CMS proposes IPPS changes for 2012 and beyond
HIM Connection, April 26, 2011
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to HIM Connection!
Agency continues coding adjustment, makes changes to HAC list
CMS plans limited changes to complications and comorbidities (CC) in fiscal year (FY) 2012, but proposes new MS-DRGs for excisional debridement as well as an additional hospital-acquired condition (HAC).
These and other changes are part of the inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS) proposed rule posted April 19. The proposals would make adjustments to existing IPPS policies and also pave the way for future changes as a result of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).
Overall, CMS expects a year-over-year reduction of 0.5% in payments to acute care hospitals under the FY 2012 IPPS. The reduction includes a documentation and coding adjustment of -3.15%, eliciting disappointment from the hospital community.
"We're very concerned that CMS continues to move forward with the inpatient PPS coding offset," says Joanna Kim, senior associate director for policy for the American Hospital Association in Washington, DC. "We feel that it's excessive and wrongly assumes spending on inpatient hospital care has increased solely due to changes in coding. We are, however, pleased that CMS has not proposed further documentation and coding cuts to the LTCH PPS [long-term care hospital prospective payment system]."
Gloryanne Bryant, RHIA, CCS, CCDS, regional managing director of HIM, NCAL Revenue Cycle, at Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. & Hospitals in Oakland, CA, agrees. "We believe that our efforts to improve documentation and coding actually do reflect patient severity, and we challenge CMS to look at other methodologies they're using." Bryant encourages hospitals to comment on the offset, especially if they can provide data to support their position.
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
- News and briefs: Oklahoma Osteopathic Association against residency bill change
- 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
- 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: Follow CMS' coding guidelines when using modifier -25
- 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
