Opinions on proposed payment changes to type B EDs vary
APCs Weekly Monitor, October 31, 2008
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to APCs Weekly Monitor!
Recent CMS data indicate that Type B visits are more expensive than clinic visits but cost less than Type A ED visits. The agency classifies most EDs as Type A, offering services 24/7. By contrast, Type B EDs offer emergency services but are open fewer hours.
CMS now pays for emergency visits provided in the Type B ED at the same rate as a non-emergency visit to an outpatient department. Under the proposed rule, CMS would reimburse the most intensive emergency visits with an APC shared by both types, on the premise that costs for these services are similar in Type A and Type B EDs.
To read the complete article, click here. Briefings on APCs subscribers have free access to this article in the October issue via their online subscriptions.
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to APCs Weekly Monitor!
Comments
0 comments on “Opinions on proposed payment changes to type B EDs vary ”
Related Products
-
Briefings on The Joint Commission
Briefings on The Joint Commission will help you with all of your accreditation and survey preparation needs. Every month...
-
The CMS Survey Coordinator's Handbook
There is no reason to struggle with CMS requirements. HCPro has teamed up with former contracted CMS surveyor Jeff Coleman...
-
Stark Law, 2nd edition: A user's guide to achieving compliance
This updated version of HCPro's Stark Law best seller, first published in 2005—and now co-authored by former CMS Stark...
-
The Medicare Part B Billing Manual for Long-Term Care
This 150-page book breaks down Part B billing into separate revenue streams and includes examples of how to fill out the...
-
Observation Services: Assign Proper Level of Care to Prevent Denials
During this two-hour audio conference, our expert speaker reviews level of care regulations, addresses medical necessity...
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
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Identify potential Medicaid RAC target areas
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- QA:Coding multiple initial infusions
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- 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
- 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?
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- ED-to-inpatient transfers are flawed with safety gaps
- Searched