Click here for more sample CPC practice exam questions with Full Rationale Answers

Practice Exam

Click here for more sample CPC practice exam questions and answers with full rationale

Practice Exam

CPC Practice Exam and Study Guide Package

Practice Exam

What makes a good CPC Practice Exam? Questions and Answers with Full Rationale

CPC Exam Review Video

Laureen shows you her proprietary “Bubbling and Highlighting Technique”

Download your Free copy of my "Medical Coding From Home Ebook" at the top right corner of this page

Practice Exam

2018 CPC Practice Exam Answer Key 150 Questions With Full Rationale (HCPCS, ICD-9-CM, ICD-10, CPT Codes) Click here for more sample CPC practice exam questions with Full Rationale Answers

Practice Exam

Click here for more sample CPC practice exam questions and answers with full rationale

Pay-per-view: CMS backs off some burdensome proposals but imposes negative payment update in latest rule

The 2016 OPPS final rule includes the first negative payment update for the system, but CMS also listened to commenters’ suggestions to make a variety of proposals less onerous either operationally or financially.

"CMS’ language is quite firm in parts of the rule when explaining why some proposals were finalized, but the agency also showed its willingness to listen to providers who submitted detailed comments for other proposals," says Jugna Shah, MPH, president and founder of Nimitt Consulting, based in Washington, D.C., and Spicer, Minnesota.
 
Continue reading "CMS backs off some burdensome proposals but imposes negative payment update in latest rule" on HCPro’s website. Subscribers to Briefings on APCs have free access to this article in the January issue. 

HCPro.com – APCs Insider

Don’t forget the billers

Ready for ICD-10?

Ensure your facility’s training is on track

 

Editor’s note: Karen Fabrizio, RHIA CHTS-CP CPRA, recently presented "ICD-10 Coding and Documentation for Long-Term Care," a 90-minute webinar hosted by HCPro.

Fabrizio is an AHIMA Approved ICD-10-CM/PCS trainer and a medical record administrator and HIPAA privacy and security officer at Van Duyn Home and Hospital, a 513-bed SNF in Syracuse, New York. During the webcast, she identified common documentation pitfalls and reviewed ways that SNFs can prepare their documentation and policies for the transition to ICD-10 on October 1, 2015.

Fabrizio recently shared her suggestions for how to get ready for ICD-10 with Billing Alert for Long-Term Care. Recordings of the webcast can be purchased on CD at http://hcmarketplace.com/coding-and-documentation-for-longterm-care.

 

Q: What did you want SNFs to take away from your webcast?

A: My underlying objective was to really identify how important documentation is for accurate and thorough coding and to identify areas that facilities can take a look at across all disciplines.

The identification of a diagnosis is a physician’s responsibility; however, when you get some of the specificity sometimes from different disciplines, a physician may not pick up on the dominate side or the non-dominate side for a stroke, but a physical therapist or an occupational therapist definitely will be focused on that. So it’s looking at documentation on an interdisciplinary standpoint.

So far I’ve highlighted 10 diagnoses that are pretty common. I talk about the pitfalls of bad documentation and things to consider for providing good documentation.

The second takeaway is: I feel very strongly that facilities need to have a coding policy so that if you have multiple people coding or multiple people interpreting codes, they all come up with the same interpretation.

For instance, there is a code for history of falls. It’s important for the facility to determine when they are going to use it. You certainly don’t want to use history of falls for someone who has only fallen once and broken his or her leg. But if someone has fallen frequently, whether or not there is injury, that’s a code that is going to be important for facilities to consider how they are going to use it.

Unfortunately, the whole coding system is new, so there are not a lot of guidelines in terms of you need to have fallen three times in six months to be able to use that code. I think we’ll start to see that develop, but that doesn’t mean a facility can’t make that interpretation now.

For example, in my facility that I worked at previously, we had an interpretation that if someone had fallen three times within six months, we would code that as a history of falls, and if someone had fallen once previously with a significant injury, we would use that code as well.

So, my plan is to identify areas that we should seriously think about how we’re coding it and when we should consider using a specific code.

 

Q: What should SNFs be doing now to plan for this transition and improve their documentation? Should they begin training staff now?

A: There is mixed thoughts about the training. I think the training should be done soon and I think someone in the facility should be in the process of starting that in-depth training. But if you don’t use it you lose it; it’s a corny phrase, but you don’t want to learn how to do ICD-10 and then not do anything with it.

So I think the facilities should identify a group of people to be part of their stakeholder task force. They need to have their implementation and transition team and have at least one individual become comfortable with the classification system, and that person can go back and lead discussions?not necessarily be the chief decision maker?but lead discussions to say chapter-by-chapter, how are we going to address the endocrine? How are we going to address the neurological system? Do we want to use external cause codes? I think you need someone with that knowledge. It’s unfortunate though, because I don’t know if a lot of facilities really have the resources to do that.

 

Q: Can you walk our readers through a couple of examples of coding issues that facilities might run into?

A: Sure. So a doctor commonly says that a patient has diabetes. If he doesn’t identify type one or type two diabetes, the coding guidelines say we have to assume that it’s type two. The problem you run into is that type one diabetes is generally maintained on insulin and affects other systems. So if we don’t have good documentation by applying the rules, I would have to code diabetes as type two diabetes, and that might not represent the patient at all.

