Although MS-DRGs have stolen the spotlight since CMS implemented them in 2007, hospitals are increasingly using All Patient Refined DRGs (APR-DRG) to compile the most accurate assessment of patient severity of illness (SOI) and risk of mortality (ROM). Cheryl M. Manchenton, RN, BSN, and Tamara A. Hicks, RN, BSN, MHA, CCS, CCDS, ACM, describe why APR-DRGs are the most widely-used SOI and ROM-adjusted DRGs and how organizations can use them to their advantage.
QUESTION: A physician documents in an operative report debridement of a necrotic muscle (not due to an open wound). Must the physician also document how the muscle is removed to report ICD-9-CM procedure code 83.45 (other myectomy)? Is this considered excisional or nonexcisional debridement? What documentation is required to code the removal of a necrotic portion of a muscle?
While we know the implementation date of ICD-10 may change to the proposed 2014 deadline, healthcare organizations must keep moving forward with preparations. Annie Boynton, BS, RHIT, CPC, CCS, CPC-H, CCS-P, CPC-P, CPC-I, CPhT, explains how organizations can use the additional time to better handle the change process associated with ICD-10, especially planning for education and training.
Inpatient acute care hospitals could see a 2.3% increase in payment rates under the fiscal year (FY) 2013 Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) proposed rule, released April 24. The 2.3% is a net update after inflation, improvements in productivity, a statutory adjustment factor, and adjustments for hospital documentation and coding changes.
The additions and revisions to the ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting in 2012 include some new information that coders should be aware of in preparation for ICD-10-CM/PCS implementation. Sandy Nicholson, MA, RHIA, and Shelley C. Safian, PhD, MAOM/HSM, CCS-P, CPC-H, CPC-I, CHA, explore some of the biggest guideline changes.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Trailblazer Health Enterprises, LLC, the Medicare administrative contractor (MAC) for Jurisdiction 4 (i.e., Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas) stated in a February 21 notice that about 68% of reviewed claims billed with MS-DRG 470 (joint replacement or reattachment of lower extremity without MCC) resulted in denials. The MAC cited missing or insufficient documentation as the reason for 96% of these denials.
Coders who keep in mind the injuries that define multiple significant trauma are more likely to identify these cases and assign DRGs based on this classification when present. Joel Moorhead, MD, PhD, CPC, and Beverly (Cross) Selby, RHIT, CCS, examine what defines multiple significant trauma and discuss the coding guidelines for these sometimes complicated cases.
QUESTION: Can a patient have encephalopathy after surgery? For example, a patient becomes confused post-surgery and is transferred from the medical-surgical floor to the intensive care unit, where he or she receives high doses of pain medication via IV. However, the patient recovers well and the confusion disappears after the IV fluids and reduction in pain medication and oxygen. Would it be appropriate to query the physician regarding encephalopathy and its possible cause, or would this be a red flag for auditors? The situation did extend the patient’s length of stay by one day.
Robert S. Gold, MD, discusses updates to the code definitions and exclusions for various lung diseases, such as pulmonary insufficiency and respiratory failure, and cautions coders about the potential for over-reporting conditions that patients don't have or for identifying conditions that do not meet the intent of the codes.
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.
A great storyteller understands that it’s all in the details. Perhaps it’s the back-story about a particular character or maybe it’s the little facts peppered throughout the tale, but it’s the details that convey the essence of the story. Likewise, some ICD-10-CM injury codes tell only part of a patient’s story. Lolita M. Jones, RHIA, CCS, and Donna M. Smith, RHIA, discuss how to report associated injuries and complications and also talk about why it’s so important to have a firm grasp on anatomy and physiology to ensure accurate coding.
The American Hospital Association does not plan to “convert” past issues of Coding Clinic for ICD-10-CM/PCS. Lynne Spryszak, RN, CCDS, CPC, discusses why this decision has caused concern among coders and clinical documentation improvement specialists, who for years have relied on the guidance published in Coding Clinic to assist with coding complicated diagnoses or procedures.
CMS issued Transmittal 1039 in the One-Time Notification Manual on February 3, which provides guidance on reporting claims submissions and date span requirements for 33X Type of Bill, which pertains to Home Health Agencies, containing ICD-10 codes with dates of discharge on or after October 1, 2013.
The January issue of Medicare Quarterly Provider Compliance Newsletter (volume 2, issue 2) addressed a number of recovery audit findings, including ambulance services separately payable during an inpatient hospital stay, diseases and disorders of the circulatory system, and minor surgery and other treatment billed as inpatient stay.
The task of assigning the appropriate present on admission (POA) indicator for various conditions is still fraught with a number of challenges—many of which stem from problems coders have in obtaining clear, explicit physician documentation. Colleen Stukenberg, MSN, RN, CCDS, CMSRN, and Donna D. Wilson, RHIA, CCS, CCDS, discuss how gleaning the necessary details from the records can be a daunting task in and of itself, and then inconsistencies among various physicians makes assigning POA indicators that much harder.
Just when you thought you had your RAC processes in place, more changes appear on the horizon. CMS wasn't shy about making changes to the Medicare RAC program in 2011. For example, the second half of the year saw demand letters shift to become the responsibility of Medicare Administrative Contractors (MAC)—a change that went into effect January 3, 2012. Joseph Zebrowitz, MD, and Debbie Mackaman, RHIA, CHCO, comment on this change as well as other updates, including the RAC Statement of Work, the Medicaid RAC final rule, and the new pre-bill demonstration program.
