Knowledge Base - Full Library

A few weeks ago, we had an article about ICD-10 diagnosis code Z79.84 “long-term use of an oral anti-diabetic drug”. One of the challenges in using this code is that coders don’t always know which drugs are classified as an anti-diabetic drug, so they don’t know to pick it up.

I have recently come across a similar problem knowing when to use diagnosis code Z79.4 “long-term use of insulin” because there are so many different types of insulin on the market today, and I don’t always recognize them as being Insulin when I see the drug name.

Back in the 1980s when I was working as a bedside nurse, we only had Regular Insulin and NPH insulin. We never had to think about specific brand names. I know – that was several years ago, so, before you ask, I will go ahead and tell you, “No, we did not have to sharpen our own needles”.

As coders in the 21st century, we do have to give this some thought if we are going to follow diabetes coding guidelines which state:  When E11- is reported for type 2 diabetes, use an additional code to identify control using insulin.

Below is an alphabetical list of the more common insulin names and types. You may want to keep the list handy in case you see one of these drugs in your patient’s record, so you will have a better idea when Z79.4 should be reported in addition to the E11- diabetes. Click here to see more information on the drug.com website.

ActRapid
Admelog
Afrezza (inhaled insulin)
Apidra
Aspart
Basaglar
Degludec
Detemir
Exubera
Fiasp
Glargine
Glulisine
Humalog
Humulin
Iletin
Lantus
Lantus Solostar
Levemir
Lispro
NovoLog
NPH
Relion
Ryzodeg
Toujeo
Tresiba
Velosulin

There is not a lot of activity on the Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) medical review front this month. The various MACs are proceeding at different rates and providing information in different formats concerning the new Targeted Probe and Educate (TPE) program. One of the main aspects of the program is to individualize education and present it to providers one-on-one. This has resulted in different interpretations by the MACs on what information to place on their websites:

Palmetto (JJ and JM), CGS (J15) and Novitas (JH and JL): These MACs have listings of active topics and results of some reviews posted on their websites. Results generally include the major errors and suggestions for avoiding denials. Some of this information is confusing, since results include both numbers of compliant/non-compliant providers and error rates by state, but the suggestions for avoiding errors is helpful information for all providers. I, for one, really appreciate this type of detail on the MAC websites.

First Coast (JN) and WPS (J5 and J8): TPE topics listed on their websites, but no review results yet. WPS does offer a number of articles on documentation guidance for their review topics which is also helpful information for all providers.

NGS (J6 and JK) and Noridian (JE and JF): There is general TPE information on their websites, but no specific review topics have been posted.

This week I would like to focus on WPS’s review topic of Facilities Billing Emergency Room Services CPT Codes 99281-99285. I was surprised to see this TPE topic because there are no national visit guidelines for the selection of a specific ER facility level of care CPT code. For years, many thought CMS would eventually publish such criteria, but they have not. CMS instructs individual hospitals to develop internal criteria for charging E&M levels based on the following guidelines that appeared in the 2008 Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) Final Rule:

• Reasonably relate the intensity of hospital resources to the different levels of effort represented by the code.
• Be based on hospital facility resources, not on physician resources.
• Be clear to facilitate accurate payments and be usable for compliance purposes and audits.
• Meet the HIPAA requirements.
• Only require documentation that is clinically necessary for patient care.
• Not facilitate upcoding or gaming.
• Be written or recorded, well-documented, and provide the basis for selection of a specific code.
• Be applied consistently across patients in the emergency department to which they apply.
• Not change with great frequency.
• Be readily available for MAC review.
• Result in coding decisions that could be verified by other hospital staff, as well as outside sources.

To summarize, the levels should be related to the hospital resources used, be clear and verifiable by outside reviewers, not promote up-coding, be supported by the usual ER documentation, and be consistent.

Also discussed in the 2008 OPPS Final Rule (FR) was the consideration of separately payable services in selecting the ER facility level of care. At one time, assigning your ER level based on procedures for which you also received separate payment was considered “double-dipping” and was discouraged. In the 2008 FR, CMS stated, “In the absence of national visit guidelines, hospitals have the flexibility to determine whether or not to include separately payable services as a proxy to measure hospital resource use that is not associated with those separately payable services. The costs of hospital resource use associated with those separately payable services would be paid through separate OPPS payment for the other services.” The discussion goes on to suggest hospitals contact their local MAC for additional guidance.