The other spinoff of that is we really need to identify whether a person is maintained on insulin and whether it’s to control a type one or type two diabetes, or if it’s a short-term use just to bring things back around. When a person is coming in from home and we have our intake people writing down his or her list of meds, and they add insulin, and I see a person that is type two diabetes and on insulin, I have to ask whether or not that is just a short time use of insulin to supplement their diabetes or if this person really does have type one diabetes.

In long-term care it does not directly impact our reimbursement because we are reimbursed by the RUGs. However, with the nation moving toward quality improvement surveys and Medicare making sure skilled services are appropriate and medically necessary, our coding that we do in long-term care is greatly affected by the coding they do in acute care prior, and can affect our discharges to a home health service.

 

Q: What are facilities still unprepared for regarding the transition to ICD-10?

A: I don’t think a lot of facilities are aware of how long it’s going to take to do the coding. We’ve jumped to one more code that requires us to be more specific and I have heard that a patient record could take up to twice as long to code under ICD-10, just because it is more specific and you’re learning a new system. For example, I know in ICD-9 UTI is 599.0. In ICD-10 I know it starts with an "N" and maybe has a "39," but then it’s getting into all the specifics. Part of it is that transition of it, but you’re getting into more specificity.

I think historically, long-term care facilities have utilized generic codes and maybe have used cheat sheets to be able to quickly assign codes, and that’s going to be very difficult to do with ICD-10.

 

Q: Anything else that facilities should be thinking about?

A: The other big thing is that this really needs to be multidisciplinary. Very few facilities have the resources of an educated or credentialed health information manager, but they are fortunate to have individuals with other backgrounds who may be comfortable with coding. But you have to include everyone in this process.

 

Don’t forget the billers

Most ICD-10 training is focused on coding, but don’t forget to train your billing staff, says Maureen McCarthy, president of Celtic Consulting in Goshen, Connecticut, and vice president of clinical reimbursement for National HealthCare Associates based in Lynbrook, New York.

Billers need to understand how changes introduced by ICD-10 codes will affect their work, McCarthy says. They should be comfortable with what codes will look like under the ICD-10 system as well as any software changes related to ICD-10.

CMS has announced that MACs will host an ICD-10 testing week from March 3?7, allowing providers to submit test claims. MACs are expected to provide more information through their websites and listservs.

McCarthy recommends that billers take advantage of the testing week to prepare for the official ICD-10 implementation on October 1. She also recommends that billers check their state and national professional organizations for ICD-10 training.

"There’s a lot of information out there for clinicians, but there’s not a lot for billers," McCarthy says. "The earlier billers can get their claims tested with their new software systems, the better off they’ll be."

HCPro.com – Billing Alert for Long-Term Care

Q&A: Should we hardcode modifier -CT?

Q: Our radiology department is requesting that we add a new modifier to their charge description master (CDM), modifier –CT (computed tomography [CT] services furnished using equipment that does not meet each of the attributes of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association [NEMA] XR-29-2013 standard). They want this added to the CT scan line items, but they are not sure if it is for all of the items or only certain ones. Can you provide more information that might help us know how to proceed?
 
A: Each facility needs to have a discussion before you hardcode the modifier to the CDM. Modifier –CT is a new modifier for 2016 and the NEMA standard has to do with dose optimization and management. For CT scans that are performed on equipment that is non-compliant with this standard, the modifier must be reported on specific codes. The specific CPT codes are listed in Transmittal 3425 and the Medicare Claims Processing Manual, Chapter 4, section 20.6.12.
 
A discussion is warranted if you have more than one CT scanner in use at your facility. This modifier is only applicable to scanners that don’t meet the requirement, and a payment reduction is involved when the modifier is reported. For CY 2016, CMS instituted a 5% reduction in payment when the modifier is reported, but the percentage increases for CY 2017 and beyond. So, if you have multiple scanners in use, you want to be sure that the modifier is only applied to those services provided on the non-compliant scanner/equipment.

 

Editor’s note: Denise Williams, RN, CPC-H, seniorvice president of revenue integrity services at Revant Solutions,in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, answered this question.
 

HCPro.com – APCs Insider

2017 IPPS final rule and claims-based measures

2017 IPPS final rule and claims-based measures

by Shannon Newell, RHIA, CCS, AHIMA-approved ICD-10-CM/PCS trainer

The fiscal year (FY) 2017 IPPS final rule was released August 2 and will be published in the Federal Register August 22. The majority of the finalized updates are consistent with those outlined in the proposed rule, but with a few refinements to applicable time periods. The final rule expands and refines the number of claims-based ­outcomes linked to payment under these programs.

Let’s review a few of the key changes to support your CDI program’s strategic focus for the coming year.

 

Risk-standardized readmission rates

Risk-standardized readmission performance for the coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) cohort will be linked to reimbursement in FY 2017. The applicable time period for discharges used to assess performance in FY 2017 has passed, but today’s discharges will impact performance in FY 2018.

This is a great example of why it’s important to focus on new measures adopted in this year’s rule for future program years. CMS utilizes a two- to three-year historical window of data for claims-based measures, so today’s performance impacts us financially two to three years in the future.

