Medicare Insurance Carrier Codes – Medicare Insurance PDF



Medicare insurance



Medicare Insurance Carrier Codes (pdf download)

Medicare Claims Processing Manual Chapter 12 – Centers for …
specific national codes and modifiers that carriers are to continue to pay on a “By
….. administers the Supplementary Medical Insurance Benefits Program for …

Appendix C: Third-Party-Liability Codes – Mass.Gov
Nov 1, 2012 … The second section contains Medicare Advantage carrier codes. … is a list of
carrier codes and the names and addresses of the insurance …

APPENDIX 2 CARRIER CODES – SC DHHS
Aug 1, 2013 … CARRIER CODES: ARRANGED ALPHABETICALLY. Appendix 2-1 … KY
407427154 8007135095 MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PLAN. C88.

Alpha Insurance Code List – Department of Medical Assistance …
Insurance Carrier List. Alpha. April 2014. CARRIER NAME. CARRIER CODE
ADDR LN1. ADDR LN2. CITY. STATE ZIP. 1199 SEIU NATIONAL BENEFIT
FUND.

http://www.aaaai.org/Aaaai/media/MediaLibrary/PDF%20Documents/Practice%20Management/PM%20Resource%20Guide/Ch-6-Coding-and-Billing-Basics-final.pdf
Ch 6 Coding and Billing Basics final – The American Academy of …
not only to Medicare but also to all other insurance carriers throughout the
country. … Modification) codes are diagnosis codes used to provide medical
necessity …

http://www.hscsn-net.org/training/CMS%201500_508.pdf
Completing a CMS 1500 Form – hscsn
CMS-1500. Box 5: Enter the patient’s address, city, state (2 letter abbreviations),
zip code and phone … Box 9d: Enter the name of the 2ndary Insurance Carrier.

http://www.sprc.org/sites/sprc.org/files/tipsandstrategiesforbilling.pdf
Tips and Strategies for Billing for Mental Health Services in a …
Diagnoses are reported to both public and private insurance carriers using …
codes are monitored by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

http://www2.illinois.gov/hfs/SiteCollectionDocuments/100app9.pdf
general appendix 9 – hfs – State of Illinois
G – Medicare supplement insurance – policyholder over age 65. H – Limited …
Insurance Company will have the source code 001 printed in the TPL section of
the.

http://www.cgsmedicare.com/hhh/education/materials/pdf/home_health_billing_codes.pdf
Home Health Medicare Billing Codes Sheet – CGS
Cancel to correct provider/HIC #. D5 … Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) Value
Codes (VC) (FL 39-41) & Payer Codes (PC) …. Insured’s last name, first name. N.

http://www.psych.org/File%20Library/Practice/Managing%20a%20Practice/CPT/CPT-Primer-for-Psychiatrists.pdf
CPT Primer for Psychiatrists.pdf – American Psychiatric Association
Common Procedure Coding System) codes used by Medicare and Medicaid. …
provider who is paid by insurance companies should have a working knowledge
 …

http://www.covidien.com/rms/imageServer.aspx?contentID=28730&contenttype=application/pdf&originalFileName=12-AW-0010%20QRG%20Shiley%20Reimb%20Update.pdf
Tracheostomy Tubes and Accessories Quick Guide to Coding …
The existence of HCPCS codes does not guarantee coverage or payment for any
device by any insurance carrier or Medicare. Medical necessity must be …

http://static.abbottnutrition.com/cms-prod/abbottnutrition.com/img/9th%20Edition%20Reimbursement%20Manual%20-%20Interactive%20PDF.pdf
Medicare Part B Enteral Nutrition Reimbursement … – Abbott Nutrition
Medicare and/or its carriers. Each health care supplier is ultimately responsible
for verifying codes, coverage, and payment policies used for individual patient …

http://www.or.regence.com/provider/claims-and-billing/docs/federal-employee-program-message-codes.pdf
Message Codes – Regence.com
other healthcare plan and Medicare have already paid maximum benefits for this
… injury when another insurance carrier or the person who caused the illness …

https://www.caremark.com/portal/asset/D0PayerSheetMEDDMSP.pdf
NCPDP Version D.0 Payer Sheet – Caremark
Mar 5, 2014 … Medicare Part D – Use of Prescription Origin Code . …. Insurance Segment:
Mandatory. Field # …. RW Required when provider is claiming.

http://www.nh.gov/insurance/consumers/documents/medsuprates.pdf
2014 NH Guide to Medicare Supplement Insurance – NH.gov
An incorrect application may cause the insurance company to cancel your policy
or leave you with unpaid … access code to anyone. If you do not receive … 2014
Medicare Supplement Plans – Rates Effective January 1, 2014. Company. Plans.

http://www.aetna.com/healthcare-professionals/assets/documents/nonparPPO.pdf
Aetna Medicare Plan Nonparticipating provider information
We are projecting increased membership in our Medicare. Advantage … required
under Medicare Advantage regulations and the member’s … Aetna Life Insurance
Company … unbundling logic, Aetna uses the Correct Coding Initiative (CCI).

http://www.phc4.org/dept/dc/adobe/naic_codes.pdf
Appendix C – Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council
Most Common Health Plan ID Numbers (NAIC Codes) … Golden Medicare ….
Code. Product Names/(Notes). Humana Insurance Company. Medicare PPO. 12.

http://www.va.gov/vaforms/medical/pdf/vha-10-7959c-fill.pdf
CHAMPVA – Other Health Insurance (OHI) Certificate
ZIP CODE. FIRST NAME. SEX … PART A CARRIER NAME. PART B CARRIER …
Do you have health insurance other than MEDICARE? IF NO, go to Section IV.

https://www.acog.org/~/media/Departments/Coding/2013MedicarePreventiveServices.pdf
Medicare Screening Services 2013 – ACOG
advent of Medicare coverage for annual wellness visits. ….. Local carriers
determine the ICD-9-CM diagnostic codes that they will accept as supporting
these …

http://www.aao.org/aaoe/coding/upload/Medicare-Carriers-Oct-25-2013.pdf
Medicare Carrier Website Addresses
Oct 25, 2013 … Medicare Carrier – MAC Part B. MAC Transition Cutover … Wisconsin Physicians
Service Insurance Corporation (WPS) www.wpsmedicare.com.

