As you probably know, Medicare requires individual providers as well as enrolled entities to re-validate their on-file enrollment information through March 2015. Providers who enrolled after March 23, 2011 are not impacted.
Your revalidation notice will come via a mailed letter like the sample included as a resource from this post.
If you are not yet in Medicare’s online PECOS tool for enrollment, the letter will go to your primary practice address currently on file. When you are in PECOS, it will go to the correspondence address and the special payments address on file.
CMS will not necessarily revalidate each individual provider within an entity and the entity itself on the same schedule, so you need to constantly be on the lookout for the letters
Revalidation places a special burden – you won’t get much advance notice of the request to revalidate, but a failure to do so carries heavy risk because Medicare can suspend the billing privileges of any provider or entity that fails to respond to a revalidation request within 60 days of the postmark. You are allowed one 60-day extension request by sending a written notice to the MAC directly from the provider or designated official of the entity.
But the reality is, it’s a complicated enrollment update if you haven’t done it in a while and the 60 days will go by quickly. What CMS aims to accomplish through revalidation is more accurate, centralized enrollment data. This includes updating addresses of practice locations, removing physicians no longer active and purging facilities no longer in operation. All things that are supposed to be done within 30 days of the changes, but often slip.
One more thing to remember: CMS does not currently permit anyone to change a provider’s information in the PECOS system other than the provider itself, though the agency has been working on a policy to allow someone to make the change on behalf of the provider.
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?