 

Risk-adjusted PSI 90 composite

The current Patient Safety Indicator (PSI) 90 measure will continue to be utilized in the Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program (HACRP) and Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program (HVBP) through FY 2018. At that time:

  • The HACRP will adopt the modified PSI 90 composite in FY 2018
  • The HVBP will discontinue future use of the PSI 90 measure in the FY 2019 rulemaking?CMS notes that the HVBP intends to adopt the modified PSI 90 composite in future rulemaking

 

The modified PSI 90 composite, also called the Patient Safety and Adverse Events Composite, was finalized as proposed. A review of key modifications follows:

  • PSIs in the composite have been revised; one PSI was deleted (PSI 7?CLABSI) and three new PSIs were added, providing a total of 10 PSIs in the modified composite
  • The final rule notes that PSIs 12 and 15 have had specification revisions
  • PSI weighting in the composite has been refined to incorporate the impact of both volume and harm

 

Applicable time periods for the measure were shortened as proposed, although date ranges were revised as noted below in italicized font:

  • HACRP:
    • FY 2018: July 1, 2014?September 30, 2015 (15 months)
    • FY 2019: October 1, 2015?June 30, 2017 (21 months)
  • HVBP:
    • FY 2018: Same as HACRP above (for the performance period; the baseline period will not be revised)

 

Performance scoring for the HACRP will adopt Winsorized z-scores instead of deciles.

  • The z-score method uses a continuous measure score rather than forcing measure results into deciles.
  • Z-scores represent a hospital’s distance from the national mean for a measure in units of standard deviations. A negative z-score reflects values below the national mean, and thus indicates strong performance.
  • To form the total hospital-acquired condition (HAC) score, the z-scores will be used as hospitals’ measure scores. The current scoring approach will then kick in.
    • The domains will be scored as follows:
    • The domain scores will then be multiplied by the domain weight
    • The weighted domain scores will be added together for the total HAC score
    • Hospitals in the top (worst) quartile would be subject to the payment penalty

 

Risk-standardized mortality measures

Risk-adjusted CABG mortality performance will impact financial reimbursement under the HVBP effective with the FY 2022 program. The applicable time periods that will be used to assess performance at that time follow:

  • Baseline period: July 1, 2012?June 30, 2015
  • Performance period: July 1, 2017?June 30, 2020

 

The pneumonia cohort will expand to include patients with a principal diagnosis of aspiration pneumonia and/or patients with a principal diagnosis of sepsis and a secondary present-on-admission diagnosis of pneumonia:

  • This aligns the cohort definition with that for the pneumonia readmission measure adopted with the FY 2021 program year.
  • Applicable timelines will be shortened from the usual three years of data to expedite HVBP adoption. The applicable time period for the cohort follows; italicized font indicates refinements to the dates in the final rule:
    • FY 2021:
    • FY 2022:

 

Cost measures

The previously adopted HVBP payment measure for pneumonia (hospital-level, risk-standardized payment associated with a 30-day episode of care for pneumonia) will expand the pneumonia cohort.

The expanded cohort will be consistent with the cohort definition used for the risk-adjusted readmission measure in the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) and the risk-adjusted mortality measure used in the HVBP:

  • The expanded cohort is anticipated to shift 9.3% of hospitals from the "average payment" category to the "greater than average payment" category

Two new payment measures will be added to the efficiency and cost reduction domain in the HVBP beginning FY 2021:

  • Hospital-level, risk-standardized payment associated with a 30-day episode of care for acute myocardial infarction
  • Hospital-level, risk-standardized payment associated with a 30-day episode of care for heart failure

 

These payment measures are intended to be paired with the 30-day mortality measures, thereby directly linking payment to quality by the alignment of comparable populations and risk adjustment methodologies to facilitate the assessment of efficiency and value of care:

  • The applicable time periods for the measures are as follows:
    • Baseline period: July 1, 2012?June 30, 2015
    • Performance period: July 1, 2017?June 30, 2019
  • The risk adjustment methodologies used for these measures are similar to those used for risk-adjusted mortality

 

Performance for these new measures will be scored using the methodology for the Medicare spending per beneficiary measure.

 

Summary

Effective October 1, 2017, performance for cost and quality measures in the HRRP, HVBP, and HACRP will impact up to 6% of your hospital’s inpatient acute Medicare fee-for-service reimbursement.

So, where to begin? First, become familiar with the measure specifications and risk adjustment methodologies, in addition to existing CMS provided reports on historical performance, to gain insights into your organization’s clinical documentation and coding vulnerabilities.

Measure specifications can be found at: www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/HospitalQualityInits/Measure-Methodology.html.

The final rule is available here: www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection.

 

Editor’s note: Newell is the director of CDI quality initiatives for Enjoin. She has extensive operational and consulting expertise in coding and clinical documentation improvement, performance improvement, case management, and health information management. You can reach Newell at [email protected]. Opinions expressed are that of the author and do not represent HCPro or ACDIS.

HCPro.com – Briefings on Coding Compliance Strategies

Billing therapy services in support of comprehensive APC services

Billing therapy services in support of comprehensive APC services

by Valerie A. Rinkle, MPA

CMS’ Transmittal 3523, issued May 13, is the quarterly July 1 OPPS update. In this transmittal, CMS briefly mentions billing physical and occupational therapy and speech-language pathology services provided in support of or adjunctive to comprehensive APC (C-APC) services under revenue code 0940 (general therapeutic services) rather than the National Uniform Billing Committee?defined revenue codes for these services (i.e., 042x, 043x, and 044x, respectively).

CMS refers to these therapy services as "non-therapy outpatient department services." In addition, CMS says that these services should not be reported with therapy CPT® codes.