Medicare Site ICD 9 Payable Codes

AARP MedicareRx Plans United Healthcare (PDF download)



United healthcare medigap (PDF download)



CIGNA HealthCare Medicare (PDF download)


United Healthcare Medicaid (PDF download)


medicare healthcare (PDF download)



Medicare Site ICD 9 Payable Codes

PDF download:

ICD-9 CODES FOR MEDICARE*

sites (to 8 wks). □ 702.0 …. *These are ICD-9 codes used for Medicare
Reimbursement. Please code appropriate ICD-9 codes based on the patient
condition(s).

2013 Billing Guide – PAML

Page. Introduction ..1. Key Points for Diagnosis Coding ..2. Medicare Billing 3-13.
Successful … order for payment to be made to the entity furnishing the service.

2013 Billing Guide – CLS
Apr 1, 2013 … form of ICD-9 codes, narrative diagnoses or symptoms. …. Page 9 … for which
Medicare payment is subsequently denied as not. “reasonable …

Ch 6 Coding and Billing Basics final – The American Academy of …
This does not mean that every encounter will be reviewed prior to payment. ….
The CMS (Medicare) may accept up to eight diagnosis codes, but the …. carrier
billing guidelines and know the web site for each carrier in order to find specific.

Tips and Strategies for Billing for Mental Health Services in a …
Page 1 … ICD-10-CM (diagnosis) and ICD-10-PCS (hospital procedure) code
sets effective Oct. 1, 2014. MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT … For Medicare
payment, CMS specifies which HCPCS codes will be covered as part of their.
Medicare …

CPT and ICD-9 Coding for Surgical Residents and New Surgeons in …
Jun 15, 2005 … Table of Contents. PAGE. Disclaimer and Copyrights. 2. Chapter 1 Introduction to
Coding. 3. Chapter 2 Diagnosis Coding: ICD-9-CM Defines Medical Necessity. 9
…. For Medicare payment purposes, all of the CPT codes have.

Download the PDF – National Osteoporosis Foundation
to that page in the PDF. ⇨ To return … Medicare Payment for Physicians and
Outpatient Facilities 35 … ICD-9-CM Diagnosis Codes for Osteoporosis and
Related.

Frequently Asked Questions about Transitional Care Management
Page 1 … A2: There are two CPT codes that may be used to report TCM, effective
January 1, 2013: … performed in a non-facility setting, the Medicare payment.

Typical covered diagnosis codes
All Medicare LCDs for Eye codes contain a list of covered di- agnosis … Typical
Covered Diagnosis Codes for eye Code exams. 013.10 … of unspecified site.

2013 GI Endoscopy Coding and Reimbursement … – Cook Medical
Page 1 … Hospitals use ICD-9-PCS codes to describe procedures performed
during hospital admissions. The following … Inpatient Hospital Medicare Payment
.

Medicare Screening Services 2013 – ACOG
download a copy by visiting Medicare’s website at the addresses listed below: ….
The diagnosis codes for Pap smear collection and screening pelvic exam are …

and High Intensity Behavioral Counseling (HIBC) – STD TAC
Page 1 of 8 … REVISED products from the Medicare Learning Network® (MLN)·-
… be used consistent with FDA approved labeling and in compliance with the
Clinical … The use of the correct diagnosis code(s) on the claims is imperative to
 …

DDE Users Manual for Medicare Part A – Palmetto GBA
Oct 1, 2013 … A CMS Medicare. Administrative Contractor. October 2013. Page 2. Page 3. DDE
User’s Manual. Table of Contents. Palmetto GBA. Page i …. Diagnosis &
Procedure Code Inquiry – ICD-9 . … Home Health Payment Totals .

ADULT IMMUNIZATION CODING GUIDE – Ohio KePRO
Page 1 … The Medicare deductible. & co-payment must be paid. … HCPCS/CPT
code–90740, 90746, or 90747 (vaccine) … ICD 9 CM code–V04.89 or V05.8.

Common Codes and Unadjusted Medicare Payment Rates* – Medrad
Mar 31, 2014 … Page 1 … Physician and Outpatient Hospital Coding & Unadjusted Medicare
Payment Rates. Physician … ICD-9-CM Diagnosis Codes.

Impact of the Transition to ICD-10 on Medicare Inpatient … – WEDi
report diagnosis data across all sites of service and the International
Classification … In the FY 2009 update of ICD-9-CM there were 14,025 diagnosis
codes and 3,824 … payment in the Medicare inpatient prospective payment
system (IPPS).

Quick Reference Guide – BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee
Page 1 … Medicare Advantage Plans, such as BlueCross BlueShield of
Tennessee, based on the health … payment model that included diagnosis data
reported.

ICD-9 Basics Study Guide – Board of Medical Specialty Coding and …
Page 1 … Introduction. To master the basics of ICD-9-CM coding, you must
understand the …. to facilitate payment under the Medicare Prospective Payment
Sys-.

Knee Orthoses – DJO Global
Print Message: If you are experiencing issues printing this page, then please click
‘Return … For any item to be covered by Medicare, it must 1) be eligible for a
defined … has KNEE instability due to a condition specified in any diagnosis
listed above; … payable or incompatible with prefabricated KNEE orthosis base
codes.

Step-by-Step Guide to Medicare – Indian Health Service
Step 4: Learn More about Procedural (CPT) Codes and Diagnosis (ICD-9) Codes
for …. CMS Website Medicare Learning Network . ….. The Medicare Part B MNT
payment will be 80% (because a 20% patient co-pay applies) or the lesser of …

WEDI Suggests Additional Medicare ICD-10 Testing to HHS | ICD-10




This week, WEDI submitted a letter to the Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary, encouraging the agency to consider additional Medicare testing prior to ICD-10-CM and ICD-10-PCS (ICD-10) implementation. WEDI periodically advises on and brings attention to issues related to healthcare information exchange and other areas.