QUESTION: A physician admits a 30-year-old male with lower abdominal pain. A CT scan showed consistency with perforated appendicitis. However, the patient had an appendectomy 10 months prior. The physician documents "appendiceal stump syndrome." How should I code this case?
A coder can be misled when coding directly from an encoder, and heavy dependence on one can ultimately affect a coder’s skill set. Glenn Krauss, BBA, RHIA, CCS, CCS-P, CPUR, FCS, PCS, C-CDIS, CCDS, explains that a critical limitation of encoders is that they cannot physically reason. This inability to deduce often contributes to inaccurate ICD-9-CM code assignment at the expense of clinical accuracy in the reporting of disease processes, not to mention potential reimbursement and measures of continuity of care post-hospitalization.
Times are changing, and, most likely, so are the jobs of your health information management (HIM) staff members. In some cases, there's a sudden addition of responsibilities, such as the implementation of the recovery audit contractor program. In other cases, the increased use of technology triggers a shift. If these changes aren't managed appropriately, you may end up with declines in performance, careless errors, low productivity, or diminished quality. Elizabeth Layman, PhD, RHIA, CCS, FAHIMA, shares her approach to HIM department and job restructuring.
Computer-assisted coding (CAC) is a hot topic these days. Many industry experts claim that CAC is the wave of the future—that its accuracy has been proven, and that humans cannot match its productivity. With CAC, elements such as fatigue, stress, and inexperience are no longer factors that can negatively affect code assignment. Many articles and vendors sing its praises. However, is it really all that? Robert S. Gold, MD, and Lori Cushing, RHIT, CCS, discuss some relevant concepts.
The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) stated in its recent publication, “Hospital Incident Reporting Systems Do Not Capture Most Patient Harm,” that a series of reports examining adverse events in hospitals shows that for the hospitals it surveyed, the incident reporting systems only tracked approximately 14% of incidents.
QUESTION: I have a question regarding the coding of a computer-assisted fluoroscopy. Consider the following documentation: Use and interpretation of intraoperative fluoroscopy. After positioning the patient, the posterior lumbar area was prepped and draped in the standard sterile fashion. The prior incision was marked with a marking pen. C-arm fluoroscopy was used to map an incision extending from the tip of the spinous process of L2 to that of L5. After performing a time-out, this incision was infiltrated with local anesthetic and incised with a 10-blade scalpel. Dissection proceeded through the subcutaneous fat using Bovie monopolar cautery. Self-retaining retractors were applied. Dissection then proceeded in the midline through the avascular plane through the lumbodorsal fascia and musculature using the Bovie. Self-retaining retractors were deepened. Would you assign a procedure code for the fluoroscopy for this inpatient procedure or would it just be inclusive in the procedure? There seems to be confusion when comparing this procedure in an inpatient setting vs. an outpatient setting.
The goals of coding should always be ensuring data accuracy and capturing a patient's true clinical picture. Knowing the intent of an ICD-9-CM code is crucial. However, coding guidelines and official coding guidance sometimes conflict with these goals, putting coders between a rock and a hard place. Robert S. Gold, MD, examines cardiomyopathy, a disease that affects the heart muscle, as an example of a diagnosis that is frequently misreported due to inaccurate guidance.
Coders should already be familiar with the 285 new, revised, and deleted ICD-9-CM codes that CMS finalized for fiscal year (FY) 2012. However, it’s critical that providers also examine how these changes directly affect MS-DRG assignment. Robert Gold, MD, examines a number of these changes, including MS-DRG assignment related to cardiac-specific comorbidities, autologous bone marrow transplants, excisional debridement, and thoracic aneurysm repair.
Although the New Year marked the deadline for Version 5010 compliance, CMS recently reminded providers that it will not exercise enforcement until April 1, 2012. Despite the 90-day discretionary period, CMS urged providers that they should complete the transition to Version 5010 as soon as possible. This extension will not have any effect on the implementation date for ICD-10-CM/PCS, which remains set for October 1, 2013.
QUESTION: A patient had an aneurysm at arteriovenous (AV) fistula, and the physician excluded the aneurysm between two clamps, ends oversewn, and excised the aneurysm. The physician used a tunneler to tunnel an 8 mm Flixine graft from the arterial to the venous side, and two end-to-side anastomoses were then performed at the vein and arterial end. Should we report code 39.42 (revision of AV shunt for renal dialysis) with code 38.63 (other excision of vessel), or code 38.43 (resection of vessel with replacement), or another code(s)?
When Jim Brown, FHFMA, RHIA, CCS, started working at Jefferson Regional Medical Center in early November 2010, he quickly realized that there were a number of opportunities to improve their health information management operations and efficiencies. In this article, Brown shares strategies and tips for how he and his management team were able to identify areas that needed improvement and reduce department expenses and come in 9.5% ($149K) under budget for the end of fiscal year 2011.
Medicare Advantage plans rely on the Hierarchical Condition Categories (HCC) system for reimbursement. HCC payments are linked to the individual health risk profiles for the members in the plan. MA Plans use ICD-9-CM codes as the primary indicators of each member’s health status. Therefore, it is essential for MA plans to make sure that providers capture the complete diagnostic profile of patients through accurate and complete physician coding. Holly J. Cassano, CPC, explains why coders need to have a complete understanding of the HCC process and risk adjustment, as well as the effects on the provider, the member, the MA plan, and overall reimbursement.
