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

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

The Two-Midnight Hospital Policy Must Be Carefully Evaluated

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

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

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

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

The Medicare Appeals System Needs Fundamental Changes

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

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

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

Appending modifier 59 to a procedure code on an outpatient claim may result in Medicare payment when the code would not have received payment without the modifier. This is a good thing if the modifier is used appropriately for the correct circumstances. But modifier 59 is often misused and this could be a compliance concern for your hospital. Understanding CCI edits and correct modifier usage is critical for compliant billing.

The healthcare industry has been dealing with the National Correct Coding Initiative policy (NCCI or CCI) and edits for over 15 years now, but correct billing and modifier usage continues to be difficult and confusing for a lot of providers. One of the most commonly used and misused modifiers is modifier 59 which identifies a distinct procedural service. In fact misuse of this modifier is such a problem, that CMS has repeatedly provided education, clarification, and examples on the proper use of modifier 59. Last week, they released a new MLN Matters Article, SE1418 that again clarifies the appropriate use of modifier 59.

First, let’s look at some general information about the CCI edits:

• They were developed to promote national correct coding methodologies and to control improper coding leading to inappropriate payment in Part B claims
• They are based on coding conventions defined in the American Medical Association's CPT Manual, national and local policies and edits, coding guidelines developed by national societies, analysis of standard medical and surgical practices, and a review of current coding practices.
• The NCCI edits are updated quarterly and the NCCI Policy Manual is updated annually. The policy manual explains the rationale for the edits, the correct usage of modifiers, and specific policies for certain code pairs.
• The edits began in 1996 for Part B claims, and in 2000 for hospital claims. The Part B and hospital edits are not exactly the same.
• Procedure-to-Procedure (PTP) edits define when two HCPCS/CPT codes should not be reported together either in all situations or in most situations.
• A Correct Coding Modifier Indicator (CCMI) of “0” indicates the two codes should never be reported together by the same provider for the same patient on the same day of service. A CCMI of “1” indicates the codes may be reported together only in defined circumstances which are identified on the claim by the use of specific NCCI-associated modifiers.

“Modifier 59 is used to identify procedures/services, other than E/M services, that are not normally reported together, but are appropriate under the circumstances. Documentation must support a different session, different procedure or surgery, different site or organ system, separate incision/excision, separate lesion, or separate injury (or area of injury in extensive injuries) not ordinarily encountered or performed on the same day by the same individual.” Modifier 59 should only be used if there is not another modifier that could be used to explain the circumstances. Modifier 25, not 59, is used to indicate separate and distinct Evaluation and Management (E/M) services.

The article contains a lot of information about the correct use and inappropriate uses of modifier 59. Providers should carefully review the complete article to fully understand how to use this important modifier. Some of the common uses of modifier 59 described in the article include:

• Different anatomic sites, which includes different organs and in some cases, different lesions in the same organ. However, since CCI edits are to prevent the inappropriate billing of lesions and sites that should not be considered to be separate and distinct, modifier 59 should only be used to identify clearly independent services that represent significant departures from the usual situations. The treatment of contiguous structures in the same organ or anatomic region does not constitute treatment of different anatomic sites, for examples nails, nails beds and adjacent soft tissue; posterior segment structures of the eye; and adjoining areas in the same shoulder.
• Different patient encounters on the same day. One huge issue here is how a patient encounter is defined. Recently an NCCI coding specialist clarified that “encounter” as used in the new NCCI paragraph concerning the use of CPT code 94640 for respiratory treatment represents direct personal contact in the hospital between a patient and a physician or other healthcare professional. In other words, there may be several different encounters with a patient during a day of an extended care episode. For CPT 94640 multiple encounters on the same date of service are reported with modifier 76, but there are codes where modifier 59 would be the appropriate modifier for different encounters on the same day. Beware that this definition of “encounter” may not apply to all CCI edits or be accepted by all Medicare contractors.
• Sequential “timed code” services – this generally refers to rehabilitative therapy services which are defined in 15 minutes intervals. If the therapy services are provided sequentially for a different 15 minute interval, then modifier 59 is appropriate.
• A diagnostic service that proceeds a therapeutic service if “(a) it occurs before the therapeutic procedure and is not interspersed with services that are required for the therapeutic intervention; (b) it clearly provides the information needed to decide whether to proceed with the therapeutic procedure; and (c) it does not constitute a service that would have otherwise been required during the therapeutic intervention.” The example given is angiography preceding a revascularization if the circumstances noted above are met.
• A diagnostic procedure subsequent to a completed therapeutic procedure only when the diagnostic procedure is not a common, expected, or necessary follow-up to the therapeutic procedure. For example, a chest x-ray after a chest tube insertion to verify placement is not appropriate for modifier 59, but a chest x-ray after a chest tube insertion when the patient experiences unexpected complications is appropriate for modifier 59.