WEDI has been working with public and private sectors of the industry to facilitate execution of ICD-10 and recognizes this change in medical code sets may be the single largest technical, operational and business implementation in the healthcare industry in the past thirty years. As such, WEDI believes thorough testing with a range of trading partners – hospitals, physicians (large and small practices from different medical specialties), clinics, clearinghouses and Medicare secondary payers will be critical to avoid significant disruption to the industry. This will give the industry a higher level of confidence that the Medicare claims processing system will operate as intended when ICD-10 goes live on Oct. 1, 2014. Finally, WEDI suggests both organizations closely monitor industry progress and early testing results to better gauge what may happen when ICD-10 implementation goes into effect.

Read the full letter and discover what obstacles influenced WEDI to submit this to HHS.

ACP Internist: More sunshine on the Medicare data release

Blog log

Members of the American College of
Physicians contribute posts from their own sites to
ACP Internistand ACP
Hospitalist
. Contributors include:

Albert Fuchs,
MD

Albert Fuchs, MD, FACP, graduated from the
University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine, where he
also did his internal medicine training. Certified by the American
Board of Internal Medicine, Dr. Fuchs spent three years as a
full-time faculty member at UCLA School of Medicine before opening
his private practice in Beverly Hills in 2000.

And Thus, It Begins
Amanda Xi, ACP Medical
Student Member, is a first-year medical student at the OUWB School
of Medicine, charter class of 2015, in Rochester, Mich., from which
she which chronicles her journey through medical training from day
1 of medical school.

Auscultation
Ira S. Nash,
MD, FACP, is the senior vice president and executive director of the North Shore-LIJ
Medical Group, and a professor of Cardiology and Population Health at Hofstra North
Shore-LIJ School of Medicine. He is Board Certified in Internal Medicine and
Cardiovascular Diseases and was in the private practice of cardiology before joining the
full-time faculty of Massachusetts General Hospital.

Zackary Berger
Zackary Berger, MD, ACP Member, is a primary care doctor and
general internist in the Division of General Internal Medicine at
Johns Hopkins. His research interests include doctor-patient
communication, bioethics, and systematic reviews.

Controversies in Hospital
Infection Prevention

Run by three ACP
Fellows, this blog ponders vexing issues in infection prevention
and control, inside and outside the hospital. Daniel J Diekema, MD,
FACP, practices infectious diseases, clinical microbiology, and
hospital epidemiology in Iowa City, Iowa, splitting time between
seeing patients with infectious diseases, diagnosing infections in
the microbiology laboratory, and trying to prevent infections in
the hospital. Michael B. Edmond, MD, FACP, is a hospital
epidemiologist in Richmond, Va., with a focus on understanding why
infections occur in the hospital and ways to prevent these
infections, and sees patients in the inpatient and outpatient
settings. Eli N. Perencevich, MD, ACP Member, is an infectious
disease physician and epidemiologist in Iowa City, Iowa, who
studies methods to halt the spread of resistant bacteria in our
hospitals (including novel ways to get everyone to wash their
hands).

db’s Medical Rants
Robert M. Centor, MD, FACP, contributes short essays contemplating
medicine and the health care system.

Suneel Dhand, MD, ACP Member
Suneel Dhand, MD,
ACP Member, is a practicing physician in Massachusetts. He has published numerous
articles in clinical medicine, covering a wide range of specialty areas including;
pulmonology, cardiology, endocrinology, hematology, and infectious disease. He has also
authored chapters in the prestigious “5-Minute Clinical Consult” medical textbook. His
other clinical interests include quality improvement, hospital safety, hospital
utilization, and the use of technology in health care.

DrDialogue
Juliet K. Mavromatis, MD, FACP, provides a conversation about
health topics for patients and health professionals.

Dr. Mintz’ Blog
Matthew Mintz, MD, FACP, has practiced internal medicine for more
than a decade and is an Associate Professor of Medicine at an
academic medical center on the East Coast. His time is split
between teaching medical students and residents, and caring for
patients.

Everything
Health

Toni Brayer, MD, FACP, blogs about the rapid changes in science,
medicine, health and healing in the 21st century.

FutureDocs
Vineet Arora, MD, FACP, is Associate Program Director for the
Internal Medicine Residency and Assistant Dean of Scholarship &
Discovery at the Pritzker School of Medicine for the University of
Chicago. Her education and research focus is on resident duty
hours, patient handoffs, medical professionalism, and quality of
hospital care. She is also an academic hospitalist.

Glass Hospital
John H. Schumann, MD, FACP, provides transparency on the workings
of medical practice and the complexities of hospital care,
illuminates the emotional and cognitive aspects of caregiving and
decision-making from the perspective of an active primary care
physician, and offers behind-the-scenes portraits of hospital
sanctums and the people who inhabit them.

Gut Check
Ryan Madanick, MD, ACP Member, is a gastroenterologist at the
University of North Carolina School of Medicine, and the Program
Director for the GI & Hepatology Fellowship Program. He
specializes in diseases of the esophagus, with a strong interest in
the diagnosis and treatment of patients who have
difficult-to-manage esophageal problems such as refractory GERD,
heartburn, and chest pain.

I’m dok
Mike Aref, MD, PhD, FACP, is an academic hospitalist with an
interest in basic and clinical science and education, with
interests in noninvasive monitoring and diagnostic testing using
novel bedside imaging modalities, diagnostic reasoning, medical
informatics, new medical education modalities, pre-code/code
management, palliative care, patient-physician communication,
quality improvement, and quantitative biomedical imaging.

Informatics
Professor

William Hersh, MD, FACP, Professor and Chair, Department of Medical
Informatics & Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health &
Science University, posts his thoughts on various topics related to
biomedical and health informatics.

David Katz, MD
David L. Katz, MD, MPH, FACP, is an internationally renowned
authority on nutrition, weight management, and the prevention of
chronic disease, and an internationally recognized leader in
integrative medicine and patient-centered care.

Just Oncology
Richard Just, MD, ACP Member, has 36 years in clinical practice of
hematology and medical oncology. His blog is a joint publication
with Gregg Masters, MPH.

