How to Use the CMS Approved Audit Issues as Compliance Guidance for Your Medical Practice

 

While it is impossible to pinpoint the exact areas that Recovery Audit Contractors (“RACs") will target when reviewing medical bills sent to Medicare, each regional RAC is required to post its current “issues under review” and disclose to the public the specific codes and/or procedures currently being audited by automated reviews (where no medical record is involved in the review). 

 

For instance, the “issues under review” identified by Region A - Diversified Collection Services (which audits New York and New Jersey, among other states) are:

         IV Hydration

         Bronchoscopy services

         Blood transfusions

         Untimed Codes

         Neulasta: J2505; injection, Pegfilgrastim, 6mg

         Once In A Lifetime codes

         Newborn/Pediatric codes (i.e. newborn pediatric codes Billed for patients exceeding age limits)

         New patient visits

         Duplicate claims - Part B only

         Global billing of radiology or diagnostic tests in the facility setting

         Add-on codes

If your medical practice provides services that are identified as “issues under review,” the first step in any internal review and self-audit is to have the practices medical biller(s) and performing physician(s) review: (a) the applicable local coverage determinations (“LCDs”) and (b) the “issue description” and “issue references” disclosed with the specific “issue under review.” In most cases, the practice can easily correct the “issue” being audited by using an alternate code, submitting claims that are more detailed and/or limiting the services to allowable: beneficiaries, duration, frequency or levels.

 

Is Your Medical Practice Complying with Medicare's Documentation Requirements?

 

When submitting medical bills to Medicare, it is important to note that for a Medicare claim to be paid (and retained after an audit), certain requirements must be met. For instance,

(1)   There must exist sufficient documentation in the provider’s records to verify that the services were provided to eligible beneficiaries;

(2)   Medicare’s coverage and billing requirements must be met (including that requirement that the services be reasonable and necessary); and

(3)   Services must be provided at the appropriate level of care and must be coded correctly.

These requirements are especially important where providers receive Additional Documentation Requests (“ADR’s”) from Medicare contractors or are subject to an audit. It is important to note that, upon request by a Medicare contractor (including a Recovery Audit Contractor), medical documentation must be submitted within forty-five days of the date of the request. If the provider (a) fails to submit documentation or (b) provides insufficient documentation for the services billed, Medicare takes the position that that there is no justification for the services or level of care billed and will either deny the claim or consider any prior payment an “overpayment” and request that the provider repay the amount previously paid on the claim. Moreover, now that Medicare’s RAC program has been extended to each state, ensuring that your medical practice is compliant with Medicare’s documentation requirements is an absolute necessity.

More importantly, in addition to Medicare and Medicaid, medical practices must be mindful of documentation requirements imposed by their state and federal government.  Accordingly, when evaluating a practice’s medical records and medical documentation, providers are encouraged to conduct internal audits and investigations, and identify corrective actions that promote compliance with all of the administrations and agencies that regulate medical practices.

 

What Protections Do Medicare Providers Have When Being Audited by Recovery Audit Contractors?

 

When implementing the Recovery Audit Contractor (“RAC”) program, Medicare incorporated a variety of limitations and requirements that RACs are required to abide by when conducting audits of Medicare providers. Most significantly, Medicare providers should be aware of the following mandates when being audited by a RAC:

  1. When conducting audits, RACs are limited to looking back up to three years from the date a claim was paid, with a maximum look back date of October 1, 2007.
  1. RACs are limited in the number of medical records that they can request from a provider within a forty-five day period (medical record limits depend on the type and size of the practice).
  1. RACs must accept and review extension requests if providers are unable to submit documentation in a timely manner.
  1. After submission of an Additional Documentation Request (ADR) letter, RACs must initiate at least one additional contact with the provider before issuing a denial for failure to submit documentation.
  1. When reviewing Evaluation and Management (“E/M”) services, RACs cannot look for incorrect levels of service (reviews of E/M services are limited to, among other things, reviews for duplicate claims and/or payments, unbundling and violations of global surgery rules).
  1. RACs are prohibited from reviewing claims that were previously reviewed by another Medicare contractor (i.e. Medicare Administrative Contractors (“MACs”) or that underwent a Prepayment Review.

These points are not exhaustive and demonstrate the need for providers to understand their rights and protections when going through the audit process. The RAC program was designed with ample controls and provider protections, and it can be extremely costly and time consuming (if not debilitating) when Medicare providers fail to enforce their rights and protections when being audited by a RAC.

 

Can Your Medical Practice Afford to Keep Treating Medicare Patients?

While Congress continues to tackle the difficult decision of when (not “if”) to implement a 21% cut in Medicare payments to physicians, medical practices are facing the equally difficult decision of whether they can afford to keep treating Medicare patients.

On June 24, the House of Representatives passed a six month deferral of the proposed 21% cuts in the Medicare physician fee schedule and retroactively reversed the June 1, 2010 payment cut for 6 months. Physicians were also given a 2.2% fee schedule increase. This temporary deferral marks the tenth time in less than eight years that Congress has blocked the proposed 21% cut in Medicare payments to physicians. Although Congress has pushed the proposed cuts a bit further down the road, the deferral is nothing more than a temporary fix. The Medicare Trust is rapidly depleting and lawmakers have no long term option other than to drastically reduce the country’s Medicare spending.

