4

                3rd Quarter 1996, page 9-10

Vascular GI Lesions – Gastrointestinal Disorders Merck Manual 

Attention, this is not a late April Fools’ Day Joke, Palmetto GBA has published a Spinal Fusion LCD and it differs from other MACs Spinal Fusion LCDs. In their March 22, 2019 Daily e-Newsletter, Palmetto posted a new Local Coverage Determinations (LCDs) Notice Period, LCD Revisions and LCD Article updates: Part A and Part B. Highlighted below are the new LCDs, related Coding and Billing Articles, and Response to Comments Articles.  

‍Background

The Jurisdiction J MAC (Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee) transition from Cahaba GBA to Palmetto GBA was complete as of February 26, 2018. Prior to the transition, Cahaba GBA had a Spinal Fusion LCD. LCDs from both MACs were consolidated during the transition. Cahaba’s Spinal Fusion LCD (L35942) did not make the cut leaving the Jurisdiction J MAC without a Spinal Fusion LCD, until now.

In January of this year the Supplemental Medical Review Contractor (SMRC) Noridian Healthcare Solutions, LLC (Noridian) posted a notice of their current Spinal Fusions (MS-DRGs 459 and 460) medical review project. At that time, MMP wrote an article detailing past Spinal Fusion Audits and current medical review audits. This article highlights the new Palmetto GBA Spinal Fusion Local Coverage Determination (LCD). 

Cahaba vs Palmetto LCD Compare

Cahaba’s LCD: Surgery Fusion for Degenerative Joint Disease of the Lumbar Spine (L35942) was initially effective for services performed on or after 10/01/2015 and was officially retired 2/25/2018. Palmetto GBA’s new LCD: Lumbar Spinal Fusion (L37848) has a future effective date for services performed on or after 5/6/2019.

Cahaba GBA Coverage Indications

1. Spinal stenosis for a single level (for example, L4-L5) with associated spondylolisthesis and symptoms of spinal claudication and radicular pain. Pain must represent significant functional impairment despite 3 months of conservative therapy.
2. Spondylolisthesis
3. Spondylolysis
4. Repeat Lumbar Fusion following prior fusion for associated spondylolisthesis
5. Treatment of pseudoarthrosis at the same level after 12 months from prior surgery.

Palmetto GBA Coverage Indications

1. Radiographic or clinical evidence of instability due to one of the following: congenital deformities, trauma, fractures, chronic degenerative conditions, tumor, infection, erosive conditions, space-occupying lesions or iatrogenic causes.
2. Symptomatic spinal deformity in the absence of instability or neural compression which meets the following criteria:
3. Functional limitation in daily activities due to back pain or discomfort and
4. Nonresponsive to at least one year of non-operative management.
5. Revision surgery for pseudoarthrosis following an initial spine surgery
6. Symptomatic compression of neural elements for which disc excision is necessary for decompression.

Cahaba GBA Documentation Requirements

1. “Documentation must support CMS ‘signature guidelines, as described in the Medicare Program Integrity Manual (Pub. 100-08), Chapter 3. Medical record documentation maintained by the physician must support the above indications and must include the following:

• Office notes/hospital record, including history and physical by the attending/treating physician
• Documentation of the history and duration of unsuccessful conservative therapy (non-surgical medical management). Failure of non-surgical medical management can be historical and does not have to be under the direction of the operating surgeon.

1. Medical record documentation must be made available to Medicare upon request. When the documentation does not meet the criteria for the service(s) rendered or the documentation does not establish the medical necessity for the service(s), such service(s) will be denied as not reasonable and necessary under Section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act. The hospital (FISS claim) and physician services (MCS claim) can be denied.”

Palmetto GBA Documentation Requirement

“Documentation must demonstrate that the patient met at least one of the indications for the procedure…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.”

Palmetto’s LCD requirements end with “Associated Information” that “medical record documentation should be legible, relevant and sufficient to justify services billed. This documentation should be maintained in the patient’s medical record and must be made available to the A/B MAC upon request.”

Note, there is no statement indicating that the physician’s services could be denied in this policy, even though the new LCD applies to both Part A (hospital) and Part B (physicians’ services).

