ASCs to include ordering/referring physician names, NPIs on claims for diagnostic radiology services
HIPAA Weekly Advisor, September 15, 2008
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to HIPAA Weekly Advisor!
CMS has issued MLN Matters 6129 (based on Transmittal R5172CP), which clarifies changes affecting ambulatory surgery centers (ASC) that submit claims to Medicare Administrative Contractors or carriers for services provided to Medicare beneficiaries.
Effective January 1, 2009, ASCs must report the ordering/referring physician on claims for diagnostic radiology services, similarly to other Part B claims for diagnostic services. The ordering/referring physician’s name must appear in block 17 and the physician NPI must appear in block 17B of the CMS-1500 on paper claims, and must be similarly present on electronic claims.
CMS will return claims without the ordering/referring physician’s name or NPI with claim adjustment reason code 16 (Claim/service lacks information necessary for adjudication) and one of the following remittance advice remark codes:
-
N264—Missing/incomplete/invalid ordering provider name
-
N265—Missing/incomplete/invalid ordering provider primary identifier
-
N285—Missing/incomplete/invalid referring provider name
-
N286—Missing/incomplete/invalid referring provider primary identifier
If the billing provider cannot obtain the ordering/referring provider’s NPI, and cannot find it on the NPI Registry, enter the billing provider in X12N 837 transactions or the service provider in NCPDP 5.1 transactions in the ordering/referring field as a temporary solution. This entry is subject to postpayment review.
For more information, click here.
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to HIPAA Weekly Advisor!
Comments
0 comments on “ASCs to include ordering/referring physician names, NPIs on claims for diagnostic radiology services ”
Related Products
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Identify potential Medicaid RAC target areas
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- QA:Coding multiple initial infusions
- E-mailed
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Q&A: Follow CMS' coding guidelines when using modifier -25
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- CMS has reformulated payments for some bilateral procedures
- New conflicts of interest create new challenges
- Q/A. One injection code or two?
- ED-to-inpatient transfers are flawed with safety gaps
- Searched