Hospitals use different definitions and systems to define their ER visit levels. A number of hospitals use American College of ED Physicians (ACEP) criteria; some use the modified AHA / AHIMA criteria; some hospitals use computer-generated or manually calculated systems based on an intervention point system; other options are patient acuity or time-based. Medicare does not prescribe that a particular system be used as long as the above principles are followed. However your facility chooses to select ER visit facility level codes, how do you and outside reviewers (such as a MAC) evaluate your coding to ensure it is accurate, appropriate, and compliant?

One consideration in evaluating your ER levels is the distribution of the CPT codes. In the 2008 FR, CMS evaluated the use of hospital-specific criteria for ER level selection based on a bell curve for the codes submitted. See a prior Wednesday@One article for more information about the code distribution. CMS stated in that rule, “We would not expect individual hospitals to necessarily experience a normal distribution of visit levels across their claims, although we would expect a normal distribution across all hospitals as currently observed…We understand that, based on different patterns of care, we could expect that a small community hospital might provide a greater percentage of low-level services than high-level services, while an academic medical center or trauma center might provide a greater percentage of high level services than low-level services.” An individual hospital’s ER level distribution does not have to be a bell-curve, but would be expected to be a reasonable graph that fits with the acuity of the facility’s ER patients and services.

Here are some examples of the variation in distribution of ER levels seen in similar types of hospitals. Numbers 1-5 correlate respectively with ER level codes 99281-99285. These volumes were obtained from Medicare data from our sister company RealTime Medicare Data (RTMD). I am not saying any of these distributions are right or wrong – this is something each hospital should evaluate internally. You understand the types of patients coming through your emergency room – practically, does your ER level distribution look appropriate to you?

Along this same line, PEPPER reports (Program for Evaluating Payment Patterns Electronic Report) for short-term acute care hospitals added a new measure related to ED facility levels beginning with the July – September 2017 quarter reports. This Emergency Department Evaluation and Management Visits (ED E&M) measure provides the ratio of Level 5 ED visits to all ED visits reported by a hospital and compares your data to that of other hospitals at your state, MAC jurisdiction and national levels. This will allow you to evaluate if you are reporting a higher or lower percentage of Level 5 ED visits (CPT 99285) than your peers. In some cases, there may be valid reasons for being an outlier, but this is another way to assess the appropriateness of your ED levels. If you cannot think of a reason for being higher or lower than other hospitals, a deeper evaluation of your system for assigning ED levels is warranted. See a prior Wednesday@One article for more information about this PEPPER target.

Think about whether your ER levels correlate with the acuity of a patient’s condition. An ER visit for a minor upper respiratory infection should be a lower visit level than that of a broken bone, which should be less than a possible heart attack. Also, does your internal criteria make sense and flow appropriately from the lowest to the highest levels?

Other considerations for evaluating your ER levels can be found on the WPS website. Hopefully, WPS will publish some results information as they move forward with this review. In the meantime, they have provided some documentation guidance for a successful review of CPT codes 99281-99285. According to their article, documentation should include:

• The number and type of interventions under the facility charge
• The visit record showing the signs/symptoms that support the medical necessity for the interventions
• The internal guidelines used to determine the HCPCS equivalent CPT code (99281-99285) for the hospital resources being billed (HCPCS to CPT conversion guidelines)

It will be interesting (or possibly frightening if your hospital is targeted) to see how the WPS audit plays out.

• Will WPS deny claims they believe are coded at an inappropriate level or adjust the payment to a code they think is more appropriate?
• Will WPS accept hospitals’ criteria at face value or will they question the appropriateness of the criteria itself?
• Will other MACs follow WPS and audit ER facility levels in the future?
• Some commercial insurers have targeted ER facility levels – will they continue, back off like Anthem did, or will this practice expand?
• And most importantly, how should hospitals prepare for these audits?

My suggestions are to make sure you have clear and reasonable ER facility level of care criteria, that you “feel good” about your ER facility levels overall, documentation clearly supports the levels selected, and you think you could defend your level selections to an outside auditor.