One interesting paragraph in the article describes a common misuse of modifier 59 relating to the portion of the definition describing “a different procedure or surgery.” According to the article, providers should not use modifier 59 to by-pass a CCI edit based on the two codes being “different procedures” unless the two procedures are performed at separate anatomic sites or at separate patient encounters on the same date of service. Please refer to the exact wording in the article for a clear understanding of this instruction.

Getting the correct modifiers on the correct code is not as easy as it sounds. In the hospital setting, this often involves billers, coders, and the relevant hospital departments. It also includes a financial and compliance aspect. Hospitals need a well-planned approach in dealing with CCI edits and their impact on billing and reimbursement.

Our next chapter to address in the I-10 Corner is the Digestive System. Please review the table below so that you can see what areas of the chapter have either been expanded or restructured.

EXAMPLE

Some things change…, some things don’t… Although a lot changed last year with the Medicare standard for inpatient admission, the fact that all Medicare services must be reasonable and necessary did not change. In fact, this is part of the law upon which the Medicare program is founded.

A recent Palmetto GBA article emphasizes that inpatient services must still be medically necessary for Medicare coverage in addition to meeting the two-midnight expectation. As the article points out, this is a standard from the original Social Security Act that created Medicare, which in section 1862 states:

"…no payment may be made under part A or part B for any expenses incurred for items or services - which, are not reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury or to improve the functioning of a malformed body member…"

The article goes on to quote numerous other references concerning the continuing requirement for medical necessity in regards to the new admission standard from Rule 1599-F itself and the ensuing CMS guidance. So let’s look at the issue of medical necessity as it relates to the determination of patient status and the need for services to be provided in a hospital setting.

The medical necessity of the services (for the diagnosis or treatment of an illness or injury) should be considered first and foremost for every patient encounter without regard initially to the patient’s status. Does the patient need these services to diagnosis or treat a medical condition? Are the services being provided in the appropriate setting? If the services are reasonable and necessary for the patient’s medical condition and being provided at the correct location for those services, then you can move on to determining the appropriate patient status.

Diagnostic services or short-term treatments that a patient may receive and then return home are generally outpatient services – this includes lab, radiology, and other diagnostic testing; clinic visits; short-term emergency services; and same day surgery services. These services include routine preparation and recovery times. Occasionally, routine recovery for some surgeries and procedures may last overnight, but if this is expected and routine for all patients and the patient is expected to go home after recovery, an outpatient status is still appropriate.

Some patients need extended medically necessary services in a hospital setting. This may include diagnostic testing, observation of the patient’s condition, or procedures or treatments that can only be rendered in a hospital setting. If the care the patient is receiving is custodial in nature, rendered for social purposes, or for reasons of convenience, then the care does not meet Medicare’s definition of medically necessary and is not covered by Medicare. Examples of this would be patients waiting on a ride home after an outpatient encounter or patients in the hospital to receive prep for a diagnostic test because they are unable to do the prep at home. Commercial criteria for patient care (inpatient and observation services), such as InterQual and Milliman, may assist in determining if the care is appropriate to be provided in a hospital setting. Note that this is still not a determination of patient status – that is the next step after determining that the care is medically necessary.

Once it has been established that the patient is receiving medically necessary care in the appropriate hospital setting, then it is time to determine the appropriate status using the new two-midnight expectation.

