HHS’ proposed rule announcing a one-year delay of the implementation of ICD-10-CM/PCS was printed in the April 17 edition of the Federal Register . If HHS finalizes the delay, ICD-10-CM/PCS would become effective October 1, 2014.
Each year the number of quality measures being used for public reporting across provider settings increases. Kathy Giannangelo, MA, RHIA, CCS, CPHIMS, FAHIMA, and Linda Hyde, RHIA, explain why organizations that have not started to evaluate the impact ICD-10 will have on their quality measure data should start now.
Unfortunately, ICD-10-PCS is not very comparable to the current ICD-9-CM volume 3 codes inpatient coders currently use. But coders shouldn’t despair, according to Sandy Nicholson, MA, RHIA, Jennifer Avery, CCS, CPC-H, CPC, CPC-I and Robert S. Gold, MD —ICD-10-PC coding may even be fun once coders get the hang of it.
QUESTION: How will we be able to code for procedures such as Billroth procedures, Roux-en-Y anastomoses, and Whipple’s procedure when eponyms won’t be used in ICD-10-PCS?
QUESTION: For a healing traumatic finger amputation with concern but no diagnosis of infection at the amputation site (the physician prescribed Bactrim), is it correct to assign code V54.89 (other orthopedic aftercare) and ICD-9-CM code 886.x (traumatic amputation of finger)?
CMS has posted a summary report from the discussion of procedure codes at the ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting held March 5. The agenda addressed only a small number of code requests due to the implementation of the partial code freeze.
If you're going to spend time and resources to conduct a coding audit, you certainly want to ensure effective and informative results. Joe Rivet, CCS-P, CPC, CEMC, CPMA, CICA, CHRC, CHPC, CHC, and Julie Daube, BS, RHIT, CCS, CCS-P, discuss how factors such as timing, senior-level buy in, risk areas, a defined scope, and a commitment to follow-through can help make the coding audit a valuable tool in your organization.
During the last year, the buzz from the health information management (HIM) and coding community has consistently reflected that, as a whole, the industry continues to feel the strain of tight budgets and squeeze of limited resources, especially with the approach of ICD-10 implementation. Coders reacted to the effects this has had on their compensation levels in the 2011 JustCoding Coder Salary Survey, the results of which are also discussed.
As you run down your mental to-do list for the rest of the afternoon, you realize you're double-booked for multiple meetings, and you're having trouble prioritizing because your phone keeps buzzing with new e-mail notifications. If you're a health information management (HIM) director, this scenario likely repeats day in and day out. Luckily Monica Pappas, RHIA, Patti Reisinger, RHIT, CCS, and Tesa Topley, RHIA, provide tips and strategies for HIM directors to help manage all that they juggle, and prevent stress from getting out of control.
CMS released in February a fact sheet, “Global Surgery,” which contains information regarding the components of a global surgery package, including guidance about billing and payment rules for surgeries, endoscopies, and global surgical packages that are split between two or more physicians.
Coders are constantly analyzing documentation for clues and details that may indicate the need for a physician query. For example, coders should watch for clinical evidence that points to a condition that the physician may not have explicitly documented. Coders also need to be wary of reporting conditions without accounting for context or other clinical indicators in the documentation. William E. Haik, MD, CDIP, explains how this can lead to inappropriate reporting of an MCC, for example, that the overall clinical picture does not support.
QUESTION: We are having a discussion about how to code when the studies section of the history and physical (H&P) indicates that the chest x-ray showed atelectasis or that an electrocardiogram showed right bundle branch block with anterior fascicular block. Some of us believe that it’s okay to code the diagnosis (i.e., atelectasis) if the provider states that the testing “showed” the diagnosis, whereas others believe we cannot code the diagnosis as it is a lab/testing result, and the provider could just be reading the results onto his or her H&P dictation. I realize you cannot go to the testing result itself and code from it directly. However, I argue that it would be okay to code for it because the provider is using this information to make decisions about care, testing, and procedures, and he or she indicates the testing results in the H&P body. What are your thoughts?
These days, documentation improvement and compliance are at the forefront of coders' minds. In some cases, coders are led completely astray by bad data and physician documentation that isn't entirely accurate. Robert S. Gold, MD, emphasizes that it’s important for coders to always look at the larger clinical picture in the medical record—not just a documented laboratory result or change in vital sign. Gold applies this philosophy and examines a number of conditions, including anemia, acute kidney injury, congestive heart failure, and myocardial infarction.
How does medical necessity get “overlooked” on the physician side as well as the inpatient side? Case managers, utilization review staff, physician advisors, CDI specialists, and coders, each carry out specific duties and responsibilities when reviewing medical records. Glenn Krauss, BBA, RHIA, CCS, CCS-P, CPUR, FCS, PCS, C-CDIS, CCDS, examines contributing factors and takes a closer look at guidelines Trailblazer Health recently issued defining specific joint replacement (DRG 470) documentation that both hospitals and physicians should follow to support medical necessity.
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?
What should inpatient coders remember about the three-day payment window requirements? Although it may seem counterintuitive, Debbie Mackaman, RHIA, CHCO, and Marion G. Kruse, RN, MBA, explain that inpatient coders need to be aware of certain outpatient services that they may need to include on inpatient claims, as well as when they need to alert billers to assign condition code 51.
When a provider notes a diagnosis on the hospital-acquired condition (HAC) list, coders must be diligent about looking throughout the rest of the chart to ensure documentation clearly indicates the presence of a HAC. For example, if the condition is a pressure ulcer, the condition may have been present on admission. Shelia Bullock, RN, BSN, MBA, CCM, CCDS, and Beverly Cunningham, MS, RN, address the importance of coder participation as members of hospital HAC committees and the development of best practices to ensure accurate HAC and HCAC reporting.
Physicians use a lot of shortcuts and abbreviations. Some of them may even make it onto the official abbreviation list at their hospital. Some don’t. And even if they did, some physicians will use the wrong term. Robert S. Gold, MD, discusses an example that was featured in the January Medicare Quarterly Provider Compliance Newsletter regarding proper identification and ICD-9-CM coding of a bronchoscopy with biopsy (TBB) vs. a bronchoscopic lung biopsy (TBLB).
Special Edition MLN Matters article #SE1210 , “Recovery Auditors Findings Resulting from Medical Necessity Reviews of Renal and Urinary Tract Disorders,” outlines recovery auditor findings upon completion of medical necessity reviews. In the article, which addresses documentation and billing for inpatients, recovery auditors concluded that providers had been admitting patients even for clinical situations for which outpatient observation services would have been appropriate.
Even if you didn’t make a personal New Year's resolution, you should make a professional one: to be more conscientious when scrutinizing physician documentation. Experts say every coder should scrutinize physician documentation, especially with ICD-10-CM/PCS looming on the horizon. Glenn Krauss, BBA, RHIA, CCS, CCS-P, CPUR, C-CDI, CCDS, and Dinh Nguyen examine the role coders play in determining diagnosis quality and accuracy.