MAC medical review activity since last month is listed below.

The American Medical Association has released the 2019 CPT code set. According to the AMA press release  we have 335 changes to look forward to for 2019. Take a look at some of the changes listed below to see which ones will affect you. 2019 data files may be ordered from the AMA at AMA Catalog Store.

E&M codes for internet consultations

Fine needle aspirations

Skin biopsies

Allografts

PEG tubes

Contrast injection for CT/MRI knee arthrography

PICC line insertions

Ultrasound elastography

Ultrasound with microbubble-sonographic contrast

Ultrasound bone density

MR elastography

Breast MRI

Electroretinography

Psychological and neuropsychological scoring

Neurostimulator programming

And of course – lots of changes in Laboratory

Click here to see a more detailed summary written by Deborah Grider, CPC, CPC-H, CPC-I, CPC-P, CPMA, CEMC, CCS-P, CDIP, Certified Clinical Documentation Improvement Practitioner and available in the free ICD10monitor newsletter.

New Technology

Melinta Therapeutics, Inc.’s application for new technology add-on payments for VABOMERE™ for FY 2019 was approved by CMS. The maximum new technology add-on payment for cases involving the use of VABOMERE™ for FY 2019 is $5,544.

What is VABOMERE™ (Meropenem-vaborbactam)?

VABOMERE™ is a combination product containing meropenem and vaborbactam. This drug is indicated for treating adult patients diagnosed with complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs), including pyelonephritis caused by the following susceptible microorganisms: Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Enterobacter cloacae species complex.

Issue

There is no unique ICD-10-PCS procedure code for VABOMERE™ for FY 2019 leaving hospitals with no way to uniquely identify the use of VABOMERE™ on an inpatient claim.

How to identify the use of VABOMERE™ on an Inpatient Claim

CMS revised their policy to allow the use of an alternative code set to identify an oral medication when there is no inpatient procedure code for purposes of new technology add-on payments in the FY 2013 IPPS Final Rule. Specifically, they adopted the National Drug Code (NDC) as an alternative code set to identify the use of DIFICID™ effective for discharges on or after October 1, 2012.

While VABOMERE™ is administered by IV infusion and not orally, CMS acknowledges that “it is the first approved new technology aside from an oral drug with no uniquely assigned inpatient procedure code” and believes for purposes of identifying the use of VABOMERE™ this is a similar circumstance to the use of DIFICID™.

For FY 2019, cases “eligible for the FY 2019 new technology add-on payments will be identified by the NDC of 65293-009-01 (VABOMERE™ Meropenem-Vaborbactam Vial). Providers must code the NDC in data element LIN03 of the 837i Health Care Claim Institutional form in order to receive the new technology add-on payment for procedures involving the use of VABOMERE™.”

Who Needs to Know this Information?

Your hospital Pharmacy should be made aware of this information so they can collaborate with your Billing Office to ensure you receive the add-on payment for eligible claims.

Resources

Billing guidance can be found on page 41311 of the Final Rule which can be accessed from the CMS FY 2019 IPPS Final Rule Homepage at https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/FY2019-IPPS-Final-Rule-Home-Page.html.

Additional information about VABOMERE™ can be found on the Melinta Therapeutics, Inc. website at http://www.vabomere.com/.

For many years, many people (providers, patients, and even Medicare contractors and reviewers) believed that one basis for Medicare coverage of therapy services was an expectation of improvement in the patient’s function. In 2013, a court case settlement known as the Jimmo Settlement Agreement clarified that “the Medicare program covers skilled nursing care and skilled therapy services under Medicare’s skilled nursing facility, home health, and outpatient therapy benefits when a beneficiary needs skilled care in order to maintain function or to prevent or slow decline or deterioration (provided all other coverage criteria are met).” However, this was taking a while to sink in so the case went back to court in 2017 and the court again confirmed there is no improvement standard for therapy services. The 2017 decision resulted in a CMS webpage dedicated to Jimmo including a corrective statement disavowing the improvement standard and further clarification with a listing of frequently asked questions (FAQs) and other resources. There were also national calls and training for contractors making coverage decisions.