• If the physician does not think the patient will require treatment beyond two midnights or is not sure, then it is likely that observation services are appropriate. In order to bill for observation hours, there must be a physician’s order for observation. This observation care meets the longstanding Medicare definition of observation services as those “services, which include ongoing short term treatment, assessment, and reassessment before a decision can be made regarding whether patients will require further treatment as hospital inpatients or if they are able to be discharged from the hospital.”
• If the physician expects the patient to require hospital care beyond two midnights, then inpatient status is appropriate. The documentation in the record needs to clearly support the physician’s expectation for care beyond two midnights. If for some reason, the care does not actually last beyond the second midnight, inpatient status is still appropriate as long as the original expectation was reasonable, based on the patient’s condition and the plan of care. However, the record should clearly document what happened that resulted in a “shorter-than-expected” stay whether it was a transfer to another hospital, a patient that left AMA, or an unexpectedly rapid recovery.

Under the new admission guidelines, observation care should not continue past a second midnight. If hospital care beyond the second midnight is not medically necessary, then observation care is not appropriate either. If the care is being provided for convenience or social purposes, it is not a covered Medicare service. The patient needs to be in an outpatient status and only services that are medically necessary should be charged. If hospital care beyond a second midnight is medically necessary, then the patient meets the criteria for inpatient admission and an inpatient order should be written prior to the second midnight.

Novitas, the MAC for Jurisdictions H and L, presented a teleconference last week on the Two-Midnight Rule and the Probe and Educate program. They reviewed the two-midnight rule and provided scenarios of some common reasons for denials they are seeing under the Probe and Educate reviews. Examples included:

• Documentation did not support that there was an expectation of a two-midnight stay;
• There was not a physician’s order for an inpatient admission and the record did not indicate that a two-midnight stay was expected;
• Two-midnight stay expected but the patient discharged prior to the second midnight and the record failed to indicate the reason for the early discharge.

For more information, please see the Novitas handout and Resources for the teleconference.

Determining coverage of services and patient status is a two-step process: first, determine if the services are medically necessary and then second, apply the two-midnight expectation to determine the correct patient status.

 

This material was compiled to share information. MMP, Inc. is not offering legal advice. Every reasonable effort has been taken to ensure the information is accurate and useful.

A farmer is selling baskets of apples that were picked several days ago. He knows that some may be bad so he will give a discount based on the percentage of bad apples. The first customer chooses five apples at random and only one of the five is bad, so the farmer gives him a 20% discount. The next customer carefully selects five apples with visible dark spots and all five apples are bad. The farmer gives him a 90% discount. Sometimes it is all in the selection.

In a recent OIG review of payments for selected outpatient drugs, the OIG found that payments for 1,132 of the 1,905 line items for outpatient drugs selected for review were not correct. This appears to be an astonishing error percentage, but beware, this is not a random selection. The OIG uses computer matching, data mining, and other analytical techniques to identify the line items potentially at risk for noncompliance with Medicare billing requirements. Some specific targets mentioned in the report are selected outpatient drugs, payments for drugs that exceeded charges by at least $1,000, and high-dollar payments.

The report found errors involving incorrect units of service, incorrect HCPCS codes, both incorrect units and HCPCS, billing for packaged or non-covered use of a drug, and lack of supporting documentation. Some of the specific drugs and issues include:

• Incorrect units were the cause of most of the billing errors.
• The billable units of a drug can be calculated by dividing the dosage of the drug given by the amount in the HCPCS code description for the drug. For example if 140 mg of a drug is given that has a HCPCS code description of Injection, drug, 1 milligram, then the correct units are 140÷1 = 140 units; if 800 mg of a drug is given that has a HCPCS code description of Injection, drug, 200 mg, then the correct units are 800÷200 = 4 units.
• Leuprolide acetate injections are used for different purposes, each with a different HCPCS code and description.
• HCPCS code J1950, leuprolide acetate injection, 3.75 milligrams per unit, is indicated for the treatment of endometriosis, uterine leiomyoma, and malignant neoplasms of the breast
• HCPCS code J9217, leuprolide acetate injection, 7.5 milligrams per unit is indicated for the treatment of prostate cancer
• Due to difference in Medicare payment rates for these drugs (J1950 - $760.03 and J9217 - $206.78) and the difference in milligram descriptions, billing the wrong HCPCS code for the wrong treatment will result in a significant over or under payment.
• Doxorubicin hydrochloride is available in both a lipid (or liposomal) and a non-lipid (or non-liposomal) formula. The non-lipid form of doxorubicin hydrochloride (HCPCS code J9000) is packaged, whereas the liposomal forms (previously J9001) receive separate Medicare payment. Medicare payment rates for the current HCPCS codes for liposomal doxorubicin (Q2049 and Q2050) are close to $500 per 10 mg.
• Are you using the correct HCPCS code? For example, are your codes correct for:
• Epoetin alfa, 1000 units, for non-ESRD use – J0885
• Darbepoeitn alfa, 1 mcg, non-ESRD use – J0881
• Epoetin alfa, 100 units, for ESRD use – Q4081
• Herceptin – not specifically mentioned in this report because Herceptin audits get their own separate reports. Herceptin is available in a 44mg multi-use vial and Medicare does not pay for drug wastage for multi-use vials. The units of Herceptin billed should be based on the patient’s dosage, not the vials used.

