Contractors to deny claim line items with -GZ modifier
HIM Connection, February 15, 2011
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to HIM Connection!
by Judith Kares, JD, CPC, regulatory specialist for HCPro, Inc
In two recently issued transmittals, CMS ordered all contractors – MACs, CERTs, RACs, PSCs and ZPICs – to automatically deny all claim line items with the -GZ modifier attached. Specifically, contractors are not to perform complex medical review on those line items that are submitted with a -GZ modifier.
Although the transmittals focused primarily on applying the new edit to the claims of physicians, other practitioners and suppliers, institutional providers have used the -GZ modifier for some time to identify certain types of non-covered services. These two recent transmittals are just part of CMS’ continuing efforts to clarify the definition, use, and operational impact of certain modifiers intended to identify what the provider (professional, institutional, or supplier) believes to be non-covered services.
According to CMS, modifier -GZ must be used when a provider expects Medicare to deny an item or service as not reasonable and necessary, but the provider has not provided the required notice (an Advance Beneficiary Notification [ABN]) to the beneficiary prior to furnishing that item or service. Medicare expects providers to be familiar with applicable Medicare coverage policies, and, thus, able to make such determinations.
When an item or service is expected to be denied for lack of medical necessity, CMS generally requires providers to notify the beneficiary of his or her financial responsibility for that service, prior to its performance, in order to shift the financial responsibility from the provider to the beneficiary.
Read more on the MedicareFind blog.
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to HIM Connection!
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
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- QA:Coding multiple initial infusions
- Identify potential Medicaid RAC target areas
- 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
- CMS has reformulated payments for some bilateral procedures
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- 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