It is interesting and amusing to note that all the Medicare “clarifications” insist this is not a policy change, but is consistent with Medicare’s longstanding policy. They do admit however, “the Jimmo Settlement Agreement may reflect a change in practice for those providers, adjudicators, and contractors who may have erroneously believed that the Medicare program covers nursing and therapy services under these benefits only when a beneficiary is expected to improve.”

Section 220 (Coverage of Outpatient Rehabilitative Therapy Services) of Chapter 15 of the Medicare Benefit Policy manual was revised in response to the Jimmo settlement and includes this statement, “Skilled therapy services may be necessary to improve a patient’s current condition, to maintain the patient’s current condition, or to prevent or slow further deterioration of the patient’s condition.” The manual now specifically includes separate sections for Rehabilitative Services and Maintenance Programs. Rehabilitative therapy addresses recovery or improvement in function with restoration to a previous level of health and well-being when possible. Maintenance programs are to maintain functional status or to prevent or slow further deterioration in function. The key to coverage for both types of services is that they must require the specialized skill, knowledge and judgment of a qualified therapist and meet all other Medicare therapy coverage requirements.

Last month, Noridian JE published a new coverage article for Maintenance Programs effective August 31, 2018 that is again a clarification regarding outpatient therapy services and maintenance programs. The article states, “Maintenance programs are developed to:

1. Maximize the patient's rehabilitation potential;
2. Assure patient safety;
3. Train the patient, family member and/or unskilled staff in home maintenance activities;
4. Prevent further decline in the patient's condition.”

The article also makes it clear that once services in a maintenance program can be safely and effectively furnished by non-skilled personnel without the supervision of a qualified professional, the need for coverage of skilled therapy is over. At that point, the patient should be discharged from therapy.

The Jimmo FAQs discuss that specific documentation is not an element of coverage, but documentation is the means to support that skilled services were indeed necessary. The Noridian article requires clear documentation of:

• Focus on establishing or revising an individualized maintenance program,
• The change in the patient’s status/condition that justifies skilled intervention, and
• Services requiring a skilled level of care.

Documentation should include specific goals for the patient that make it clear what benefit to the patient is expected from the therapy, especially since it is not an improvement in function. Documentation should explain why a therapist is needed – this may relate to specifics of the patient’s condition or patient safety that could not be addressed by non-skilled personnel. When documenting, therapists should think about the story they want to tell about their patient’s limitations, that patient’s need for their specific skills, and the benefit those skills will bring to the patient.

My elderly father was a perfect candidate for this type of therapy services. He has multiple conditions that limit his mobility and function for which a maintenance exercise program would benefit him. Because of his conditions, the skills of a therapist were required to establish a program and to initially ensure proper performance of the program. Once the program was established and taught, my dad and his caregiver were able to continue the program safely and effectively without the supervision of the therapist. I did not see the home health therapist’s documentation, but hopefully it explained the goals were to establish a home exercise program to prevent or slow further decline in function and mobility. The skills of a therapist were required because of multiple conditions affecting strength, function, and cognition; a high fall risk; and the need for specific strengthening exercises performed properly. Patient would be discharged once he could safely and properly perform the program alone or with non-skilled assistance.

To clarify (yet again), therapy services can be covered by Medicare even if there is no expectation of improvement in the patient’s function. The services must require the skills of a therapist to safely and effectively develop and/or perform the maintenance program. Once the patient or non-skilled personnel can perform the maintenance program, the services are no longer covered.

The Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) Model is a mandatory model for participants in selected Metropolitan Specific Areas (MSAs) aimed at testing to see if an episode based payment approach for lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR) can incentivize hospitals to reduce cost and concurrently maintain or improve quality.

The first performance year examined LEJR episodes initiated on or after April 1, 2016 and ended December 31, 2016. The Lewin Group with partners was contracted by CMS to evaluate the impact of the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model. On August 31, 2018, CMS posted the First Annual Report to CMS’ CJR webpage.

Key Report Findings

“CJR participant hospitals were able to reduce payments through changes in utilization while maintaining quality of care. At the same time, we found no indication that CJR participant hospitals selected healthier patients to achieve these results.”