These types of errors may be repeated errors if the reason is a wrong multiplier in the chargemaster. Look for payments that appear too large or too small in relation to the charge amounts.

Hospitals need to make sure the correct drug code is being submitted for the correct treatment purpose.

Your hospital can use the same data mining approach that the OIG uses to check for internal issues with the billing for drugs. MMP’s HIQUP (Hospital Improvement in Quality and Performance) report, which data mines a facility’s Medicare outpatient 835 files, includes several queries designed to identify drugs at high risk of billing errors. So if you are struggling with drug units, please contact us if we can help.

 

UPDATE

For updated information on this topic, please click here for the more recent article: Coding Guidelines for Respiratory Failure

Whether it’s ICD-9-CM or ICD-10-CM, the coding guidelines are actually the same for Respiratory Failure. The only difference is the code itself. It’s not only important for a coder to be familiar with these guidelines but also some of the basic clinical indicators as well.

DEFINITION

from Section II of the Official ICD-9-CM Guidelines for Coding and Reporting

“Principal Diagnosis”A condition established after study to be chiefly responsible for occasioning the admission of the patient to the hospital for care - defined by the Uniform Hospital Discharge Data Set (UHDDS).

 

NOTE FROM AUTHOR
Each admission is different. The Principal Diagnosis will not be the same in every situation. Selection of the Principal Diagnosis is dependent on the circumstances of the admission. Coders should ensure that the record contains documentation that indicates clinical credibility to support the presence of that condition. It is also important for coders to understand the clinical indicators of Acute and/or Chronic Respiratory Failure in order to establish a query when necessary.

 

Respiratory Failure

1. Life-threatening condition that may be caused by a respiratory condition as well as a non-respiratory condition.
2. Look for documented signs / symptoms of:
3. SOB (shortness of breath)
4. Delirium and/or anxiety
5. Syncope
6. Use of accessory muscles
7. Tachycardia
8. Tachypnea
9. Confusion
10. Sleepiness
11. Depressed consciousness
12. Cyanosis (bluish color to skin, lip and/or fingernails)
13. Acute Respiratory Failure is supported as principal diagnosis when at least 2 of the following critical values (ABG’s) are met.
14. pH < 7.35
15. PO2 < 55
16. PCO2 > 50
17. Keep in mind, this is a guideline and not solely to be the determining factor for   diagnosing Acute Respiratory Failure. A patient with a chronic lung disease such as COPD may have an abnormal ABG level that could actually be considered that particular patient’s baseline. What is normal for one patient could be abnormal for another. In a patient with a chronic lung condition, the physician would consider the degree of change from a patient’s baseline before diagnosing Acute Respiratory Failure.
18. Acute Respiratory Failure
19. Develops quickly
20. Usually admitted to ICU
21. Requires aggressive and/or emergency treatment via oxygen through nasal cannula, face mask, ventilation and/or tracheostomy
22. Absence of vent does not preclude diagnosis
23. Requires close monitoring and evaluation
24. Chronic Respiratory Failure
25. Develops slowly
26. Last longer
27. Home O2 is one indication of CRF

Four classifications types for ARF

• Hypoxic – most common
• Hypercapnia – often accompanied by hypoxemia
• Post-operative
• Shock – Septic, Cardiogenic or Hypovolemic

Acute Respiratory Failure as Principal Diagnosis

OFFICIAL CODING GUIDELINE

ICD-10-CM – Section I.C.10.b.1

(ICD-9-CM – Section I.C.8.c.1)

Acute or Acute on Chronic Respiratory Failure may be assigned as a principal diagnosis when it is the condition established after study to be chiefly responsible for occasioning the admission to the hospital, and the selectionis supported by the Alphabetic Index and Tabular List. However, chapter-specific coding guidelines (such as obstetrics, poisoning, HIV, newborn) that provide sequencing direction take precedence.

