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

$1.85 Million Paid to Settle Urology Modifier 25 Whistleblower Case

Separately asking routine evaluation and management (E/M) services provided on a similar day as another procedure is usually denied by Medicare. Care providers might typically individually bill E/M services if they meet certain criteria and append modifier 25 vital, on an individual basis specifiable analysis and management service by a similar MD or different qualified health care skilled on a similar day of the procedure or different service to the claim. Modifier twenty five shows payers, like Medicare, that a care supplier went higher than and on the far side the standard E/M of pre-operative and post-operative care related to the medical procedure; which it had been vital, on an individual basis specifiable service. If this modifier gets used, a supplier unbundles a service and receives further compensation ― overpayments of Medicare bucks. Per a whistleblower, this is what Skyline urology allegedly did between January. 1, 2013 and Dec. 31, 2016.

Read the Full Story here!

The post $ 1.85 Million Paid to Settle Urology Modifier 25 Whistleblower Case appeared first on The Coding Network.

The Coding Network

Kansas Doctor Forks Over Almost 6 Million in Settling 3rd False Claims Case in Twenty Years

Joseph P. Galichia MD, the previous owner of the Wichita-based Galichia Medical, after quite some time, reached Fraud Claim Act settlements with the Feds in 2000 and 2009 amounting to nearly 6 Million Dollars. This was his third time settling with the US Federal Government for such behavior.

Click Here to Read the Full Story!

The post Kansas Doctor Forks Over Almost 6 Million in Settling 3rd False Claims Case in Twenty Years appeared first on The Coding Network.

The Coding Network

Florida Physicians and Practice Settle False and Fraudulent Claims Case

Jaime L. Sepulveda, MD, LLC (d/b/a Miami Urogynecology Center), Jaime L. Sepulveda, M.D., and Sujata Yavagal, M.D. (collectively, “Miami Urogynecology Center”), South Miami, Florida, entered into a $ 173,768.08 settlement agreement with OIG. The settlement agreement resolves allegations that Miami Urogynecology Center submitted claims to Medicare for items or services that it knew or should have known were not provided as claimed and were false or fraudulent. Specifically, OIG contended that Miami Urogynecology Center submitted claims for: (1) diagnostic electromyography services using CPT code 51784 when therapeutic, not diagnostic, services had been provided; (2) pelvic floor physical therapy services using CPT codes 97032 and 97110 when those services were provided by an unqualified individual; and (3) evaluation and management (E&M) services using CPT codes 99213 and 99214 that were billed in conjunction with pelvic floor therapy procedures when no separate and identifiable E&M services were provided. OIG’s Consolidated Data Analysis Center and Office of Counsel to the Inspector General, represented by Senior Counsels Srishti Sheffner and Michael Torrisi, with the assistance of Program Analyst Mariel Filtz, collaborated to achieve this settlement.

The post Florida Physicians and Practice Settle False and Fraudulent Claims Case appeared first on The Coding Network.

The Coding Network

Connecticut Diagnostic Services Provider Settles Case Involving False Claims

On November 19, 2018, Southern Connecticut Vascular Center, LLC (SCVC), Stratford, Connecticut, entered into a $ 792,076.76 settlement agreement with OIG. The settlement agreement resolves allegations that SCVC submitted claims for Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) code 96965 when those claims were for a procedure that was already included as a component of the duplex ultrasound procedures for which SCVS submitted claims using HCPCS codes 93970 or 93971 for the same beneficiary on the same dates of service. The OIG further contends that the submission of claims for HCPCS code 93965 were for a procedure that should not have been separately billed and was not medically necessary. Senior Counsels Geoffrey Hymans and Joan Matlack, with the assistance of Program Analyst Mariel Filtz, represented OIG.

The post Connecticut Diagnostic Services Provider Settles Case Involving False Claims appeared first on The Coding Network.

The Coding Network

California Physician and Practice Settle Case Involving False Claims

On December 20, 2018, Michael Jadali, D.O., and the Center for Pain & Rehabilitation Medicine (collectively, “Dr. Jadali”), San Jose, California, entered into a $ 60,406.30 settlement agreement with OIG. The settlement agreement resolves allegations that Dr. Jadali submitted claims to Medicare for Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes 80500 (clinical pathology consultation; limited, without review of patient’s history and medical records) and 80502 (clinical pathology consultation, comprehensive, for a complex diagnostic problem, with review of patient’s history and medical records), where no consultation request had been made, no written narrative report by a consultant pathologist was produced, and no exercise of medical judgement by a consultant pathologist was required. Senior Counsels Geoffrey Hymans and Kenneth Kraft represented OIG.

The post California Physician and Practice Settle Case Involving False Claims appeared first on The Coding Network.

The Coding Network

California Physician and Practice Settle False and Fraudulent Claims Case

On April 12, 2019, Complete Women Care, Inc., and Miriam Mackovic-Basic, M.D. (collectively, “CWC”), with multiple locations in Los Angeles County, California, entered into a $ 258,045 settlement agreement with OIG. The settlement agreement resolves allegations that CWC submitted claims to Medicare for items or services that it knew or should have known were not provided as claimed and were false or fraudulent. Specifically, OIG contended that CWC submitted claims for: (1) diagnostic electromyography services using CPT Code 51784 and diagnostic anorectal manometry (ARM) services using CPT Code 91122 when therapeutic, not diagnostic services, had been provided; (2) ARM services using CPT Code 91122 that were not performed according to CMS guidelines; (3) pelvic floor electrical stimulation that was not preceded by a four-week course of failed pelvic muscle exercise training; and (4) in 13 instances, evaluation and management services using CPT Code 99214 that did not meet the criteria for billing under that code. OIG’s Division of Data Analytics and Office of Counsel to the Inspector General, represented by Senior Counsels David Traskey and Michael Torrisi, with the assistance of Program Analyst Mariel Filtz, collaborated to achieve this settlement.

The post California Physician and Practice Settle False and Fraudulent Claims Case appeared first on The Coding Network.

The Coding Network

Solve the Case of the Unnecessary Claims Denial

Be on the lookout for clues to submit a successful appeal. Denials and appeals can be the most frustrating parts of a coder’s job. I have been on both sides of the fence — working pro-fee for a healthcare system, handling denials, and working for a payer, looking at denials. In my experience, there are […]

The post Solve the Case of the Unnecessary Claims Denial appeared first on AAPC Knowledge Center.

AAPC Knowledge Center

Sutter Health legal case – coding community implications?

A recent settlement was reached for Sutter Health care: "The settlement announced today resolves allegations that Sutter and its affiliates submitted unsupported diagnosis codes for certain patient encounters of beneficiaries under their care. These unsupported diagnosis scores inflated the risk scores of these beneficiaries, resulting in the MAO plans being overpaid." (quote from link below)

The detail of what ‘unsupported’ means is unclear in these two links describing the settlement, so it is difficult to draw conclusions. I wondered if AAPC has insight on the particulars.

https://www.modernhealthcare.com/gov…ern-healthcare am&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20190415&utm_cont ent=article2-headline
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/medic…care-advantage

Medical Billing and Coding Forum

Sutter Health settles Medicare Advantage upcoding case for $30 million

Sutter Health was supposedly associated with a training called upcoding, which alludes to the accommodation of mistaken or overstated data about the wellbeing status of a recipient so as to get a higher payout from CMS.

Read the Full Story Here!

The post Sutter Health settles Medicare Advantage upcoding case for $ 30 million appeared first on The Coding Network.

The Coding Network