• Total episode payments decreased 3.3% ($910) more for CJR episodes than control group episodes. “At the same time, quality of care was maintained, as indicated by claims-based quality measures.”
• Average total payment reductions for CJR episodes occurred in both historically high and low Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). Historically high MSAs averaged a $1,127 decrease and historically low MSAs averaged a $577 decrease in episode payment as compared to the control episodes.
• Average Total Payments were reduced for both elective and fracture episodes relative to the control group.
• Elective Episodes were reduced by $880, and
• Fracture Episodes were reduced by $1,345

A driver in episode payment reduction by participating hospitals was by reducing institutional Post-Acute Care (PAC) payments. Specifically, fewer Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) transfers and patients spending fewer days in a skilled nursing facility (SNF). Key ways participating hospitals changed their PAC use included the following:

• Expanded patient education efforts,
• Starting discharge planning earlier,
• Increasing coordination with PAC providers, and
• Developing preferred provider networks.

Before this model started, there was a concern that participating hospitals would pick healthier patients for participation. Claims data analysis by the Lewin Group “provided no indications of changes in patient characteristics for CJR episodes relative to control group episodes.”

“Possibly the most notable outcome during the first CJR model performance year was that statistically significant changes in utilization and payments occurred so quickly. With approximately nine months of implementation, the CJR model resulted in outcomes that are consistent with what has been achieved in other bundled payment initiatives. More time under the CJR model will help in determining if continued improvements can be achieved.”

The entire report, report appendices and a two page high level “Findings at a Glance” summary can be accessed on the CMS CJR webpage at https://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/cjr.

Q:

Is there any information available yet concerning the 2019 CPT codes for Radiology services?

A:

Yes. The American College of Radiology (ACR) has released information about the 2019 CPT code changes expected for Radiology. Just like years past, we will see more procedures with bundling of the Radiology component into the surgical procedure; in other words, no separate reporting of the imaging guidance 7xxxx CPT code.  

If your facility performs any of the procedures listed below, you may want to take a closer look. Click here to see ACR’s summary.  

• Fine needle aspirations inclusive of imaging guidance
• Breast MRI with CAD
• Knee arthrography
• Ultrasound elastography
• Contrast enhanced ultrasound
• Deletion of fluoroscopy CPT code 76001
• PICC line insertion inclusive of imaging guidance
• Gastrostomy tube replacement – simple and complex
• Bone density ultrasound
• PET absolute quantitation myocardial blood flow

Q:

Any time a patient is documented with (acute/chronic) congestive heart failure and diastolic or systolic dysfunction, can this be coded as diastolic or systolic heart failure?

A:

No.  In ICD-10-CM, there is no longer an index for diastolic/systolic dysfunction. The provider must now link the heart failure (acute and/or chronic) with the diastolic or systolic dysfunction. 

Refer to Coding Clinic, First Quarter 2017: Page 46

• When provider has linked acute/chronic (congestive) heart failure with either diastolic or systolic dysfunction, it should be coded as “acute/chronic” diastolic and/or systolic heart failure.
• I50.20 – Unspecified systolic (congestive) heart failure
• I50.21 – Acute systolic (congestive) heart failure
• I50.22 – Chronic systolic (congestive) heart failure
• I50.23 – Acute on chronic systolic (congestive) heart failure
• I50.30 – Unspecified diastolic (congestive) heart failure
• I50.31 – Acute diastolic (congestive) heart failure
• I50.32 – Chronic diastolic (congestive) heart failure
• I50.33 – Acute on chronic diastolic (congestive) heart failure
• I50.40 – Unspecified combined systolic (congestive) and diastolic (congestive) heart failure
• I50.41 – Acute combined systolic (congestive) and diastolic (congestive) heart failure
• I50.42 – Chronic combined systolic (congestive) and diastolic (congestive) heart failure
• I50.43 – Acute on chronic combined systolic (congestive) and diastolic (congestive) heart failure
• If there is not supporting documentation linking the two conditions by the provider; assign code I50.9, Heart failure, unspecified.
• In ICD-10-CM, Congestive heart failure is included in the codes for diastolic and systolic heart failure. When documentation lists congestive heart failure along with either diastolic or systolic heart failure, assign a code for the type of heart failure only (diastolic/systolic).