These therapy services have been packaged into C-APCs since the inception of these per-encounter/per-claim payments in 2015. Initially, CMS implemented 25 C-APCs in 2015 for device-intensive procedures. In 2016, the agency expanded the concept to 33 surgical and procedural C-APCs covering almost 700 CPT/HCPCS procedure codes in nine clinical families. It also added one C-APC to pay for ancillary services in the case of inpatient-only procedures performed on a patient who dies prior to being admitted as an inpatient (billed with modifier ?CA).

Another C-APC is for observation services when billed for eight or more hours, with either ED, clinic, or direct admit codes and no surgery service performed. These C-APCs are defined with status indicators J1 and J2. On these claims, there is one payment associated with one primary CPT/HCPCS regardless of the number of days for the encounter. All of the other charges and codes are billed on the claim. There are a few exceptions, such as non-OPPS services like ambulance and preventive services such as vaccines and mammography.

While the transmittal does not provide much explanation, it is assumed that this instruction follows CMS’ comment in the 2016 OPPS final rule, where CMS stated at 80 FR 70326 (emphasis added):

Payment for these non-therapy outpatient department services that are reported with therapy codes and provided with a comprehensive service is included in the payment for the packaged complete comprehensive service. We note that these services, even though they are reported with therapy codes, are outpatient department services and not therapy services. Therefore, the requirement for functional reporting under the regulations at 42 CFR 410.59(a)(4) and 42 CFR 410.60(a)(4) does not apply.

 

Therefore, according to this statement in the 2016 OPPS final rule, CMS intended to provide administrative relief to hospitals so that they would no longer have to report functional status HCPCS G codes and modifiers when these therapy services were provided in support of C-APC services and included on the same claim.

However, since January 1, the Integrated Outpatient Code Editor (I/OCE) claim edits continue to require reporting of functional status HCPCS G codes and modifiers if therapy CPT and revenue codes are reported. Changing the reporting of these therapy services from the usual revenue codes and CPT codes to revenue code 0940 and no CPT codes will no longer trigger the claim edits that require the reporting of functional status codes and modifiers. However, there seems to be even more behind this change.

 

Defining therapy services

CMS described these therapy services provided during the perioperative period or in support of observation as not the same therapy services discussed in section 1834(k) of the Social Security Act (SSA). This distinction is an important one, because therapy services that meet the definition of therapy services performed by therapists under a plan of care in accordance with sections 1835(a)(2)(C) and 1835(a)(2)(D) of the SSA are excluded from OPPS by statute and paid under the Medicare physician fee schedule.

CMS implies that therapy services performed during the same encounter as C-APC services, even when performed by licensed and credentialed therapists, do not meet that same statutory definition of therapy, namely due to not being under a plan of care. Therefore, CMS no longer wants these therapy services in support of C-APCs to be reported with the same revenue and CPT codes as that used for therapy provided under a plan of care, which are required to be billed as repetitive services on monthly claims. C-APC services are required to be on an outpatient hospital claim that includes all the other charges and codes for services performed during the same encounter that are supportive or adjunctive to the C-APC service.

The transmittal also refers to the status indicator for this revenue code (0940) being changed from B to N. Status indicator B means codes that are not recognized when submitted on an OPPS claim. One way to remember this is that B stands for "better code." Status indicator N means items unconditionally or always packaged, or stated another way, services never separately paid. Heretofore, status indicators were preserved for CPT/HCPCS codes and APC groupings and not assigned to revenue codes.

However, CMS maintains a list of packaged revenue codes. Previously, revenue code 0940 was not included in the list of packaged revenue codes (Table 4 in the 2016 OPPS final rule at 80 FR 70320). CMS appears to be changing revenue code 0940 to be included in the list of packaged revenue codes.

If the services are no longer to be reported with CPT codes, then this revenue code will become packaged. As is the case with all packaged revenue codes, if the service is defined by a CPT/HCPCS code, and all other CPT/HCPCS coding and NCCI policies are followed, the CPT/HCPCS codes should be reported in addition to the revenue code irrespective of the fact that the revenue code is packaged.

 

Setting a precedent

This transmittal is the first time that CMS appears to suggest that services that meet the definition of CPT/HCPCS codes should not be reported at all, even when all other CPT/HCPCS coding conventions and NCCI policies are followed; it appears to be a precedent for CMS.

Once this change occurs, CMS will not use hospital therapy cost center cost-to-charge ratios from hospital cost reports to reduce the billed charges for therapy under revenue code 0940, but rather hospitals’ "other" cost center cost-to-charge ratios. It will likely result in a mismatch of revenue and expense that could adversely impact future rate setting.

It is interesting to note that rehabilitation services are optional hospital services under CMS’ Conditions of Participation (CoP) at 42 CFR 482.56, which states:

Physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech-language pathology or audiology services, if provided, must be provided by qualified physical therapists, physical therapist assistants, occupational therapists, occupational therapy assistants, speech-language pathologists, or audiologists as defined in part 484 of this chapter.

 

There are a few services that CMS defines as "sometimes therapy services" which can either be performed by therapists or nurses, namely wound care services. The CoPs, which are different than conditions of payment, do not require a plan of care, but do require orders. Therefore, it appears that hospital therapy services can be provided without a plan of care, and presumably, these services are now packaged under OPPS and do not qualify for physician fee schedule payment. Requirements for therapy plan of care for coverage can be found at 42 CFR 410.61 and 42 CFR 424.24.