KevinMD
Kevin Pho, MD, ACP Member, offers one of the Web’s definitive sites
for influential health commentary.

MD
Whistleblower

Michael Kirsch, MD, FACP, addresses the joys and challenges of
medical practice, including controversies in the doctor-patient
relationship, medical ethics and measuring medical quality. When
he’s not writing, he’s performing colonoscopies.

Medical Lessons
Elaine Schattner, MD, FACP, shares her ideas on education, ethics
in medicine, health care news and culture. Her views on medicine
are informed by her past experiences in caring for patients, as a
researcher in cancer immunology, and as a patient who’s had breast
cancer.

Mired in MedEd
Alexander M.
Djuricich, MD, FACP, is the Associate Dean for Continuing Medical
Education (CME), and a Program Director in Medicine-Pediatrics at
the Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, where he
blogs about medical education.

More Musings
Rob Lamberts, MD, ACP Member, a med-peds and general practice
internist, returns with “volume 2” of his personal musings about
medicine, life, armadillos and Sasquatch at More Musings (of a
Distractible Kind).

Prescriptions
David M. Sack, MD, FACP, practices general gastroenterology at a
small community hospital in Connecticut. His blog is a series of
musings on medicine, medical care, the health care system and
medical ethics, in no particular order.

Reflections of a Grady
Doctor

Kimberly Manning, MD, FACP, reflects on the personal side of being
a doctor in a community hospital in Atlanta.

The Blog of Paul Sufka
Paul Sufka,
MD, ACP Member, is a board certified rheumatologist in St. Paul,
Minn. He was a chief resident in internal medicine with the
University of Minnesota and then completed his fellowship training
in rheumatology in June 2011 at the University of Minnesota
Department of Rheumatology. His interests include the use of
technology in medicine.

Technology in (Medical)
Education

Neil Mehta, MBBS, MS, FACP, is interested in use of technology in
education, social media and networking, practice management and
evidence-based medicine tools, personal information and knowledge
management.

Peter A. Lipson,
MD

Peter A. Lipson, MD, ACP Member, is a practicing internist and
teaching physician in Southeast Michigan. The blog, which has been
around in various forms since 2007, offers musings on the
intersection of science, medicine, and culture.


Why is American Health Care So Expensive?

Janice
Boughton, MD, FACP, practiced internal medicine for 20 years before
adopting a career in hospital and primary care medicine as a locum
tenens physician. She lives in Idaho when not traveling.

World’s Best Site
Daniel Ginsberg, MD,
FACP, is an internal medicine physician who has avidly applied
computers to medicine since 1986, when he first wrote medically
oriented computer programs. He is in practice in Tacoma,
Washington.

Other
blogs of note:

American Journal of
Medicine

Also known as the Green Journal, the American Journal of Medicine
publishes original clinical articles of interest to physicians in
internal medicine and its subspecialities, both in academia and
community-based practice.

Clinical
Correlations

A collaborative medical blog started by Neil Shapiro, MD, ACP
Member, associate program director at New York University Medical
Center’s internal medicine residency program. Faculty, residents
and students contribute case studies, mystery quizzes, news,
commentary and more.

Interact MD
Michael Benjamin, MD, ACP member, doesn’t accept industry money so
he can create an independent, clinician-reviewed space on the
Internet for physicians to report and comment on the medical news
of the day.

PLoS Blog
The Public Library of Science’s open access materials include a
blog.

White Coat
Rants

One of the most popular anonymous blogs written by an emergency
room physician.

Study: EHRs Do Not Prompt Hospitals To Overbill Medicare …

Electronic health records do not raise the risk of hospitals overbilling Medicare, according to a study published this week in the journal Health Affairs, EHR Intelligence reports (Bresnick, EHR Intelligence, 7/9).

Background

In 2012, a Center for Public Integrity investigation, as well as a New York Times analysis, found that EHR systems could be contributing to a rise in upcoding, a process in which health care providers overbill by selecting higher-paying treatment codes.

In September 2012, Attorney General Eric Holder and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sent a letter to several health care and hospital associations warning that the Obama administration will not tolerate hospitals’ attempts to “game the system” by using EHR systems to boost Medicare and Medicaid payments (iHealthBeat, 7/22/13).

Details of Study

For the new study, researchers examined whether U.S. hospitals using EHRs had greater increases in the severity of patients’ conditions and in overall Medicare billing than hospitals that had not yet adopted EHRs (University of Michigan release, 7/8).

Specifically, the researchers compared billing records from 2008 to 2010 on 393 hospitals that had adopted EHRs with the billing records of 782 hospitals that were using paper records (Adler-Milstein/Jha, Health Affairs, July 2014). They organized their research so hospital comparisons involved hospitals of the same size and type, such as a teaching hospital or a for-profit organization (Whitney, NPR/Kaiser Health News, 7/8).

Findings

The researchers found that both hospitals using EHR systems and those using paper records increased the weight of their coding at nearly identical rates. The findings held across several sub-groups, including:

  • For-profit hospitals;
  • Hospitals in very competitive markets; and
  • Hospitals with the highest proportion of Medicare patients (Tahir, Modern Healthcare, 7/8).

Reaction

Ashish Jha, one of the study authors and a researcher at the Harvard School of Public Health, said policymakers should not “worry about excessive billing” in hospitals that have adopted EHR systems because the “empirical evidence says this should not be a big focus of attention.”

However, Donald Simborg, an EHR expert and policy adviser, said that the study examined inpatient stays rather than emergency departments and outpatient clinics. He said that hospitals “already have software that helps them” maximize inpatient hospital stay billing, but that EDs and outpatient centers are just now acquiring digital record keeping systems, which sometimes spurs providers to over-document and overbill (NPR/Kaiser Health News, 7/8).


Health News – Electronic health records don't increase Medicare …

ANN ARBOR—Concerns that nationwide electronic health record adoption could lead to widespread fraudulent coding and billing practices that result in higher health care spending are unfounded, according to a study from the University of Michigan School of Information and the Harvard School of Public Health.