 

OFFICIAL CODING GUIDELINE

ICD-10-CM – Section I.C.10.b.3

(ICD-9-CM – Section I.C.8.b.3)

When a patient is admitted with Respiratory Failure and another acute condition (e.g., Myocardial Infarction, Cerebrovascular Accident, Aspiration Pneumonia), the principal diagnosis will not be the same in every situation. This applies whether the other acute condition is a respiratory or non-respiratory condition. Selection of the principal diagnosis will be dependent on the circumstances of admission.   If both the Respiratory Failure and the other acute condition are equally responsible for occasioning the admission to the hospital, and there are no chapter-specific sequencing rules, the guideline regarding two or more diagnoses that equally meet the definition for principal diagnosis (Section II.C) may be applied in these situations.

If the documentation is not clear as to whether Acute Respiratory Failure and another condition are equally responsible for occasioning the admission, query the provider for clarification.

 

When coding Respiratory Failure (or any condition) and trying to determine whether it should be assigned as principal diagnosis or not, look for:

1. All signs and symptoms at the time of admission
2. Clinical indicators
3. Supporting physician documentation
4. Treatment plans

With any record, keep in mind that because a condition may be present on admission does not necessarily mean if qualifies for principal diagnosis. You have to ask yourself these questions:

• After study, is this the condition that was chiefly responsible for admission?
• How aggressive was the work-up and treatment?
• Is there another condition that equally meets the criteria for principal diagnosis?
• Are there any chapter specific guidelines to consider?
• Could this condition have been treated as an outpatient?

I wish I could say that assigning the appropriate principal diagnosis and coding in general was as easy as ABC, but it’s not. Some are a little easier than others but there seems to always be a little gray area to muddle through. Clear and precise documentation goes a long way in helping to determine the principal diagnosis.

As you take on a record to code, forget about the one you just finished. Each record and the circumstances surrounding the admission will be different.   Always be aware of the coding guidelines and follow through the steps listed above. You’ll find that assigning the principal diagnosis will be a little easier.

 

Medicare has recently added yet another review contractor to audit your claims – the Supplemental Medicare Review Contractor (SMRC). So why does CMS need so many contractors to fight improper payments and ensure compliance? And what are the differences between the different contractors? I am not sure the answers are really clear, but here is some information from a recent transmittal about the various contractors and their functions.

CMS Transmittal 508 updates the Medicare Program Integrity Manual to include information about the Supplemental Medicare Review Contractor. According to the manual update, SMRCs, along with CERT contractors, Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs), and Recovery Auditors (RAs) are contracted by CMS to fight improper payments and promote provider compliance in the Medicare fee-for-service program.

CERT Contractors

The CERT program establishes error rates and estimates of improper payments (implemented as part of the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act).

Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs)

MACs prevent improper payments through initiatives to help providers comply with Medicare’s coverage, coding and billing rules. This is accomplished through provider education; pre-and post-payment claim review; and local coverage determinations (LCDs), articles, and coding instructions. The MACs use error rates and vulnerabilities identified through the CERT and RA programs to target their efforts.

Recovery Auditors

Because of the large volume of claims that Medicare processes and the difficultly with catching all improper payments, the RAs provide additional review to detect and correct improper payments to help protect the Medicare Trust Funds.

Supplemental MR Contractor (SMRC)

The SMRCs are a centralized medical review (MR) resource that can perform large volume MR nationally. They perform and/or provide support for a variety of tasks aimed at lowering the improper payment rates and increasing efficiencies of the medical review functions of the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The focus of SMRC reviews may include but are not limited to issues identified by CMS internal data analysis, the CERT program, professional organizations and other Federal agencies, such as the OIG/GAO and comparative billing reports. Their primary duties include:

• Serving as a readily available source of medical information to provide guidance in questionable situations, including questionable claim review situations
• Providing the clinical expertise and judgment to develop LCDs and internal MR guidelines
• Keeping abreast of medical practice and technology changes that may result in improper billing or program abuse
• Providing clinical expertise and judgment to effectively focus MR on areas of potential fraud and abuse

Are the differences between the contractors clear as mud? Yes, I thought so. But even so, you need to know who the Medicare contractors for your region are. You can find that information by using the Review Contractor Directory.

