MACRA is here and the new program is going to sunset several (un) popular programs such as Meaningful Use and the Value Based Payment Modifier model. Everybody who is anybody is busy discussing about MACRA and its ramifications. But as with any big updates the myths are jostling for space with the facts. We’ve sifted the facts from the myths for you.
Myth #1: MACRA will make maintenance of certification mandatory
Fact #1: MACRA doesn’t make it mandatory for physicians to participate in maintenance of certification. It is certainly not compulsory.
Myth #2: MACRA will affect only physician reimbursements
Fact #2: There is a common myth that MACRA will only affect physician reimbursements. It will affect the reimbursement of all eligible clinicians. The eligible clinicians who will have to report under MIPS are physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified registered nurses and anesthetists.
Myth #3: Clinicians can choose between MIPS and participating in AAPMs right at the outset.
Fact #3: All eligible clinicians will report under MIPS during the first year. CMS will select qualifying physicians to participate in AAPMs after evaluating their quality scores.
Myth #4: MIPS penalties are higher than the current quality measure programs
Fact #4: MIPS stream lines and consolidates 4 different programs under one umbrella. Instead of paying separate and sometimes expensive penalties for failing to meet different pay for performance programs, clinicians who report under MIPS will only have to pay a 4% penalty during the first year.
Myth #5: MACRA will penalize physicians who follow the fee for service model
Fact #5: It does not. Physicians can still choose to continue working with the FFS model can still participate in the MIPS program.
If you have questions or comments about this article please contact us. Comments that provide additional related information may be added here by our Editors.
CMS pays emergency department visits through a payment method using Ambulatory Payment Classifications (APCs). Most payers also use the APC reimbursement system; however, there may be some differences in payer policies (always review your specific payer policy). APCs are the primary type of payment made under the OPPS, comprising groupings ...
It has been said that the healthcare industry is notoriously slow in terms of technology adoption. One need only look at how convoluted medical coding and billing are to know that it needs a technology injection. Specifically, medical coding and billing software desperately needs artificial intelligence (AI).
Attention providers, suppliers, billers, and vendors who bill Durable Medical Equipment (DME) to Medicare! Currently, a supplier receives a signed Certificate of Medical Necessity (CMN) from the treating physician or creates and signs a DME Information Form (DIFs); these are required to be sent with the claim.
However, this is about ...
Your practice has utilized the same medical billing software for years. The medical billing staff says it is time for a change. You don't necessarily disagree, but you also don't know where to begin your search for new software. There are so many vendors offering so many products that making sense of it all can be challenging.
Each year CMS publishes an Advance Notice of the upcoming years Medicare Advantage (MA) Capitation Rates and Part C and Part D Payment Policies and asks for comments related to it. Each of the comments are carefully reviewed and responded to and often are impactful to changes seen between the Advance Notice and final publication referred to as the Rate Announcement. With health equity as a primary focus for 2023, CMS announced some policy changes that may impact your organization.
Medicare Advantage Organizations (MAOs) have gone back and forth on whether or not to use data collected from telehealth, virtual Care, and telephone (audio-only) encounters with Medicare beneficiaries for risk adjustment reporting, but the following published documents from CMS cleared that up once and for all by providing an answer to a question specifically related to this question.
We’ve seen a number of OIG risk adjustment data validation (RADV) audits recently where the independent review contractor was simply looking for any codes the payer reported that were not supported by the documentation, in an effort to declare an overpayment was made and monies are due to be repaid. However, it was refreshing to read this RADV audit and discover that the independent review contractor actually identified HCCs the payer failed to report that, while still resulting in an overpayment, was able to reduce the overpayment by giving credit for these additional HCCs. What lessons are you learning from reading these RADV audit reports?