Following the passage of the HITECH Act in 2009, more than 5,000 hospitals became eligible for financial incentives to adopt and engage in “meaningful use” of electronic health records. Early results show that more than half of all eligible hospitals have qualified for incentives. The Act was motivated by the expectation that electronic health record use would improve the quality of care and reduce costs by avoiding inefficiencies, inappropriate care and medical errors.

However, some experts have suggested that the increased documentation abilities of electronic health records could lead to practices like upcoding, in which care providers select billing codes that reflect more intensive care or sicker patient populations, or record cloning, which involves copying and pasting the same examination findings for multiple patients. Both these issues could drive up health care costs by documenting and billing for care that did not occur.

The study, by Julia Adler-Milstein, U-M assistant professor of information, and Ashish K. Jha, Harvard professor of public health, is published online in the July issue of Health Affairs.

“There have been a lot of anecdotes and individual cases of hospitals using electronic health records in fraudulent ways. Therefore there was an assumption that this was happening systematically, but we find that it isn’t,” said Adler-Milstein, who is also an assistant professor of health management and policy in the U-M School of Public Health.

To examine these claims, the researchers analyzed longitudinal data to determine whether U.S. hospitals that had recently adopted electronic health records had greater subsequent increases in the severity of patents’ conditions and payments from Medicare, compared to similar hospitals that did not adopt. The research focused on hospitals that would be likely to change their coding practices: for-profit hospitals, hospitals in competitive markets, and hospitals with a substantial proportion of Medicare patients.

Despite widespread stories and concerns among policymakers about the potential for electronic health records to increase fraudulent billing, the authors found that adopters and non-adopters increased their billing to Medicare at essentially identical rates. They found the same results among the groups of hospitals most likely to use electronic health records to increase coding and revenue.

With no empirical evidence to suggest that hospitals are systemically using electronic health records to increase reimbursement, the study’s findings should reduce concerns that EHR adoption by itself will increase the cost of hospital care.

The results also suggest that policy intervention to reduce fraud is not likely to be a good use of resources. Instead, the authors recommend that policymakers focus on ensuring that hospitals use EHRs in ways that are most likely to reduce health care spending and improve the quality of care.

The paper is titled, “No Evidence That Hospitals Are Using New Electronic Health Records to Increase Medicare Reimbursements.” Health Affairs is a peer-reviewed journal focusing on health policy thought and research. The study will be published in an upcoming print edition of the monthly journal.

 

Related Link:

  • Contact Heather Newman, (734) 355-0888, newmanh@umich.edu

How to Avoid PQRS Penalties (2% of Medicare Annual Revenue!)


How to Avoid PQRS Penalties (2% of Medicare Annual Revenue!)





tips to avoid pqrs penaltiesAlthough the physician and medical community is underwhelmed, sometimes openly hostile, to the implementation of the penalty phase of the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) made a permanent regulation under The Medicare Improvement for Patients and Providers Act of 2008, penalties will take effect in 2015. Penalties will apply for non-compliance for activities during the period January 1 through December 31, 2013.

Therefore, practices should implement action plans to avoid 2015 PQRS penalties NOW. CMS believes their 2013 reporting options give eligible providers sufficient time and choices to comply with PQRS requirements.

PQRS Penalties

Medical providers who do not comply with PQRS requirements can have their Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements reduced by 1.5 percent. Since CMS reimbursements are “conservative” (polite designation) already, receiving only 98.5 percent of scheduled payments could partially cripple a practice’s revenue stream.

PQRS penalties will increase to 2 percent payment reductions in 2016 for those providers that continue to operate in non-compliance. CMS, in a classic government-generated language softener, refers to these penalties as “payment modifiers,” not income penalties. The resulting revenue damage, however, achieves the same negative result.

Avoiding PQRS Penalties (or “Payment Modifiers”)

Yes, it’s getting late; but it’s not too late to avoid 2015 PQRS penalties and definitely sufficient time to avoid the heavier 2016 penalty cost potential. Since it’s late 2013, most of your previous options have disappeared per the calendar. But, you still have the following options for 2013 and 2014.

  • Start using PQRS codes immediately.
  • Learn and use PQRS measure specifications for all future Medicare patients.
  • Before the end of February 2014, use a data registry and ensure that you provide PQRS-compliant care.
  • Ensure your billing staff or third-party medical billing service is using PQRS codes for Medicare reimbursable procedures, diagnosis and treatment.
  • Use the CMS “calculated administrative claims-based reporting mechanism.”

While the CMS incentive program is important to increase your revenue, the penalty phase is even more vital to keeping your revenue stream healthy. Avoiding PQRS penalties, by taking these precautions, will serve the same–or more important–purpose.

Medical providers are busy. Billing staffs are busy. However, CMS offers multiple measures for compliant PQRS reporting. If your practice encompasses many Medicare or Medicaid patients, you need not incur PQRS penalties.

Adopting some measures as soon as possible–today is good–will avoid revenue-damaging penalties. Among the options to avoid PQRS penalties you can take are the following actions.

  • Initiate claims-based reporting, as defined by CMS procedures (using “G” codes).
  • Use registry-based reporting with CMS approved registries.
  • Implement electronic health records (EHR) reporting.

These reporting systems will help you avoid PQRS penalties, as you will have evidence that you have used CMS approved reporting systems. Using proper PQRS codes and CMS reporting methods help you avoid damaging penalties that will reduce your income.

Preparing and taking avoidance actions now is imperative. Be aware that CMS changed its definitions of individual and group medical practices. Originally, group practices included those with 25 or more eligible providers. Now practices that include only 2 or more eligible providers qualify as “group practices.” If your practice includes as few as 2 physician and non-physician providers or as many as 99, you have a CMS-defined group practice.

Don’t wait any longer, if your practice accepts Medicare or Medicaid insurance. While the incentives for complying with PQRS are beneficial, the potential penalties are damaging. Avoiding these penalties is well worth the compliance and submitting claims that satisfy PQRS regulations.




Image courtesy of ctaxrelief.com

For more information about M-Scribe Billing Services please contact 888-727-4234.