To implement this change, hospitals will likely have to duplicate therapy charges in the chargemaster under the different revenue code that would only be used for Medicare outpatients and not for Medicare inpatients, and commercial or Medicaid accounts that are not likely to follow this billing instruction. This implementation step will likely complicate charge capture and increase the likelihood of errors.

Providers should evaluate this CMS instruction and provide feedback to the agency. Consider the following:

  • Is this proposal more or less burdensome than continuing to report therapy under the current revenue codes and also reporting the functional status codes and modifiers?
  • Do hospitals currently develop plans of care for therapy, whether or not it is in support of a C-APC service?
  • Will it alleviate a different type of burden on therapists if plans of care are not required?

 

Providers should comment to CMS if this solution is more burdensome or creates more confusion. CMS may be able to find other ways to change the I/OCE edits for functional status codes and modifiers and allow therapy services to continue to be reported with the usual revenue codes and CPT codes.

One of the most significant impacts may be to the accuracy of future payment rates. If this instruction continues without change, then a fundamental principle of cost reporting and rate setting seems to have been changed. This new policy may create a critical precedent for future rate setting. If CMS does not hear from many providers, then it is not likely to change the requirement and providers will need to work toward implementation as of July 1.

 

Editor’s note: Rinkle is a lead regulatory specialist and instructor for HCPro’s Medicare Boot Camp®?Hospital Version, Medicare Boot Camp®?Utilization Review Version, and Medicare Boot Camp®?Critical Access Hospital Version. Rinkle is a former hospital revenue cycle director and has over 30 years in the healthcare industry, including over 12 years of consulting experience in which she has spoken and advised on effective operational solutions for compliance with Medicare coverage, payment, and coding regulations.

HCPro.com – Briefings on APCs

Audits, education, and collaboration are key to reducing query rates

Collaboration between the CDI team and the coders was key to ensuring accuracy and success with audits in 2014 as well as this year. "As we were learning ICD-10-PCS, we developed regular standing meetings and committees to join forces to be better prepared for ICD-10-PCS implementation," says Cheree A. Lueck, BSN, RN, who adds that the two groups have continued to work as a team via regular meetings, training courses, and procedure coding exercises by way of conference calls every other month.

This article was originally published in Briefings on Coding Compliance Strategies. Subscribers can access the full article in the January 2016 issue.

HCPro.com – HIM-HIPAA Insider

2017 IPPS final rule and claims-based measures

2017 IPPS final rule and claims-based measures

by Shannon Newell, RHIA, CCS, AHIMA-approved ICD-10-CM/PCS trainer

The fiscal year (FY) 2017 IPPS final rule was released August 2 and will be published in the Federal Register August 22. The majority of the finalized updates are consistent with those outlined in the proposed rule, but with a few refinements to applicable time periods. The final rule expands and refines the number of claims-based ­outcomes linked to payment under these programs.

Let’s review a few of the key changes to support your CDI program’s strategic focus for the coming year.

 

Risk-standardized readmission rates

Risk-standardized readmission performance for the coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) cohort will be linked to reimbursement in FY 2017. The applicable time period for discharges used to assess performance in FY 2017 has passed, but today’s discharges will impact performance in FY 2018.

This is a great example of why it’s important to focus on new measures adopted in this year’s rule for future program years. CMS utilizes a two- to three-year historical window of data for claims-based measures, so today’s performance impacts us financially two to three years in the future.

 

Risk-adjusted PSI 90 composite

The current Patient Safety Indicator (PSI) 90 measure will continue to be utilized in the Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program (HACRP) and Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program (HVBP) through FY 2018. At that time:

  • The HACRP will adopt the modified PSI 90 composite in FY 2018
  • The HVBP will discontinue future use of the PSI 90 measure in the FY 2019 rulemaking?CMS notes that the HVBP intends to adopt the modified PSI 90 composite in future rulemaking

 

The modified PSI 90 composite, also called the Patient Safety and Adverse Events Composite, was finalized as proposed. A review of key modifications follows:

  • PSIs in the composite have been revised; one PSI was deleted (PSI 7?CLABSI) and three new PSIs were added, providing a total of 10 PSIs in the modified composite
  • The final rule notes that PSIs 12 and 15 have had specification revisions
  • PSI weighting in the composite has been refined to incorporate the impact of both volume and harm

 

Applicable time periods for the measure were shortened as proposed, although date ranges were revised as noted below in italicized font:

  • HACRP:
    • FY 2018: July 1, 2014?September 30, 2015 (15 months)
    • FY 2019: October 1, 2015?June 30, 2017 (21 months)
  • HVBP:
    • FY 2018: Same as HACRP above (for the performance period; the baseline period will not be revised)

 

Performance scoring for the HACRP will adopt Winsorized z-scores instead of deciles.

