Clinical case management
Case Management Monthly, August 1, 2009
This is an excerpt from a member only article. To read the article in its entirety, please login or subscribe to Case Management Monthly.
The three-year Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) demonstration project that concluded in March 2008 added fuel to an already contentious process by second-guessing hospitals and physicians in the determination of appropriate patient status for hospital admission. As of March 27, 2008, the RACs’ efforts at identifying alleged overpayments led to the following successes:
$391.3 million, medically unnecessary services (40%)
$331.8 million, incorrectly coded (35%)
$74.3 million, no/insufficient documentation (8%)
$160.2 million, other (17%)
The classification of medically unnecessary services as a measure and justification of improper payment setting hospital recoupments was unequivocally controversial in the demonstration project and will remain so in the permanent RAC program. Why? The determination of medical necessity for inpatient admission versus outpatient observation is challenging at best, incorporating by definition elements of subjectivity, clinical impression, and individualized medical decision-making.
The challenge
Although the language in the Medicare Benefit Policy Manual, Chapter 1, Section 10, appears to be straightforward, the practical application and individualization to a wide variety of clinical presentations to the ER are quite challenging.
Adding to the complexity is the common problem of physicians’ lack of understanding that observation status is strictly an administrative financial classification of patients seen in the ER, office, or outpatient clinic who are determined to have an unstable or uncertain condition potentially serious enough to warrant close observation, but are not serious enough to warrant admission to the hospital.
This is an excerpt from a member only article. To read the article in its entirety, please login or subscribe to Case Management Monthly.
Related Products
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- HIPAA Q&A: Flu shot requirement for hospital employees
- HealthDataInsights posts new issues for medical necessity claims
- Running an effective peer review committee meeting
- Sneak Peek: Effort underway to establish caseload benchmarks
- New FAQ posted on storing laryngoscope blades
- Q&A: Incidental disclosures and patient privacy
- Tip: Perform your own internal investigation prior to government audit
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- HIPAA 5010 deadline extended, but threat remains, says AMA
- HHS task force: Consider privacy, security with text messages
- E-mailed
-
- Running an effective peer review committee meeting
- HIPAA Q&A: Flu shot requirement for hospital employees
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- HHS task force: Consider privacy, security with text messages
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Tip: Correctly code bilateral pain management procedures
- 2012 CPT code changes for ASCs: Shoulder and knee scopes and pain management
- COT basics to best
- Documentation and coding for toxic metabolic encephalopathy
- Guidance and tact key to compliant, effective physician queries
- Searched