Improper Payments for Miscoded E/M Services Cost Medicare $6.7 …

Doctor Cash Jacket (June 25, 2014)  Officials at the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (OIG) recently examined medical records from 2010 for claims related to evaluation and management (E/M) services. The results are astounding. OIG determined that Medicare inappropriately paid $6.7 BILLION for E/M services that year due to claims that were incorrectly coded and/or lacking the necessary documentation. In total, over half of the claims for E/M services submitted in 2010 had incorrect codes or lacked the necessary documentation.

I. Coding and Documentation Requirements for E/M Services

E/M services are visits performed by physicians and nonphysician practitioners to assess and manage a beneficiary’s health. These services are divided into different categories known as “visit types” that reflect the type of service, the place of service, and the patient’s status. Most visit types are further divided into three to five levels, which correspond to the complexity of a visit and the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for billing purposes.

The level of an E/M service for CPT coding is determined by seven components: patient history, physical examination, medical decision-making, counseling, coordination of care, the nature of the patient’s presenting problem(s), and time. The first three components are important in determining the correct code for the E/M service. Higher level codes for a visit type indicates increased complexity of the E/M service. More importantly, it corresponds to higher reimbursement rates.

In order to be reimbursed for E/M services, the services must be medically reasonable and necessary. The services must also meet the individual requirements of the CPT code that is used on the claim. However, if services are billed at a higher level than were actually performed, the medical necessity requirement is not met. Providers must therefore ensure that the claims they submit to Medicare accurately reflect the E/M services provided and are billed at the appropriate level.

Physicians’ documentation is also an important part of the reimbursement process. The documentation must support the medical necessity and appropriateness, as well as the level, of the E/M service. In order to accurately reflect this, the medical record documentation must be clear and concise. The records should reflect the care the patient received as well as the relevant facts, findings, and observations about the patient’s history. Moreover, Medicare requires that the services be authenticated, either through a handwritten or electronic signature. If the medical record fails to include a proper attestation, CMS concludes that the claim is insufficiently documented.

II. Physicians Increase their Billing of High Level Codes, Leading to Higher Payment Amounts

In 2012, an OIG report analyzed E/M services in all visit types from 2001 to 2010 and noted that physicians had been increasing their billing of higher level codes. This process would obviously yield higher reimbursement amounts. Additionally, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) has determined that E/M services are 50% more likely to be incorrectly paid compared to other Part B services. These improper payments are more likely to result from errors in coding and/or insufficient documentation.

OIG then conducted a medical record review of a random sample of Part B claims for E/M services from 2010. In this review, OIG stratified claims from physicians who consistently billed higher level codes for E/M services and claims from other physicians. The first group of claims came from “high-coding physicians”. They comprised a sample from 828,646 claims billed by physicians with a history of high-coded claims. These high-coding physicians represented the top 1% of their primary specialties and billed at the two highest level codes (4 and 5) for E/M services at least 95% of the time. The second and larger group – claims from other physicians – included nearly 369 million claims from doctors without a history of high coding.  OIG then had certified professional coders review the claims determine whether the E/M service documented in the medical record for each sample claim was correctly coded and/or sufficiently documented.

III. Medicare Inappropriately Paid $6.7 Billion for Claims that were Incorrectly Coded and/or Lacked Necessary Documentation

The results of OIG’s report are disturbing. Notably, Medicare paid approximately $32.3 billion for E/M services in 2010. However, 21% of this figure corresponded to claims for E/M services that were improperly paid. In total, OIG found that Medicare inappropriately paid $6.7 billion for claims for E/M services in 2010 that were incorrectly coded and/or lacking documentation.

Specifically, OIG determined that 42% of claims for E/M services in 2010 were incorrectly coded, whether the claims were upcoded or downcoded . The upcoded claims represented $4.6 billion in overpayments whereas Medicare underpaid providers approximately $1.8 billion in downcoded claims.  Furthermore, 19% of E/M claims lacked the necessary documentation. This includes 12% of the claims that were insufficiently documented, whereby Medicare made $2.6 billion in overpayments. On the other hand, 7% of the claims were undocumented and these represented $2 billion in overpayments.

Overall, OIG found that 55% of claims for E/M services were incorrectly coded or lacked the necessary documentation for reimbursement.
Additionally, OID determined that claims from high-coding physicians were more likely to be incorrectly coded or insufficiently documented than claims from other physicians.

IV. Recommendations

OIG recognized that its findings highlight errors associated with E/M services that must be addressed to properly safeguard the federal Medicare program. Based on the results of its study, OIG made three notable recommendations for CMS:

1. Education physicians on coding and documentation requirements for E/M services;
2. Continue to encourage contractors to review E/M services billed for by high-coding physicians; and
3. Follow-up on claims for E/M services that were paid for in error.

Interestingly, CMS only concurred with the first recommendation. It partially concurred with the third recommendation but did not concur with the second recommendation.

V. Conclusion

The results of this latest OIG report are particularly troublesome. Problems associated with incorrect coding and improper documentation is clearly a widespread problem for E/M claims. In this case, over half of the claims for E/M services were incorrectly coded (whether upcoded or downcoded) or lacked necessary documentation. That is a significant percentage of the $32.3 billion Medicare paid out for E/M services in 2010. Furthermore, the report indicates that the “high-coding physicians” – those with a history of high coding and who are in the top 1% of their primary specialties – are the most likely providers to upcode their claims.

If you are a Medicare provider performing E/M services – especially if you fall into the “high-coding physician” category – what should you do? The most important action you can take is to ensure that your claims accurately reflect the medical necessity requirements for Medicare reimbursement. This includes ensuring that the claims you submit to Medicare accurately reflect the E/M services provided and the billing levels appropriately correspond to those services.

Providers must also confirm that the documentation accurately supports the medical necessity and appropriateness, as well as the level, of the E/M service. The medical records should reflect clear and concise documentation. Physicians must document the care a patient receives, as well as the pertinent facts, findings, and observations about the patient’s history. The record should be complete and legible. It should also include the date and a legible identity of the physician who furnished the E/M service. Moreover, the provider must ensure that the services are authenticated by the author of the record. This may be in the form of a handwritten or electronic signature.

