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?
A study conducted by Johns Hopkins Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality finds that common measures used by government agencies and public rankings to rate the safety of hospitals, such as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s patient safety indicators, and hospital-acquired conditions, do not accurately capture the quality of care provided.
While coders can choose among many CPT codes, provider documentation may sometimes not differentiate between similar options. Lori-Lynne A. Webb, CPC, CCS-P, CCP, CHDA, COBGC, CDIP, writes about some tricky procedures to distinguish and how coders can ensure they’re reporting which procedures providers actually performed. Note: To access this free article, make sure you first register here if you do not have a paid subscription. Once you have set up your free registration, you can log in and access this article by clicking here.
Jugna Shah, MPH, and Valerie Rinkle, MPA, recap CMS’ proposed changes to packaging logic in the 2017 OPPS proposed rule, as well as plans for new and deleted modifiers.
CMS is proposing to replace status indicator E (services not paid, non-allowed item or service) with two more specific status indicators in the 2017 OPPS proposed rule. The agency proposes status indicator E1 for items and services not covered by Medicare and E2 for items and services for which pricing information or claims data are not available.
Q: Our surgeons perform a lot of blepharoptosis repairs. Because each patient is different, different amounts of eyelid tissue has to be removed. One of our surgeons wants to set a maximum amount that is included in the procedure and then charge a blepharoplasty to cover anything over and above this maximum. We are trying to figure out how to even start to operationalize this. It seems to us that this is just a “patient differential” in the surgery like you have in any other surgery. Is there any guidance or standard for this?
