Cloned documentation on OIG radar screen in 2014

May 23rd, 2014 - Scott Kraft   
Categories:   Documentation Guidelines   Evaluation & Management (E/M)   Office of Inspector General (OIG)  
0 Votes - Sign in to vote or comment.

One of the areas where the OIG has its sights set in 2014 is on physician documentation. The OIG plans to review documentation of E/M services looking for what it describes as “documentation vulnerabilities.”

   Put more specifically, the OIG reports that Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) have seen an increase in instances of “identical documentation across services,” noting that code selection for E/M encounters is based on the documentation for the services rendered.
   
   If it sounds like they’re looking for cloned notes, it’s because they are looking for cloned notes. And with documentation generated by electronic health records (EHR) systems on the rise, and providers using EHR system tools that enable documentation to be carried forward to a new note, it’s likely that the OIG won’t have to look to far to see more cloning than they are comfortable with seeing.
  
   There’s no doubt that the bells and whistles of EHR systems have changed the way that physicians document E/M encounters.
  
   EHR systems make it easier to provide more robust documentation for each encounter and make it easier to port forward relevant documentation from previous encounters for the provider to review.
  
   After all, there are only so many different ways to report on the fact that a patient is being seen for the same chronic condition when the patient returns to your office on a regular schedule. There are also only so many ways to describe the elements of a review of systems or an examination.
  
   There are two problems, however, that the functionality of EHR is creating from a claims audit perspective. First, in too many instances the documentation for a single patient looks the same from encounter to encounter – across multiple encounters – because of the way in which the provider brings forward documentation.
  
   Second, the provider is choosing to consistently review the exact same systems in the same way for the review of systems and examination across multiple encounters, regardless of the patient’s presenting problem.
  
   Let’s look at the second problem first. Coders, billers and auditors are right to tread very carefully when it comes to second guessing the clinical judgment of the provider when it comes to deciding which systems are medically necessary to review and which exam elements are pertinent to the patient’s visit that day.
  
   There could be a very good reason for what appears to a third-party review to be a review of a system seemingly unrelated to the patient’s presenting problem.
  
   However, when a provider consistently reviews the same components of the same systems in the ROS across the patient population, without regard to the patient’s condition, it will appear suspicious to an auditor. It will look especially suspicious when the result is usage of high-level E/M codes that go beyond the typical practice pattern.
  
   Practically speaking, it stands to reason that the ROS and exam elements would not always be the same across the patient population because patients will show up with different chief complaints at different levels of severity.
  
    The same patient with multiple cloned notes raises a whole new set of problems, especially when documentation is being carried forward from note to note for a long period of time.

    One problem is that it becomes harder to determine what the provider addressed during that visit because the note contains a laundry list of the patient’s chronic and acute conditions. The structural integrity of the note, which is intended to represent what happened during that specific visit, becomes compromised.

    The problem is exacerbated when the same documentation appears in note after note. Sloppy mistakes begin to occur, including things like the patient’s age contradicting itself in the note because the HPI has been carried forward.

    Providers note that patients are often seen for the same conditions over a period of time and, to our earlier point, there are only so many ways to describe that a patient has asthma or COPD or some other condition. When you do bring condition detail forward from the HPI, address that by having the provider add to the HPI details about how the patient is doing on that day. After all, it is the history of the present illness.

    On contradictions, it is one of the biggest ways that cloned elements of notes are revealed. Because the information from previous notes is often brought forward by ancillary staff before the encounter, the provider will sometimes add contradictory information. An ROS that is negative for a headache is contradicted by an HPI of severe headaches.

    In an era where demands for the provider’s time continue to go up, without payment following closely behind, it is hard to walk away from the time-saving advantages that EHR systems can potentially provide. Just do it very carefully, and know that the auditors are going to be looking closely to make sure there is variety in your notes that reflect the documentation needs of a specific encounter.
 

###

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)

Chronic Pain Coding Today & in the Future
July 19th, 2021 - Wyn Staheli, Director of Research
Properly documenting and coding chronic pain can be challenging. As is commonly the case with many conditions, over the years, there has been a shift in the identification of different types of pain, including chronic pain. Understanding where we are now and where we are going will help your organization prepare for the future by changing documentation patterns now.
How Does Global and Professional Direct Contracting (GPDC) Affect Risk Adjustment?
July 15th, 2021 - Aimee Wilcox, CPMA, CCS-P, CST, MA, MT, Director of Content
CMS recently announced the 53 Direct Contracting Entities (DCEs) that will be participating in the April 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021 Global and Professional Direct Contracting (GPDC) Model. Among those participating is Clover Health Partners, who runs an in-home primary care program that has the potential to help Medicare ...
How to Properly Assign ICD-10-CM Codes for Pain
July 14th, 2021 - Aimee Wilcox, CPMA, CCS-P, CST, MA, MT, Director of Content
Pain is a common diagnosis among all specialties so it should not be surprising to find there are 162 ICD-10-CM codes for reporting it and over 80 mentions in the ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting which describe when certain types of pain should be reported and how the codes should be sequenced.
Will CMS Allow Medicare Advantage Organizations to Risk Adjust from Audio-Only Encounters? 
July 13th, 2021 - Aimee Wilcox, CPMA, CCS-P, CST, MA, MT, Director of Content
While audio-only telehealth services became a covered benefit during the PHE, CMS put limitations on using the data from those encounters for risk adjustment scoring. Medicare Advantage (MA) plans cannot use the information from these encounters to be scored for risk adjustment; however, it can be used for risk adjustment scoring of ACA plans.
Compliance in the Dental Office or Small Practice
June 29th, 2021 - Christine Woolstenhulme, QCC, QMCS, CPC, CMRS
If your practice does not already have a compliance program in place, you will want to get started after reading this article. We have uncovered some important findings with the Office of Inspector General (OIG) in dental practices you need to be aware of. A compliance program offers standard procedures to follow, ...
Important Changes to Shared/Split Services
June 16th, 2021 - Aimee Wilcox CPMA, CCS-P, CST, MA, MT and Wyn Staheli, Director of Content Research
Reporting of split (or shared) services has always been wrought with the potential for incorrect reporting when the fundamental principles of the service are not understood. A recent CMS publication about these services further complicates the matter.
Understanding Non-face-to-face Prolonged Services (99358-99359) in 2021
June 3rd, 2021 - Aimee Wilcox CPMA, CCS-P, CST, MA, MT and Wyn Staheli, Director of Content Research
Due to the extensive changes in office or other outpatient services (99202-99215), there are many questions which still need to be answered, one of which is related to the prolonged services without face-to-face contact. This article explores the question regarding the appropriate use of codes 99358/99359 and how to report it.



Home About Contact Terms Privacy

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

Copyright © 2000-2021 innoviHealth Systems®, Inc. - CPT® copyright American Medical Association