Take out your ICD-10 implementation plan and write down the date of April 10, 2014. That’s the day that CMS has instructed its Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) to publish all of the updated local coverage determinations (LCDs) that need to have ICD-10-CM codes replace ICD-9 codes. Any accompanying articles are also supposed to be updated by that date.
The deadline is being set in April to give you sufficient time to update your payment systems to accommodate the new codes. One thing to think about doing to get ready is to isolate the LCDs for the codes your practice uses most often.
We’ve all learned over the years that setting a deadline and meeting a deadline are two different things. CMS didn’t give them interim deadlines, so it’s entirely possible you could get hit with a slew of new LCDs to review starting on April 10. The change is detailed in a CMS transmittal released on September 6, which we’ve attached to this story.
CMS directs that all LCDs and articles be renumbered as part of this change, so even those without ICD-10 codes will need to be updated, though the MACs have until Sept. 4 for that set to be published. CMS warns the MACs that they may need to update Medicare Summary Notices to reflect the new LCD identification numbers in the event you need to find them.
Finally, when the only change the MAC is making to the LCD and/or article is to replace the relevant ICD-9 codes with the ICD-10 codes, the LCD and article do not need to be reviewed by the Carrier Advisory Committee nor be submitted for public comment because these are considered coding changes that don’t alter the intent of the policy when it comes to coverage or non-coverage, CMS states.
Should the MAC decide to make any other changes, however, the LCD would be subject to CAC and public review.
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?