 

This week the focus is on Chapter 12 – Diseases of Skin and Subcutaneous Tissue.   Like many chapters in ICD-10-CM, Chapter 12 has also been restructured.   Diseases that are related in one way or another have been grouped together. In ICD-10-CM, Chapter 12 has 9 subchapters:

• L00 – L08  Infections of the skin and subcutaneous tissue
• L10 – L14  Bullous disorders
• L20 – L30  Dermatitis and eczema
• L40 – L45  Papulosquamous disorders
• L49 – L54  Urticaria and erythema
• L55 – L59  Radiation-related disorders of the skin and subcutaneous tissue
• L60 – L75  Disorders of skin appendages
• L76  Intraoperative and post-procedural complications of skin and subcutaneous tissue
• L80 – L99  Other disorders of the skin and subcutaneous tissue

There is greater specificity for many of the codes at the fourth, fifth and sixth character. Examples for Decubitus (Pressure) Ulcers would be:

• Specified site (elbow, hip, sacral, ankle, back, buttock, heel, other site, unspecified site and contiguous site of back, buttock and hip)
• Laterality (right, left)
• Severity (stage)
• Classified Stage 1 through Stage 4
• Unspecified Stage
• Unstageable

Under ICD-9-CM 2 codes were required for Decubitus (Pressure) Ulcers. One code in ICD-10-CM provides:

• Ulcer site
• Laterality
• Stage
• Additional code should be assigned and sequenced first for any associated Gangrene.

CODING GUIDELINE

I.C.12.1

Pressure Ulcer Stages: Codes from category L89, Pressure Ulcer, are combination codes that identify the site of the Pressure Ulcer as well as the stage of the Ulcer. ICD-10-CM classifies Pressure Ulcer Stages based on severity, which is designated by Stages 1-4, Unspecified Stage, and Unstageable. Assign as many codes from category L89 as needed to identify all the Pressure Ulcers the patient has, if applicable.

Different stages for Pressure Ulcers:

• Stage 1 – Wounds that only involve the upper epidermis. Pre-ulcer skin changes limited to persistent focal edema
• Stage 2 – A wound progressing toward the dermis. An abrasion, blister and partial skin loss involving epidermis and/or dermis.
• Stage 3 – A wound involving the subcutaneous tissue. Full skin loss involving damage or necrosis of subcutaneous tissue
• Stage 4 – A wound that goes down into the deeper tissue. Necrosis of soft tissue through to underlying muscle, tendon, or bone.

Coding Guidelines for healed or healing Pressure Ulcer

• Section I.C.12.a.4 – Pressure Ulcer documented as healed – no code would be assigned.
• Section I.C.12.a.5 – Pressure Ulcer documented as healing – assign appropriate Pressure Ulcer Stage code based on the documentation in the medical record. If the documentation does not provide information about the stage of the healing Ulcer, assign the appropriate code for Unspecified Stage.Codes for Non-pressure Ulcers of the lower extremity also include site, laterality and severity (depth of the Ulcer). Examples of depth description for Chronic Ulcer of Right Ankle:
• Limited to breakdown of skin – L97.311
• With fat layer exposed – L97.312
• With necrosis of muscle – L97.313
• With necrosis of bone – L97.314
With unspecified severity – L97.319

Code first any associated underlying condition:

• Atherosclerosis
• Gangrene
• Diabetic Ulcers
• Varicose Ulcer
• Chronic Venous Hypertension
• Post-phlebitic Syndrome
• Post-thrombotic Syndrome

CODING GUIDELINE

I.B.14

Documentation for BMI and Pressure Ulcer Stages: For the body mass index (BMI) and Pressure Ulcer Stage codes, code assignment may be based on medical record documentation from clinicians who are not the patient’s provider (i.e. physician or other qualified practitioner legally accountable for establishing the patient’s diagnosis), since this information is typically documented by other clinicians involved in the care of the patient (e.g., a dietician often documents the BMI and nurses often document the Pressure Ulcer Stages). However, the associated diagnosis (such as overweight, obesity, or pressure ulcer) must be documented by the patient’s provider. If there is conflicting medical record documentation, either from the same clinician or different clinicians, the patient’s attending provider should be queried for clarification.