  • The z-score method uses a continuous measure score rather than forcing measure results into deciles.
  • Z-scores represent a hospital’s distance from the national mean for a measure in units of standard deviations. A negative z-score reflects values below the national mean, and thus indicates strong performance.
  • To form the total hospital-acquired condition (HAC) score, the z-scores will be used as hospitals’ measure scores. The current scoring approach will then kick in.
    • The domains will be scored as follows:
    • The domain scores will then be multiplied by the domain weight
    • The weighted domain scores will be added together for the total HAC score
    • Hospitals in the top (worst) quartile would be subject to the payment penalty

 

Risk-standardized mortality measures

Risk-adjusted CABG mortality performance will impact financial reimbursement under the HVBP effective with the FY 2022 program. The applicable time periods that will be used to assess performance at that time follow:

  • Baseline period: July 1, 2012?June 30, 2015
  • Performance period: July 1, 2017?June 30, 2020

 

The pneumonia cohort will expand to include patients with a principal diagnosis of aspiration pneumonia and/or patients with a principal diagnosis of sepsis and a secondary present-on-admission diagnosis of pneumonia:

  • This aligns the cohort definition with that for the pneumonia readmission measure adopted with the FY 2021 program year.
  • Applicable timelines will be shortened from the usual three years of data to expedite HVBP adoption. The applicable time period for the cohort follows; italicized font indicates refinements to the dates in the final rule:
    • FY 2021:
    • FY 2022:

 

Cost measures

The previously adopted HVBP payment measure for pneumonia (hospital-level, risk-standardized payment associated with a 30-day episode of care for pneumonia) will expand the pneumonia cohort.

The expanded cohort will be consistent with the cohort definition used for the risk-adjusted readmission measure in the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) and the risk-adjusted mortality measure used in the HVBP:

  • The expanded cohort is anticipated to shift 9.3% of hospitals from the "average payment" category to the "greater than average payment" category

Two new payment measures will be added to the efficiency and cost reduction domain in the HVBP beginning FY 2021:

  • Hospital-level, risk-standardized payment associated with a 30-day episode of care for acute myocardial infarction
  • Hospital-level, risk-standardized payment associated with a 30-day episode of care for heart failure

 

These payment measures are intended to be paired with the 30-day mortality measures, thereby directly linking payment to quality by the alignment of comparable populations and risk-adjustment methodologies to facilitate the assessment of efficiency and value of care:

  • The applicable time periods for the measures are as follows:
    • Baseline period: July 1, 2012?June 30, 2015
    • Performance period: July 1, 2017?June 30, 2019
  • The risk-adjustment methodologies used for these measures are similar to those used for risk-adjusted mortality

 

Performance for these new measures will be scored using the methodology for the Medicare spending per beneficiary measure.

 

Summary

Effective October 1, 2017, performance for cost and quality measures in the HRRP, HVBP, and HACRP will impact up to 6% of your hospital’s inpatient acute Medicare fee-for-service reimbursement.

So, where to begin? First, become familiar with the measure specifications and risk-adjustment methodologies, in addition to existing CMS provided reports on historical performance, to gain insights into your organization’s clinical documentation and coding vulnerabilities.

Measure specifications can be found at: www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/HospitalQualityInits/Measure-Methodology.html.

The final rule is available here: www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection.

 

Editor’s note

Newell is the director of CDI quality initiatives for Enjoin. She has extensive operational and consulting expertise in coding and clinical documentation improvement, performance improvement, case management, and health information management. You can reach Newell at [email protected]. Opinions expressed are that of the author and do not represent HCPro or ACDIS.

HCPro.com – HIM Briefings

Correctly documenting and coding altered mental status and encephalopathy

Correctly documenting and coding altered mental status and encephalopathy

 

by James S. Kennedy, MD, CCS, CDIP

 

Last month, I wrote about the role of coding and CDI compliance in ensuring the clinical validity of submitted ICD-10-CM/PCS codes, which impact payment, outcomes measurement (e.g., complications, mortality, and readmissions), and patient safety.

Emphasizing that ICD-10 code assignment can no longer rely solely upon the words documented by a treating provider, a team effort involving compliance, coders, CDI, and physicians defining clinical terminology and managing the application of code conventions, guidelines, and official advice is crucial.

While a good lawyer knows the law, a better lawyer knows the law, the judge, and the jury. We in coding compliance must know not only the code assignment process, but also the accountability agents and attorneys who delight in finding what they perceive to be our mistakes.

In our defense, when we can state our case using the most up-to-date clinical definitions for the circumstances described by a treating provider and rigorously apply coding and CDI principles, we are more likely to prevail when publically accused of upcoding, abuse, or fraud.

On July 27, I was interviewed by the director of ­ACDIS, Brian Murphy, regarding the documentation and coding of encephalopathy, which has highlighted the tremendous confusion in the compliant definition, documentation, and coding of altered mental status and its underlying causes. This interview and its accompanying slides are available at http://www.acdis.org/acdis-radio/encephalopathy.

To discuss this topic, let’s review a little history first. The documentation and coding of encephalopathy wasn’t much of an issue until around 2007, when CMS designated the various encephalopathies (e.g., metabolic, toxic) as MCCs when they weren’t even CCs in the older CMS-DRG system.

Unlike unspecified heart failure?which is not a CC or MCC unless the physician states that it is systolic (HFrEF) or diastolic (HFpEF)?CMS allows unspecified or acute encephalopathy (ICD-10-CM code G93.40) to be an MCC while some of its descriptors (e.g., anoxic encephalopathy) are just a CC or nothing at all (e.g., G94, encephalopathy in diseases classified elsewhere).

When challenged as to why encephalopathy with (e.g., toxic, hepatic, metabolic, or NEC) or without an adjective should remain a MCC, CMS stated in its fiscal year (FY) 2012 IPPS rule that "its clinical advisers recommended that these encephalopathy codes remain at an MCC level because these patients with encephalopathy typically utilize significant resources and are at a higher severity level." Readers can view this quote in the Federal Register on pp. 51544 and 51545 at http://tinyurl.com/jv69k8m.