Example:    

• Congestive heart failure with acute on chronic diastolic heart failure
• Assign code I50.33 only. Code I50.9 would not be reported in addition.

If you are a frequent reader of our newsletter, you often see the acronyms “OPPS” and “IPPS.” These refer respectively to the outpatient and inpatient prospective payment systems. Medicare describes a Prospective Payment System (PPS) as “a method of reimbursement in which Medicare payment is made based on a predetermined, fixed amount. The payment amount for a particular service is derived based on the classification system of that service (for example, diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) for inpatient hospital services).” This means for a particular DRG, a hospital always receives the same payment. Well, that is, until they don’t. Under Medicare’s transfer policies, DRG payments are prorated (reduced) when a patient transfers to another hospital or to select post-acute care settings. The specific regulations regarding transfer policies can be found in Chapter 4 of the Medicare Claims Processing Manual, Section 40.2.4.

The transfer policies bring in yet another acronym - the post-acute care transfer (PACT) policy. In recent weeks, two issues have come up related to the PACT policy. Before discussing these issues, let’s do a quick review of the policy.

• PACT policy only applies to certain MS-DRGs. The list of DRGs to which the policy applies is updated annually as Table 5 of the IPPS Final Rule.
• PACT policy only applies when the patient is transferred to certain post-acute care settings:
• Inpatient rehab facilities and units (discharge status code 62)
• Long term care hospitals (code 63)
• Psychiatric hospitals and units (code 65)
• Children’s and Cancer hospitals (code 05)
• Skilled nursing facilities (code 03)
• Home with a home health plan of care that begins within 3 days (code 06)
• Medicare identifies transfers to the affected settings by the discharge status code on the claim. If Medicare receives a claim from a post-acute care provider for days immediately after discharge, they will ask the transferring hospital to adjust their discharge status code as needed.
• Payment is only reduced if a patient stays fewer days than expected in the first (transferring) hospital for a particular DRG (the geometric mean length of stay or GMLOS).
• Payment is reduced to the transferring hospital. A per diem rate is calculated by dividing the MS-DRG rate by the GMLOS. The transferring hospital is paid 2 x the per diem rate for the first day and the per diem rate for subsequent days up to the full MS-DRG payment.
• There are special pay MS-DRGs (also noted in Table 5) that are paid differently, with a higher payment percentage for the first day of hospitalization.
• Transfer cases are eligible for outlier payments

Also see MLN Matters Article SE1411 for more information about discharge status and Medicare transfer policies.

The first new PACT issue is that the 2019 IPPS Final Rule added discharges to hospice to the PACT policy. This change was made in accordance with amendments to the Social Security Act by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018. The new law requires a discharge to hospice care provided by a hospice program to be a qualified discharge under PACT. This means qualifying DRGs with a Patient Discharge Status code of 50 (Discharged/Transferred to Hospice—Routine or Continuous Home Care) or 51 (Discharged/Transferred to Hospice, General Inpatient Care or Inpatient Respite) are subject to the post-acute care transfer policy effective for discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2018.

The second issue related to the PACT policy is a new item added to the August update of the Office of Inspector General (OIG) Work Plan:

“Hospitals' Compliance with Medicare's Transfer Policy With the Resumption of Home Health Services and the Use of Condition Codes

Medicare payments to acute care hospitals for inpatient stays under Medicare Part A are made on the basis of prospectively set rates. Normally, Medicare pays a hospital discharging a beneficiary the full amount for the corresponding diagnosis-related group (DRG). In contrast, a hospital that transfers a beneficiary to another facility or to home health services is paid a graduated per diem rate, not to exceed the full DRG payment. When transferring a patient to home health services, the hospital can apply specific condition codes to the claim and receive the full DRG payment. The hospital is responsible for coding the bill on the basis of its discharge plan for the patient or adjusting the claim if it finds out that the patient received postacute care after the discharge. We will determine whether Medicare appropriately paid hospitals' inpatient claims subject to the postacute care transfer policy when (1) patients resumed home health services after discharge or (2) hospitals applied condition codes to claims to receive a full DRG payment.”