In ICD-10-CM, terms “Dermatitis” and “Eczema” are used synonymously and interchangeably.

CODING NOTE

An instructional note appears in the Tabular, under codes L27.0 and L27.1, stating to use an additional code for Adverse Effect, if applicable, to identify drug (T36-T50 with fifth or sixth character 5).

 

CODING GUIDELINE

I.C.19.e

Adverse Effects, Poisoning, Under-dosing and Toxic Effects: Codes in categories T36-T65 are combination codes that include the substance that was taken as well as the intent.

No additional external cause code is required for poisonings, toxic effects, adverse effects and under-dosing codes.

 

CODING GUIDELINE

I.C.19.e.5.a

Adverse Effect: When coding an Adverse Effect of a drug that has been correctly prescribed and properly administered, assign the appropriate code for the nature of the adverse effect followed by the appropriate code for the Adverse Effect of the drug (T36-T50). The code for the drug should have a fifth or sixth character of 5.

Radiation-related disorders of the skin and subcutaneous tissue now have their own subchapter. Previously in ICD-9-CM, Sunburns were listed in the Injury and Poisoning Chapter.

DEBRIDEMENT

Anyone that has coded for any length of time knows the difference between Excisional and Non-excisional Debridement. This procedure has been under scrutiny by Medicare’s Recovery Auditors (RA previously known as RAC) due to the vast difference in DRG payment.   One of the biggest problems is getting required documentation necessary to code Excisional Debridement. I hate to say, but ICD-10-PCS is not going to make it any easier.

Unlike ICD-9-CM, ICD-10-PCS codes according to root operations. Depending on the method used, a Debridement procedure could actually fit into two different root operations.

• Excision – Cutting out or off, without replacement, a portion of a body part.
• Excisional Debridement would fit this category
• Extraction – Pulling or stripping out or off all or a portion of a body part by the use of force.
• Non-excisional Debridement would fit this category

It is not enough for a physician to state they did an Excisional or Non-excisional Debridement. In order to code this procedure correctly there are documentation requirements that must be met.

• Condition requiring Debridement
• Location of wound
• Depth of Debridement – code to the deepest layer
• Method of Debridement (sloughing off tissue, cutting away etc.)
• Specific tissue removed (skin, bone, muscle etc.) – cutting back to pink tissue or removal of necrotic tissue does not help with coding the procedure. It does not describe the type of tissue removed.
• Instruments used (scissors, scalpel etc.)

Sometimes coders tend to think that the type of instrument alone is indicative as to the type of Debridement that was performed. This is not always true. A scalpel and/or scissors can be used to cut or scrap the wound. The physician should accurately describe in detail each bullet listed above in his/her procedure note.

Please note, there is no default code for Debridement.   There must be precise documentation within the record and/or procedure note.   Physicians should always be queried anytime documentation provided is not clear.  

Happy National Laboratory Week to all the laboratorians who work behind the scenes to assist in the diagnosis and treatment of patients. Laboratory science has come a long way since I entered the profession many years ago with a lot more instrumentation and ever evolving tests offerings, such as genetic molecular pathology testing. Thanks to all the dedicated laboratory professionals who play a valuable role in maintaining and improving our nation’s health.

From a Medicare reimbursement standpoint, it has been a tough year for hospital outpatient clinical laboratory services. The 2014 OPPS Final Rule finalized a proposal to package payment for clinical laboratory tests performed during the same encounter with other outpatient services. This means there is no additional separate payment for lab tests performed on Medicare patients in the following areas:

• Patients treated in the Emergency department
• Patients in Outpatient hospital clinics, such as a Wound Care clinic or Cancer clinic
• Patients receiving Observation services
• Patients during an outpatient surgery
• Patients having lab tests performed during the same encounter as any other outpatient services such as imaging studies

Medicare still pays separately for clinical laboratory tests in the following exceptions if the claims are billed correctly:

1. When a specimen is submitted for analysis to a hospital and the patient is not physically present at the hospital. These are commonly referred to as non-patient services, outreach lab services or reference lab tests.
2. When laboratory tests are the only hospital outpatient services that a patient receives during an outpatient encounter. For example, patients that are referred from a physician’s office/clinic to a hospital outpatient laboratory for laboratory testing only and no other outpatient services.
3. When laboratory tests are clinically unrelated to other outpatient services the patient receives during an outpatient encounter and the lab tests are ordered by a different practitioner than the one who ordered the other (non-lab) outpatient services.