Shared Decision Making

Palmetto’s shared decision making requirement is not as specific as what is required in the recently revised NCD 20.4, Implantable Cardiac Defibrillators (ICDs). NCD 20.4 requires a formal shared decision-making encounter between the patient and physician or qualified non-physician practitioner using an evidenced-based decision tool on ICDs prior to initial ICD Implantation. In a related Decision Memo, CMS responded to a comment stating that shared decision making is a critical step in empowering patient choice in his/her treatment plan and requires the use of an evidence-based tool to ensure topics like the patients’ health goals and preferences are covered prior to ICD implantation.

On a personal note, I totally agree with the concept of shared decision making prior to Lumbar Fusion. My mom recently underwent a repeat Spinal Fusion and was fused from L1 to S1. My mom is widowed and lives alone. I live out of state three hours away. Thank goodness it is only a 45 minute commute for my brother. The week prior to surgery I asked her what her plan was after surgery. She had not thought about it. She had not thought about the fact that she couldn’t drive, lift more than five pounds, bend-over to put on her shoes and socks, let alone put clothes from the washer into the dryer or bend down to get frozen food out of the freezer section of her refrigerator. Also, when I asked her what exactly she was having done during surgery, she said “they were going to take something out, crush it up, mix it with something and reinsert it into her spine.”

As her patient advocate and having an understanding boss, I was with her the day of surgery and the following week while she was in the hospital. Post-op day one I made it clear to the surgeon’s nurse that she lived alone and that would not be an immediate post-op option for her. She agreed and quickly got Physical and Occupational Therapy involved in my mom’s care. Unfortunately, my mom’s stay was complicated with the inability to void requiring a Foley catheter that remained in until her second week at the skilled nursing unit. The inability to void post-operatively is another potential complication of surgery that she was not prepared for.

I want to preface the rest of this paragraph with a disclaimer that the Surgeon and Hospital staff provided excellent care. However, she was not prepared for how involved the surgery was, the fact that the pain down her legs would not be immediately better, or for the month she spent in a Skilled Nursing Unit for rehabilitation. She has been home a little over two weeks now and was not prepared that she still has not been “released” by the Surgeon and Home Physical and Occupational Therapists to walk up and down stairs unsupervised, do laundry or drive. I can tell she is feeling better because she mentions the things she isn’t supposed to do almost every time I talk to her. So yes, taking the time to provide a shared decision making interaction with the patient is a critical step in empowering patient choice.

Palmetto’s Spinal Fusion LCD does not specify who would provide this patient interaction or what they would expect to see documented in the record. However, the third indication for Lumbar Fusion is a revision surgery for pseudoarthrosis following an initial spine surgery. This indication includes the following statements about shared decision making:

“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.”

Following is another important piece of information that could be shared with a patient. The following paragraph can be found in the Summary of Evidence section of the Palmetto’s LCD.

“Persistent Back Pain Following Previous Spine Surgery

One of the largest studies to date examining the outcomes of surgical fusion following an initial spinal surgery reviewed 100 cases of “failed back surgery syndrome” (Arts 2012). All patients had at least one year of persistent pain refractory to conservative treatments after their initial spine surgery and were treated with pedicle screw fixation and interbody fusion in the revision surgery. Etiologies of failed back surgery syndrome specifically identified included previous discectomy, previous laminectomy, adjacent level disease and instability. The primary outcome measure was a dichotomous patient self-report regarding recovery with options of “good recovery” or “bad recovery”. Mean follow-up time after revision surgery with fusion was 14.7 months. On the primary outcome 35% of patients reported good recovery and the remaining 65% reported bad recovery.”

Moving Forward

Spinal Fusion audits are not new. The documentation expectation to support the medical necessity of the procedure has been made known by several different auditors. Now that Palmetto has published an LCD I would anticipate that a Targeted Probe and Educate review of Spinal Fusions will begin at some point in the near future. Steps you can take now to prepare:

• Read the Lumber Spinal Fusion LCD (L37848) and related Article: Billing and Coding: Lumbar Spinal Fusion (A56396)
• Also, take the time to read the Article: Response to Comments: Lumbar Spinal Fusion (A56397). A word of caution before reading this article, it has the potential to provide insight into Palmetto’s reasons for inclusions or exclusions in the policy, and to totally frustrate you at the same time.
• Perform an internal audit to see if documentation supports one of the indications for the procedure.
• Provide a copy of all of the source documents to Key Stakeholders (i.e. Chief Medical Officer, Surgeon, Case Management staff, Physician office staff).
• You could also share the more general CMS Provider Compliance Video containing pointers to help provide proper documentation when billing for Lumbar Spinal Fusion with your Surgeons. You can find a link to this YouTube video on the CMS website.