Consequently, several hospitals and CDI consultants continue to advocate documentation and coding of the term "encephalopathy" alone in the presence of any altered mental status in order to obtain a MCC in MS-DRGs or a severity of illness of 3 in APR-DRGs. This is a practice that I believe is sure to be challenged, and one that requires thoughtful inquiry to ensure the validity of this or an alternative strategy.

 

Strategies for accuracy

Let’s now outline how to structure a diagnosis or condition for the purpose of ensuring completeness and precision in its ICD-10-CM coding. Every condition has five components that must be documented and linked to each other to fully describe that condition for coding purposes. Using the mnemonic MUSIC, and applied to an altered mental status, these are:

  • Manifestations?These could be delirium, psychosis, dementia, amnestic disorder, stupor, coma, unconsciousness, chronic vegetative state, and others, not just altered mental status or altered level of consciousness. Many of these are Chapter 18 symptoms, which cannot be a principal diagnosis if attributed to their underlying causes.
    • Note: Unresponsive doesn’t have a code; thus, an alternative term must be used.
    • Note: ICD-10-CM has code first requirements for the underlying cause of dementia (F01, F02), amnestic disorders (F04), delirium (F05), or other mental or personality disorders (F06, F07) due to a known physiological disorder, which means that if they were not documented or linked to the specified alteration of mental status or consciousness, they should be queried for. See the next section.
  • Underlying causes?These may include various structural brain diseases (e.g., strokes, cerebral neoplasms, cerebral edema, traumatic brain injury), neurodegenerative disorders (e.g., Alzheimer’s, Lewy body dementia, normal pressure hydrocephalus), or the various encephalopathies (e.g., toxic, metabolic, anoxic).
  • Severity or specificity?This includes whether any brain disease due to injury or medications is in the active treatment phase (initial encounter), healing phase (subsequent encounter), or has long-standing sequelae. If the doctor only documents "encephalopathy," we should query him or her as to its specific nature or underlying cause.
    • Note: The Glasgow Coma Scale measures severity; ICD-10-CM will add the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale starting October 1, 2016. Note that both of these may be coded from non-provider documentation according to the 2017 ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines released in ­August 2016; thus, please encourage the nursing staff to capture these whenever possible.
    • Note: We may see codes for the severity of hepatic encephalopathy using the West-Haven classification (0, 1, 2, 3, or 4) in FY 2018; thus, consider discussing this with your gastroenterologists or hepatologists.
  • Instigating or precipitating cause?This is another condition that provoked the underlying cause or made it worse, such as a drug overdose causing a toxic encephalopathy, a cerebral embolus from atrial fibrillation causing a stroke, or a change in circumstances inciting behavioral changes with neurodegenerative disorders. Elder or child abuse should always be considered as well.
  • Consequences?These include seizures that may be the direct effect of a metabolic encephalopathy due to hyponatremia, a fracture that occurred during a drug-induced delirium or psychosis, or malnutrition due to poor oral intake in a patient with end-stage Alzheimer’s disease.

 

The definitions of the various altered mental states or levels of consciousness can be found in credible psychiatry (e.g., DSM-V) or neurological literature (e.g., Adams and Victor’s Principles of Neurology); thus, when the term "altered mental status" alone is documented, the physician should be queried for the exact nature of the altered mental state (e.g., delirium, amnestic syndrome, dementia). Please ask your coding or CDI physician champion for additional information on these definitions.

 

Focusing on encephalopathy

While there are many causes of altered mental status, let’s focus on encephalopathy.

The Greek etymology of the word "encephalopathy" means "disease of the brain," much like how the word "myopathy" means "disease of the muscle," "nephropathy" means "disease of the kidney," and "neuropathy" means "disease of the nerve." As such, one could construe any disease of the brain to be an encephalopathy, such as strokes, brain tumors, and the like. In fact, Dorland’s medical dictionary, available in 3M’s encoder, defines encephalopathy as "any degenerative disease of the brain." These definitions, in my opinion, are too broad.

I prefer the definition in Adams and Victor’s Principles of Neurology, 10th Edition, that defines encephalopathy as a global brain dysfunction that has an underlying cause distinct from any other named brain disease (e.g., Alzheimer’s). It could be a general medical condition (e.g., metabolic encephalopathy), a poisoning (e.g., toxic encephalopathy), chronic liver failure (e.g., hepatic encephalopathy), diffuse anoxia, or the like that results in the diffuse brain dysfunction. These, of course, would have to be defined, differentiated, and documented by the provider, emphasizing that they are separate, distinct, or overlying another underlying diffuse brain disease (e.g., Alzheimer’s).

Similarly, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke states that encephalopathy is a term for any diffuse disease of the brain that alters brain function or structure; access this at http://tinyurl.com/NINDSencephalopathy. The hallmark of encephalopathy is an altered mental state.

There is a myriad of brain diseases, many of which have names (e.g., Alzheimer’s disease, Lewy body dementia, normal pressure hydrocephalus, and Jakob-Creutzfeldt disease) that are distinct disease entities whose labels describe the brain’s pathology and clinical manifestations. I personally believe that if the patient’s manifestations can be explained solely by a named brain disease, the term "encephalopathy" is integral to that named brain disease, given that the name is more specific than the term.

The ICD-10-CM Index to Diseases has similar examples, such as hepatic encephalopathy being classified as hepatic failure; in this circumstance, another code for encephalopathy would not be coded if the mental status abnormality is only due to hepatic failure.