As CMS increases the intensity of its fraud fighting capabilities, providers must be ready for an audit of their claims and medical record documentation. While you may not fall into the “high-coding physician” category, this does not necessarily protect you from an audit. If – and when – you find yourself subject to an audit of your E/M claims, one of the best ways to fight for your reimbursements is through proper legal representation. Please feel free to give us a call today at 1 (800) 475-1906.

Saltaformaggio, RobertRobert Saltaformaggio, Esq., serves as an Associate at Liles Parker, Attorneys & Counselors at Law.  Liles Parker attorneys represent health care providers and suppliers around the country in connection with Medicare audits by RACs, ZPICs and other CMS-engaged specialty contractors.  The firm also represents health care providers in HIPAA Omnibus Rule risk assessments, privacy breach matters, State Medical Board inquiries and regulatory compliance reviews.  For a free consultation, call Robert at:  1 (800) 475-1906.

<!–

–>

OIG: Medicare Inappropriately Paid for 2010 E/M Services Claims …


Inspector General Daniel R. Levinson with the Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) recently issued a startling report explaining that Medicare inappropriately paid $6.7 billion for claims for E/M Services in 2010. These astronomical overpayments were the result of E/M services that were incorrectly coded or lacked documentation — and they represent 21% of Medicare payments for E/M services in 2010.


Read the full OIG report here »


The OIG based its study on a medical record review of a random sample of Part B claims for E/M services from 2010. Specifically, a group of certified professional coders reviewed a random sample of 2010 Part B claims for E/M services to determine whether documented E/M services were correctly coded and sufficiently documented. The analysis was limited to physicians who had claims for 100 or more E/M services in 2010 and the sampling frame consisted of 369,629,103 claims for E/M services, which amounted to $32.3 billion in Medicare payments. The claims surveyed were grouped into two strata: “high-coding” physicians, consistently found to bill at high level codes for E/M services, (making up 826,646 claims), as well as physicians who did not meet the classification as “high-coding” physicians (representing 368,8000,457 claims).


What were the causes?


The two main causes of Medicare’s inappropriate payment of 2010 claims for E/M services were incorrect coding and insufficient documentation. The OIG reports that 42% of claims for 2010 E/M services were incorrectly coded. This percentage accounts for both upcoding and downcoding. In addition, the OIG reported that 19% of the E/M services claims lacked proper documentation.


CMS split on OIG’s recommendations


As a result of this report, the OIG made the following recommendations to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”).


  1. Educate physicians on coding and documentation requirements for E/M services;

  2. Continue to encourage contractors to review E/M services billed for by high-coding physicians; and

  3. Follow up on claims for E/M services that were paid for in error.


CMS agreed with the OIG’s first recommendation; disagreed with the second recommendation; and agreed, in part, with the OIG’s third recommendation.


Physicians should review all claims for E/M services for accuracy, including correct coding and sufficient documentation. All E/M claims must be “medically reasonable and necessary,” and must meet the individual requirements of the CPT codes that are used on the claims. To ensure compliance with Medicare billing requirements, physicians should take into account: patient history, physical examination, medical decision making, counseling, coordination of care, the nature of the patient’s presenting issue, and time.


 

Medicare Taken For a Ride By Ambulance Companies in New …


During peak times, more than 20 ambulances are parked outside DaVita St. Joseph’s Paterson dialysis center in New Jersey. From 2002 to 2011, the number of dialysis-related ambulance rides reimbursed by Medicare in the state increased 857 percent, more than three times the national average. (Andrew Renneisen for ProPublica)

To grasp Medicare’s staggering bill for ambulance rides in New Jersey, just visit the busy parking lot of the DaVita St. Joseph’s dialysis clinic in the town of Paterson.

More than 20 ambulances and a handful of wheelchair vans were parked outside on a recent morning there. Emergency medical technicians wheeled patients in and out on stretchers. As soon as one ambulance departed, another took its place.

For each one-way ride, Medicare pays ambulance companies nearly $200, plus $6 a mile. The program only covers ambulance rides if a doctor certifies that other modes of transportation would endanger a patient’s health. That happens rarely in most parts of the country. But not here.

Dozens of New Jersey ambulance companies—most of them headquartered within 15 miles of Paterson—billed Medicare for unusually large numbers of non-emergency ambulance rides in 2012, a ProPublica analysis of recently released Medicare payment data found.

Some 37 operators claimed an average of 50 trips or more per patient, collecting more than $46.5 million from Medicare that year. By comparison, in 33 other states, not a single ambulance company billed Medicare for that many rides per patient, the analysis showed.

In interviews, New Jersey ambulance providers insisted they followed Medicare’s eligibility rules, but several acknowledged hearing of others who inflate the bill for rides by signing up patients who don’t need the service—a form of fraud. Competition for rides has become so cutthroat, one operator said, that some providers pay patients up to $4,000 in cash to switch to their companies.

“A couple of providers have said that there’s other providers who are paying patients,” said Robert Davis, owner of Alert Ambulance Service in Lakewood, N.J., and president of the Medical Transportation Association of New Jersey, an industry trade group. “That would be illegal.”

Davis’ company bills for fewer rides per patient than many. “The patients we won’t take by stretcher, you see somebody else doing it,” he said.

Evidence has been building for years that Medicare is likely overpaying for ambulances to ferry New Jersey dialysis patients to and from their thrice-weekly treatments. The number of dialysis-related ambulance rides increased 857 percent in the state from 2002 to 2011, more than three times the national average, according to a report from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ inspector general.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced recently that it would begin requiring prior authorization for certain types of ambulance rides in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and South Carolina, states with unusually high utilization rates and costs.

But the new program won’t begin until the fall—and for now, business continues as usual.

The DaVita center in Paterson is the state’s largest, with 60 treatment stations that sometimes run 19 hours a day. By 9 a.m. on a recent day, ambulances were coming and going every few minutes as the first shift of patients was departing and the second arriving. Patients were wheeled in, some with blue bags labeled “DaVita” sitting beside or behind them.

