A United Approach

June 14th, 2019 - Namas
Categories:   Audits/Auditing   Billing   Claims   Evaluation & Management (E/M)   Electronic Medical Records (EMR/EHR)   Medicare   CPT® Coding  
0 Votes - Sign in to vote or comment.

A United Approach

As auditors, we all have a different perspective when evaluating documentation. It would be unreasonable to think that we all view things the same way. In my opinion, differing perspectives are what makes a great team because you can coalesce on a particular chart, work it through and decide on different approaches to help educate providers. Our shared ultimate goal is always to provide the best education to providers on documentation and compliance guidelines.
This being said, I feel it is important that the methodology and the message conveyed be consistent across the board. Let me share with you a situation I encountered over the last month to provide some background on my thought process.


A very good friend of mine, whose practice I have worked with for 8 years, was recently notified by their MAC that they were to have a TPE (Targeted Probe and Educate) audit of their level 4 established patient visits. TPEs are pre-payment audits that CMS started and per the CMS website "the program is designed to help providers and suppliers reduce claim denials and appeals through one-on-one help."


OK, lower those skeptical brows, there's more. On their website, CMS also states that "Providers whose claims are compliant with Medicare policy won't be chosen for TPE." Great news! (Eyebrows back down folks.) They were given a list of 40 charts to pull documentation for, and being me, I went in to review those charts before they were submitted and audited them myself.
This way the practice would have an idea of what they may be looking at from the MAC's perspective. Out of those 40 charts I reviewed, at least half did not support a level 4 established patient visit. The only reason they did not was because the picture painted of the visit did not support the medical necessity of a level 4 visit. If you have ever heard my colleague Shannon DeConda, president and founder of NAMAS, talk about E&M auditing, you can probably hear her voice in your head saying "Guys, CMS states that medical necessity is the overarching criterion for payment in addition to the documentation requirements of a CPT code."


At NAMAS and DoctorsManagement, this is a topic we constantly educate our clients on. These charts had wonderfully lengthy documentation thanks to our EHR vendor; however, when it came down to the assessment and plan along with the HPI, the purpose of the visit wasn't clear. Honestly, it looked like a painting by Monet: great from a distance, but the closer you looked at it, the uglier it got.
Fast forward to a week after submission, and the results came back. The MAC agreed with 36 of the 40 charts, and the 4 they disagreed with, they UPCODED to a level 5. Now I suspect that not only are eyebrows up in your hairline but your jaw also has hit the floor. I thought to myself, wow, that is a vastly different perspective of the paintings I looked at. Then I thought about it, and thought about it some more. Remembering that I had been doing other E&M research that week I recalled seeing a bunch of old PowerPoint presentations on the web and was shocked at how many of them said that Medical Decision Making was what determined your level of service, and none of them mentioned medical necessity at all. The light bulb went off: I don't think it was a different perspective, but a different methodology. The auditor could not have factored in medical necessity when reviewing those charts.


Now you see the reason I chose to write about this. If we as auditors are not auditing and educating using the same methodology, how can we be a benefit to our providers and clients? At NAMAS we are provider advocates; we work hard to help providers understand the documentation that needs to be in their encounters to support the medical necessity of the visit. If we are successful in our teaching, the providers can have meaningful visits with their patients without having a computer in their face, complete the visit, sit down and document based on the level of medical necessity, saving valuable time, and the result are notes with clearly documented assessments and plans that paint a clear picture of why patients were seen and what was done in response.
When auditors are not on the same page, we send conflicting messages to our providers which is a disservice. And if an auditor is not evaluating medical necessity and helping to educate providers about it, come 2021 they may not be very successful in their careers. The medical necessity and the value of care provided to the patient are the most important parts of documentation, and not all the EHR templates that create lots of noise and yield 18-page notes. That's just my perspective.




###

Questions, comments?

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.


Latest articles:  (any category)

Proposed Risk Adjustment Changes
June 4th, 2020 - Wyn Staheli, Director of Research
On June 2, 2020, HHS published two proposed changes to the Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV) protocols for HHS-Operated Risk Adjustment Programs.
Watch for Payer Telehealth Coverage Changes
June 3rd, 2020 - Wyn Staheli, Director of Research
As our country moves forward with a phased approach to reopening, be sure to pay close attention to individual payer policies regarding how long these changes will remain in effect. Keep in mind that private payer, federal programs (Medicare, Medicaid), and Medicare Advantage plans can all have different timelines as well as different coverage.
Changes in Medicare Advantage and Part D
June 2nd, 2020 - Christine Taxin
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services finalized several changes in Medicare Advantage and Part D on Friday. The Trump administration has finalized several changes in Medicare Advantage (MA) and Part D in anticipation of bid submissions on June 1. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released Friday that includes ...
Additional Practice Reopening Tips
June 1st, 2020 - Wyn Staheli, Director of Research
As practices begin reopening across the nation, there are several things that need to be considered. Policies and Procedures Manuals need to be updated, malpractice carriers need to be contacted and everyone needs to consider mental health screenings and support.
Where is the CCI Edit with Modifier 25 on E/M?
May 20th, 2020 - Christine Woolstenhulme, QCC, CMCS, CPC, CMRS
If you are not seeing a CCI edit when reporting an E/M code with a certain procedure, it may be that there is no edit. CMS does not have a CCI edit for every CPT code, however, there are still general coding rules that must be followed.  The use of Modifier 25 is one example ...
Packaging and Units for Billing Drugs
May 18th, 2020 - Christine Woolstenhulme, QCC, CMCS, CPC, CMRS
To determine the dosage, size, doses per package and how many billing units are in each package, refer to the NDC number. Take a look at the following J1071 - Injection, testosterone cypionate, 1mg For example; using NCD # 0009-0085-10 there are 10 doses of 100 mL (100 mg/mL = 1 mL and there are ...
Getting Your Practice Back on Track
May 12th, 2020 - Wyn Staheli, Director of Research
As we begin returning back to work, we will all face a new normal. The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the face of business. While it has certainly been a challenge to keep up with the ever-changing regulations (that’s likely to continue for a little longer), exciting new opportunities have also been created, such as the expansion of telemedicine. There’s also the maze of government funding that needs to be navigated and an increased awareness of OSHA standards to implement.



Home About Contact Terms Privacy

innoviHealth® - 62 E 300 North, Spanish Fork, UT 84660 - Phone 801-770-4203 (9-5 Mountain)

Copyright © 2000-2020 innoviHealth Systems®, Inc. - CPT® copyright American Medical Association