CMS’ proposed changes to implement Section 603 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 would reshape payments for off-campus, provider-based departments (PBD) if finalized and represent the most significant changes in the calendar year (CY) 2017 OPPS proposed rule.
CMS proposes aligning its conditional packaging logic with how it applies packaging to labs, while also proposing to delete the much-maligned modifier -L1 for separately payable laboratory tests in 2017.
CMS released the fiscal year (FY) 2017 IPPS final rule August 2, and ICD-10-CM/PCS code changes and the addition of the Medicare Outpatient Observation Notice (MOON) both had starring roles. CMS also made changes to several quality initiatives and reversed the agency's 0.2% payment reduction instituted along with the 2-midnight rule first implemented in the FY 2014 rule.
Last month, I wrote about the role of coding and CDI compliance in ensuring the clinical validity of submitted ICD-10-CM/PCS codes, which impact payment, outcomes measurement (e.g., complications, mortality, and readmissions), and patient safety.
The fiscal year (FY) 2017 IPPS final rule was released August 2 and will be published in the Federal Register August 22. The majority of the finalized updates are consistent with those outlined in the proposed rule, but with a few refinements to applicable time periods. The final rule expands and refines the number of claims-based outcomes linked to payment under these programs. Let's review a few of the key changes to support your CDI program's strategic focus for the coming year.
While the 2017 OPPS proposed rule includes a variety of tweaks and augmentations to existing regulations, its biggest impact is likely to come from its proposal to implement Section 603 provisions of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 regarding off-campus, provider-based departments (PBD) and move toward more site-neutral payment policies.
Lori-Lynne A. Webb, CPC, CCS-P, CCP, CHDA, COBGC, CDIP , writes about how computer-assisted coding software can be used to boost coding accuracy and productivity, in addition to being an important tool for the remote coder.
Robert Stein, MD, CCDS, and Shannon Newell, RHIA, CCS, co-author this article that provides insights into how clinical documentation and reported codes may impact payments and offer guidance on some common CDI challenges to strengthening data quality. Note: To access this free article, make sure you first register if you do not have a paid subscription.
Richard D. Pinson, MD, FACP, CCS , discusses the new Sepsis-3 definition and how the classification has been the subject of great controversy and consternation since its publication in The Journal of the American Medical Association.
Q: During an ICD-10-PCS Fusion, when a physician documents the use of a “structural allograft spacer” in the medical record, what sixth character would we use when coding this? Some colleagues say to use A (interbody fusion) and some say to use K (nonautologous tissue substitute). What would be the correct way to code this?