The PACT policy applies when patients are discharged to “home under a written plan of care for the provision of home health services from a home health agency and those services occur within 3 days after the date of discharge - Patient Discharge Status Code 06 (or 86 when an Acute Care Hospital Inpatient Readmission is planned)” with some exceptions. One exception is when the home health services are not related to the reason for the inpatient admission hospital stay. In this case, condition code 42 is reported on the claim with a discharge status code 06, and the hospital will receive full payment based on the MS-DRG and not a per diem payment. This may occur when there is a resumption of home care services the patient was receiving before hospital admission, if the reason for the home health services is not related to the reason for hospital care.

A hospital can also receive full payment if the home health services do not begin within 3 days of the inpatient discharge. If home care was started more than three days after discharge from the hospital, the hospital would report condition code 43 on the claim. Again, in this case, the hospital will receive full payment based on the MS-DRG and not a per diem payment.

Hospitals should definitely be reporting these condition codes when applicable so as to receive appropriate Medicare payments. But they also need to be sure they are using the codes correctly and only when the required conditions apply. The tricky part about discharge status coding is that the hospital staff may not always know what actually happens when the patient leaves the hospital. It is a good practice to have someone verify with the patient if and exactly what and when post-discharge care occurred. For example, if home health services were planned to begin on day 4 after discharge, but actually began on day 3, it would not be appropriate to report condition code 43. Or the reverse could happen – home health planned for day 2 but does not begin until day 4 after discharge, in which case reporting condition code 43 could result in a higher, appropriate payment.

Another key is communication between case management/discharge planners, coders, and the billing office. Case management documentation is usually the most reliable source for post-discharge plans. If something changes after discharge, and the case managers have followed up to know that, they need to amend documentation and inform the coders and billers if the account has already been coded and/or billed. One last recommendation is a compliance review of discharge status every now and then. This was a huge issue when I started in hospital compliance many years ago and as you can see by the new OIG Work Plan item, it continues to be so. Here is a list of the tips noted above plus a few more to ensure accurate discharge status coding, billing, and appropriate payments:

• Make sure coders know and understand correct use of the discharge status code,
• Make sure coders know where in the record to find the most accurate information concerning discharge status and whom to ask if they have questions,
• Have a system in place to follow up after discharge to verify what post-discharge care the patient actually received,
• Have processes for clear and timely communication between case management, coders and billers concerning discharge status,
• Have a procedure to handle Medicare requests to change discharge status (this can occur when Medicare receives claims from other hospitals or post-acute care providers for services immediately following a hospital discharge), and
• Perform periodic audits of discharge status.

Following these recommendations may prevent the OIG from NYTTW (nailing you to the wall) should your claims be audited.

Q:

What are the Medicare rules for reporting modifier GG?

A:

Modifier GG is defined as the performance and payment of a screening mammogram and diagnostic mammogram on the same patient, same day.

In MMP’s experience, extra mammogram views to further investigate a potential problem seen on a screening mammogram are typically performed on a subsequent day. This allows the radiologist ample time to review the patient’s previous mammograms for comparison. But, additional diagnostic views are sometimes performed on the same day as the screening mammogram, and this creates the scenario for reporting modifier GG.

One of the best CMS references for using modifier GG is in the Correct Coding Initiative (CCI) Policy Manual for Medicare Services, chapter IX, page IX-8, paraphrased here:

Screening and diagnostic mammography are normally not performed on the same date of service. However, when the two procedures are performed on the same date of service, Medicare requires that the diagnostic mammography CPT code be reported with modifier GG and the screening mammography CPT code be reported with modifier 59.

The Medicare Claims Processing Manual, chapter 18, section 20.6 provides some additional information.

• A radiologist who interprets a screening mammography is allowed to order and interpret additional films based on the results of the screening mammogram while a beneficiary is still at the facility for the screening exam. 
• When a radiologist’s interpretation results in additional films, Medicare will pay for both the screening and diagnostic mammogram.
• Providers submitting a claim for a screening mammography and a diagnostic mammography for the same patient on the same day, attach modifier “GG” to the diagnostic mammography. 
• A modifier “-GG” is appended to the claim for the diagnostic mammogram for tracking and data collection purposes.