The bigger issue is that even without the proposed 21% payment cut, physicians across the country have been facing the hard business decision of whether they can afford to keep treating Medicare payments for several years. Many doctors – mainly primary care physicians such as internists and gynecologists – have increasingly stopped treating Medicare patients due to Medicare’s low reimbursement rates, growing demands for supporting medical documents and audits. On average, Medicare pays providers approximately 78% of what commercial insurers pay yet demands a great deal more effort and time in receiving, and often times retaining, payment for services rendered. Plus, with the advent of the RAC program, physicians are finding that they need what amounts to a secondary degree in billing and coding just to stay ahead of the audits and recoupments.

The end result: an increasing amount of physicians are choosing to put the needs of their medical practices above the needs of their senior patients and have either stopped accepting new Medicare patients or have opted-out out of the Medicare program entirely. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, approximately 10 % of physicians have opted out of the Medicare program, with the number of physicians opting-out of the program steadily rising ever year.

If your practice is considering reducing the amount of Medicare patients that it accepts or opting-out of the Medicare program entirely, there are several critical questions that must be asked an evaluated when making these decisions.

·         How much time, effort and secondary support (including staff members and physicians) is allocated toward preparing, processing and submitting medical bills to Medicare? 

·         How much time, effort and secondary support (again, including staff members and physicians) goes into requests for supporting documents and audits? 

·         On average, how do Medicare reimbursement rates measure up against reimbursement rates from commercial carriers for: (a) rate of claims paid and (b) amount paid on claims?

·         How much additional time would physicians and staff members have to allocate toward other projects if the practice reduced or eliminated its treatment of Medicare patients?

·         Would the practice require less staff, space and/or secondary support if it reduced or eliminated its treatment of Medicare patients? 

Who Will Finance The Conversion To ICD-10?

After reading a recent article posted by Angela Boynton, a frequent and informative writer with the American Academy of Professional Coders, titled "The Cost of ICD-10 Implementation," I am left wondering who will, realistically, finance the cost of conversion to ICD-10.  In the article, Angela cites a study conducted by the The Medical Group Management Association which predicts astronomical ICD-10 implementations costs.  The study found that, on average, it would cost :

  • $84,000.00 for the average small physician practice to upgrade to ICD-10;
  • $3,000,000.00 for large practice implementation;
  • $500,000.00 - $14,000,000.00 for health plans, depending on size.

While the article does not go into details regarding the scope and time frame for the projected costs (i.e. Are these "lifetime" costs or one-time conversion costs?  Do these costs include new equipment, software, technical support, training and so forth?), it is clear that the health care industry will be addressing more than the burden associated with training and education.

However, I am not sure that these figures are accurate, nor that they will be paid by the health care providers.  For instance, if a small physician practice is currently leasing billing software, or working with a medical billing company, wouldn't these service providers absorb most of the conversion costs?  

My assumption is that current ICD-9 billing and coding software can easily be converted to, or updated for, ICD-10 functionality and compatibility.  And even if my "easily converted" assumption is wrong, isn't it in the service providers' best interest to keep the costs to the end users - like small physician practices - as low as possible so that they can retain  their client base?

As for those practices that use in-house billing and coding software that they own, it is probably best to hold off and buy a comprehensive software that incorporates ICD-10 billing and coding, and a certified electronic health records system ("EHR").  Most practices will be expending money for the EHR software no matter what happens with ICD-10, so waiting for one unified system will likely be the most cost effective approach.  The problem for these practices is that they will be pressed to purchase the EHR software much sooner than ICD-10 will be in use.

Conversion from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM/PCS

Recently I have been getting an increasing number of questions regarding the conversion from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM/PCS. I think it is important to have a general understanding of the educational and financial burden that the health care industry is about to tackle, so I put together the following overview in an effort to inform those of you that have not had a chance to research this subject further.

  • The compliance date for conversion to the new coding system is October 1, 2013.
  • The number of diagnoses codes will escalate from 14,025 (ICD-9) to 68, 069 (ICD-10). Yes, you read that right; there is going to be a 54,044 increase in the number of diagnoses codes under the new coding system.
  • The number of procedure codes will escalate from 3,824 (ICD-9) to 72,589 (ICD-10); an increase of 68,765 in the number of procedure codes.
  • Structural differences will include an increase from 3-5 digits in diagnoses codes (ICD-9) to 3-7 digits in diagnoses codes (ICD-10), and all ICD-10 codes will be alpha-numeric
  • ICD-10-CM will replace ICD-9-CM Diagnoses and ICD-10-PCS will replace ICD-9-CM Procedures.

If you are wondering why the coding system is going through this exhaustive conversion, the answer is actually quite simple. ICD-9 is over thirty years old and it did not keep up with the evolution of the health care industry. ICD-9 is not exact enough to identify diagnoses and procedures precisely, and it is not flexible enough to incorporate emerging diagnoses and procedures.

CMS offers the following example in a CMS overview presentation on ICD-10 (pdf) to help illustrate the concept:

Example – fracture of wrist
Patient fractures left wrist. A month later, fractures right wrist.


ICD-9-CM does not identify left versus right.

However, ICD-10-CM describes:

  • Left versus right
  • Initial encounter, subsequent encounter
  • Routine healing, delayed healing, nonunion, or malunion


While the road to conversion will likely be rough (I am recalling my first few experiences with Microsoft Vista), the result will be an accurate, accountable and measurable coding system that increases productivity, while decreasing audits, the need for supporting documentation and the delay in receiving reimbursement from health insurance companies.