Q: Our facility has a question about how other hospitals address this scenario: Patient is discharged to home (discharge status code 01). No documentation exists in the medical record to support post-acute care. Several months later, our Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) notifies us that the patient indeed went to post-acute care after discharge. The MAC retracts our entire payment. We need to resubmit the claim with the correct discharge status code. We are reluctant to do so because nothing in the medical record supports the post-acute care provided. Are other hospitals amending the record? If so, which department is adding the amended note?
Many coders and CDI specialists memorized previous Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting , Coding Clinic for ICD-9-CM and do not have to give them a lot of forethought before applying correctly to their day-to-day reviews. Although many of the Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting remain the same in ICD-10, none of Coding Clinic's previous advice can be applied to the new code set. Without years of new Coding Clinic advice under their belts, it may take some time before the staff exhibits the same ease when applying ICD-10-CM/PCS codes to the documentation provided.
Complete capture of procedure codes in ICD-9-CM helps to ensure accurate translation to ICD-10-PCS. Donna M. Smith and Patricia L. Belluomini, RHIA, reveal coding errors—including omission of procedure codes—that make the translation process more challenging.
Quality measures, such as the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program, the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, and the Hospital-Acquired Condition (HAC) Reduction Program, form the basis of the 2015 IPPS final rule, released August 4.
ICD-10-PCS root operations Drainage, Extirpation, and Fragmentation involve removing material from the body, but in different ways. A nita Rapier, RHIT, CCS, Kristi Stanton, RHIT, CCS, CPC, and James Fee, MD, CCS, CCDS, offer tips for distinguishing between the root operations.
The 2016 IPPS final rule continues CMS’ plan to shift Medicare payments from volume to quality. Shannon Newell, RHIA, CCS, and James S. Kennedy, MD, CCS, CDIP, analyze the rule and the impact it could have on providers.
QUESTION: Recently, reviewers have denied diagnostic code 584.9 (acute renal failure [ARF]) based on lab values. The diagnosis is well documented and treated by the attending physician, but reviewers are stating the lab values do not support the diagnosis of ARF. The lab values (creatinine/blood urea nitrogen) went from normal to abnormal, and we found no definitive standards for lab parameters to meet the definition of ARF. Following coding guidelines for reporting secondary diagnoses, the ARF was clinically evaluated, the patient received therapeutic and diagnostic procedures, and there was an extended length of stay/increased nursing care. As coders, we feel it is inappropriate to question the physician’s clinical judgment, and reporting the ARF as a secondary diagnosis is correct. Based on the documentation in the record, is it appropriate to code the ARF?
Coders and CDI specialists often rely on the encoder to determine the MS-DRG. Cheryl Ericson, MS, RN, CCDS, CDIP, reviews the steps necessary to determine the MS-DRG on your own.