Ambulance usage appears substantially higher at the Paterson facility than at other large clinics, including those run by DaVita, the nation’s second-largest dialysis chain. Ambulance companies dominate the list of service providers that most frequently see Paterson patients within 30 days of a treatment there, Medicare data shows. That’s not the case at large DaVita centers outside of Northern New Jersey, where doctors, labs and hospitals are more likely to see patients after treatments.

In a statement, DaVita said it does not “have a financial interest in how a patient is transported to and from treatments,” but acknowledged it was aware of concerns with ambulance providers’ practices.

“We understand that this particular geographic area has a fiercely competitive ambulance services market and that some of these companies have resorted to aggressive and questionable tactics in the fight for market share,” DaVita’s statement said. “As a matter of fact, we have sent cease-and-desist letters to companies that have attempted to solicit business inside our centers.”

Doctors who oversee dialysis clinics in other regions called the ambulance traffic jam at DaVita St. Joseph’s highly unusual.

At Kennedy Dialysis Center, a hospital-based facility in southern New Jersey, just 12 of the clinic’s 170 patients arrive for their appointments by ambulance, said Dr. Joseph Pitone, its medical director, and Jeffrey Jin, its lead social worker. Only a dialysis facility whose patients come predominantly from nursing homes would need so many ambulances—an unlikely scenario, Pitone noted.

Philadelphia nephrologist Joel Glickman, medical director at one of Penn Medicine’s dialysis centers, agreed.

“That really, really sounds excessive,” he said of the ambulances outside DaVita St. Joseph’s in Paterson. “I’ll tell you that one of our facilities has 36 stations, and three or four ambulances at a time is what I’ll see outside. We don’t have room for 25. That sounds shocking to me, that number, shocking.”

People typically qualify for Medicare because of their age or disabilities, but because of a special provision established by the federal government in 1972, dialysis patients qualify because of their diagnosis, end-stage kidney disease.

Medicare spent almost $24 billion on their care in 2011, of which more than $890 million was for ambulance rides.

The bill for ambulances varied widely by state. According to the U.S. Renal Data System, Medicare spent about $3,300 per hemodialysis patient nationally on ambulance rides in 2011. It spent $10,000 per patient in New Jersey.

ProPublica’s analysis showed Freedom Emergency Medical Services of Hillsborough, N.J., billed for the most rides per patient in the country in 2012, frequently taking people to and from the DaVita St. Joseph’s clinic. Freedom transported only 14 Medicare patients that year, but each received an average of 275 rides, the data shows. Medicare paid the company $829,000.

“My patients are all qualified to ride in an ambulance because of the kind of illness they have,” said Sunny Ewere, the company’s chief executive. “I have sick patients.”

But Ewere said some patients switch companies and give vague reasons for doing so. Rumors abound about inducements, though he says he has no direct knowledge of this. “The rate at which patients switch to other companies is alarming. What happens, why they change, nobody will tell you.”

He said he does not pay patients to choose his company. “As a Christian, I will never, never give a dime to a patient to follow me because it means I’m taking food from somebody else’s table…don’t know what they are doing, but I will never do that.”

In a follow-up statement, Ewere said his company had been audited four times by Medicare and found to meet its requirements.

Speedy Mobility Services also ranked among the top billers for ambulance rides per person in 2012. The company’s owner, Faiz Abdulatif, said its rides were all legitimate, but acknowledged he’s heard of other companies giving cash to patients in exchange for business. He said he lost a patient earlier this year when an EMT he fired for drinking on the job signed the patient on with his new company.

“A patient will cost you up to $4,000 to switch from one to another,” he said, adding he does not pay patients.

Speedy Mobility collected $561,000 from Medicare in 2012 for providing 14 patients with an average of 186 rides apiece.

Abdulatif and other ambulance company owners said the competition for Medicare patients partly reflects changes in New Jersey’s Medicaid program, for which many dialysis patients also qualify because of low income and disability.

In 2009, state Medicaid officials hired an outside contractor to administer the benefit for ambulance rides. Ambulance owners say the contractor lowered reimbursement rates and embraced cheaper modes of transportation, such as liveries, causing some transport companies to drop out of Medicaid and focus on Medicare.

Over roughly the same period, the number of licensed EMS agencies and companies in New Jersey has increased rapidly, jumping from 350 in 2008 to 472 this year, according to the state Department of Health.

Medicare officials said in a statement that the agency’s billing contractors “analyze claims to determine provider compliance with Medicare coverage, coding and billing rules and take appropriate corrective action when providers are found to be non-compliant.” That includes educating providers and trying to “correct the behavior.”

Davis, president of the Medical Transportation Association of New Jersey, said he supports Medicare’s new push to verify that patients need the rides the program is covering.

“The ones that need it will get it and the ones that don’t won’t,” he said.

Medicare has reined in ambulance rides elsewhere. About five years ago, in Puerto Rico, it began requiring that two physicians agree that ambulance transportation was needed. Medicare’s average cost per patient for rides plummeted from $25,401 in 2009 to $3,409 in 2011, U.S. Renal Data System records show. The requirement remains in place.

Separately, a Medicare contractor limited dialysis patients in Texas to 12 transports a year to and from clinics beginning in 2010. Ambulance transports dropped 64 percent from 2007 to 2011, compared to an 18 percent increase nationally, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) reported.

CMS also has issued a moratorium preventing new ambulance companies from signing up for Medicare in and around Houston and Philadelphia, citing widespread allegations of fraud.

In Philadelphia, the U.S. Attorney’s office has filed eight criminal cases against transport companies and/or their employees, accusing some of paying patients to bill for unneeded rides to dialysis. All but two of the defendants have pleaded guilty or have been sentenced. One person was acquitted and the other had charges dropped against him.

Prosecutors had video showing some patients walking to and from ambulances, or even being driven to dialysis in personal vehicles instead of the ambulances for which Medicare was billed, Assistant U.S. Attorney Beth Leahy said.

“It’s direct evidence that these patients are ambulatory,” she said, “that they don’t need to be transported by ambulance, yet the companies are submitting claims to Medicare stating that the transport by ambulance is medically necessary for their wellbeing.”