And as if this were not confusing enough already, the rules for billing laboratory claims to receive separate payment are about to change again. Effective January 1, 2014, CMS instructed hospitals to bill laboratory claims in the above listed situations on a 14x type of bill. However, because of concerns from hospitals and the National Uniform Billing Committee (NUBC) that all of these situations do not conform to the NUBC definition of a 14x bill as a “non-patient” claim, CMS is modifying the billing instructions effective July 1, 2014 as explained in MLN Matters Article SE1412.

Effective for claims billed on or after July 1, 2014, CMS will create a new modifier (yet to be determined) to be used on the 013X TOB (instead of the 014X TOB) when non-referred lab tests are eligible for separate payment under the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS) for exceptions (2) and (3) listed above. For claims with dates of service on or after January 1, 2014 that are billed to Medicare on or after July 1, 2014 the following billing instructions apply:

‍Hospitals should continue to bill all exceptions for separate payment for laboratory tests on a 14x TOB until July 1, 2014. It continues to be the hospital’s responsibility to determine when laboratory tests qualify to receive separate payment. Starting with claims received July 1, 2014, and after, when a hospital appends the new modifier to a laboratory service, the provider is attesting that exception (2) or (3) listed above is met. The requirement for all OPPS services to be submitted on a single 13x claim (other than recurring services) continues to apply. In addition, laboratory tests for molecular pathology tests described by CPT codes in the ranges of 81200 through 81383, 81400 through 81408, and 81479 are not packaged in the OPPS and do not require the new modifier.

MMP will provide more information, specifically the new modifier and any accompanying instructions, as it becomes available. Please refer to the MLN Matters Article reference above for more information, including some billing scenarios.

I am often thankful that I do not have to deal with the verbose writings of the legal profession. But sometimes medical terminology, medical coding descriptions and Medicare regulations can offer similar challenges. Take for example the CPT code 92941- with words like “percutaneous transluminal” and “atherectomy” in the description, you wouldn’t think the confusion would be about the term “acute myocardial infarction” but evidently it is.

CODE DESCRIPTION

CPT code 92941

Percutaneous transluminal revascularization of acute total/subtotal occlusion during acute myocardial infarction, coronary artery or coronary artery bypass graft, any combination of intracoronary stent, atherectomy and angioplasty, including aspiration thrombectomy when performed, single vessel.

 

Luckily, the AMA has clarified what constitutes an acute MI for the use of this CPT code. According to the ZHealth Online Newsletter for March 21, 2014, the AMA states that all of the following criteria must be met in order to support the assignment of CPT code 92941:

• EKG changes consistent with an AMI, such as:
• ST elevation not attributable to a bundle branch block or pericarditis
• New or undetermined left bundle branch block
• New or evolving Q waves
• Persistent horizontal ST depressions in the anterior leads consistent with posterior ST elevation
• Ongoing ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation, pulseless electrical activity, or asystole consistent with an AMI
• Ongoing symptoms suggestive of an AMI despite nonspecific EKG changes.
• Emergent coronary angiography and intervention. This is an essential component – it is not appropriate for the intervention to be scheduled, even from the day before. It must be performed immediately.
• The intervention is performed on a target lesion that is totally or sub-totally occluded (no or markedly reduced flow through the lesion).

It is not appropriate to report CPT code 92941 for non-cardiac chest pain, unstable angina, a non-ST elevation MI (unless it requires emergent intervention for a totally or sub-totally occluded lesion), or non-emergent interventions after a completed or recent MI.

Coders need to be sure the required components are present before assigning CPT 92941 for a coronary intervention. Like lawyers, coders must read the fine print.