Therefore, if encephalopathy is documented without linkage to any condition, a query is needed to determine its underlying cause. If it is due to a named disease not in the ICD-10-CM Index to Diseases under the key term encephalopathy, the underlying disease (e.g., UTI) is coded first, followed by G94 (other disorders of brain in diseases classified elsewhere), which is per the Excludes1 note for G93.4 (other and unspecified encephalopathy).

That’s not to say that a patient with a preexisting brain disease cannot have another superimposed process, which, if clinical indicators are present, should be defined, diagnosed, and documented by the physician. The ICD-10-CM Index to Diseases outlines many of these, such as toxic, metabolic, toxic-metabolic, hepatic, anoxic, and other types of encephalopathy. Definitions include:

  • Metabolic encephalopathy is a specified altered mental status due to a metabolic issue, such as hypercapnia (e.g., carbon dioxide narcosis), hyponatremia, pancreatitis, uremia, and the like.
  • Toxic encephalopathy is a diffuse brain dysfunction due to an adverse effect or a poisoning of a medication. Note that the ICD-10-CM Index to Diseases states that any encephalopathy due to a medication is coded to G92 (toxic encephalopathy), and that G92 has a code first instruction for any poisoning (T51?T64), which includes alcohol.
  • Toxic metabolic encephalopathies, which encompass delirium and the acute confusional state, are an acute condition of global cerebral dysfunction in the absence of primary structural brain disease. These are coded as G92 (toxic encephalopathy), unless the physician further specifies the toxic or metabolic issue. Queries regarding the definitions of metabolic or toxic etiologies are often required. While I don’t like this term, preferring to use the word "toxic" or "metabolic" alone, toxic-metabolic does exist in the clinical literature and coding nosologies. Learn more at http://www.tinyurl.com/toxicmetabolicencephalopathy.
  • Hepatic encephalopathies are due to hepatic failure and are coded as such. In ICD-9-CM, all hepatic ­encephalopathies are MCCs; however, in ICD-10-CM, hepatic encephalopathy is only an MCC if associated with coma or if the hepatic failure is described as acute or subacute (less than six months in duration). Coding Clinic, Second Quarter 2016, emphasized that hepatic encephalopathy is not coded as coma unless documented by the provider as such, and if clinically valid (e.g., the patient is unconscious).
  • Hypoglycemic encephalopathy is listed as E16.2 (hypoglycemia, unspecified) in the ICD-10-CM Index; however, Coding Clinic, Third Quarter 2015, advised that encephalopathy due to hypoglycemia in a diabetic should be coded using E11.649 (Type 2 diabetes mellitus with hypoglycemia without coma) as the principal diagnosis, with G93.41 (metabolic encephalopathy) as an additional diagnosis. I have been told by Coding Clinic that the Editorial Advisory Board is revisiting this issue. Stay tuned for future Coding Clinic articles to see if they reverse this opinion (I think they should).

 

Let us at BCCS know how you’re faring with encephalopathy, especially as you write appeals.

 

Editor’s note: Dr. Kennedy is a general internist and certified coder, specializing in clinical effectiveness, medical informatics, and clinical documentation and coding improvement strategies. Contact him at 615-479-7021 or at [email protected]. Advice given is general. Readers should consult professional counsel for specific legal, ethical, clinical, or coding questions. For any other questions, contact editor Amanda Tyler at [email protected]. Opinions expressed are that of the author and do not necessarily represent HCPro, ACDIS, or any of its subsidiaries.

HCPro.com – Briefings on Coding Compliance Strategies

Q&A: Coding from ED documentation and test results

Q: Can you code strictly from emergency department (ED) documentation? Can you code from test results and imaging (radiologist reports)?
 
A: Coders can assign diagnosis codes based on documentation of any licensed independent provider that provides direct care to the patient. This includes physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants who provide care to the patient during this encounter. Thus, the documentation of ED physicians or other providers (nurse practitioners and physician assistants) can be used to assign a code.
 
This comes with two notes of caution, however. First, this documentation must not conflict with the attending physician. If the documentation conflicts, then query for clarification. Second, if the ED physician documents a diagnosis, but you see no evidence of treatment or monitoring continued through the inpatient stay, query for the significance of the diagnosis.
 
As for the second piece of your question, diagnosis codes cannot be assigned based on test results or imaging. The documentation of radiologists and pathologists cannot be used to assign diagnosis codes, as such physicians do not provide direct patient care. Coders or clinical documentation improvement (CDI) specialists would need to query the attending provider to assign the appropriate diagnosis code.
 
Coding Clinic for ICD-10-CM/PCS has published guidance regarding the use of such reports to further specify the location of a fracture or cerebrovascular accident from imaging. But we first must have the diagnosis as documented by the attending physician or provider responsible for the direct care of the patient.
 
Editor’s note: Laurie L. Prescott, RN, MSN, CCDS, CDIP, AHIMA-approved ICD-10-CM/PCS trainer, and CDI education specialist at HCPro, a division of BLR, in Danvers, Massachusetts, answered this question on the ACDIS website. Contact her at [email protected].
 
This answer was provided based on limited information submitted to JustCoding. Be sure to review all documentation specific to your own individual scenario before determining appropriate code assignment.

 

Need expert coding advice? Submit your question to editor Steven Andrews at [email protected] and we’ll do our best to get an answer for you.

HCPro.com – JustCoding News: Inpatient