OIG review finds outlier payment errors in one of the nation's top hospitals
APCs Weekly Monitor, August 27, 2003
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to APCs Weekly Monitor!
| ||
| Briefings on APCs FREE Sample | APC Answer Letter FREE Sample | HIMINFO.com |
| Friday,
More is not better What disease increased by 49% from 1991 to 2000? The answer will appear in next week's APC Weekly Monitor, or be one of the first five to e-mail the correct answer and win a 3-month free trial to one of our APC newsletters!
LAST WEEK'S ANSWER: "Briefings on APCs" is a monthly newsletter devoted entirely to managing under APCs, including tips, charts, and advice from the experts. "APC
Answer Letter" is a question and answer publication - readers supply
the questions, our experts supply the answers. Click on the links to find
out more.
THE MONITOR'S ADVISORY BOARD Keith Siddel, Andrea Clark Cheryl D'Amato, Julie Downey, Carole Gammarino, Julia R. Palmer Valerie Rinkle, MPA, On Himinfo.com |
OIG review finds outlier payment errors in one of the nation's top hospitals A recent Office of the Inspector General (OIG) review of a Chicago-based academic medical center showed it had received inaccurate OPPS outlier reimbursement. But not by much. Out of $83,805 worth of outlier payments reviewed, Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center was overpaid by $7,726 and underpaid by $7,752. The facility is required to return the overpayment, and will attempt to recoup the loss of the $7,752, resulting pretty much in a wash. But all hospitals may not be this lucky. Take notes and learn from Rush's experience. The OIG reviewed Medicare outpatient claims with outlier payments of at least 85% of the total claim reimbursement for services performed August 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001. Out of a sample of 50 claims, 38 were reimbursed incorrectly. The 35 overpayments were not the fault of the facility, however. Its fiscal intermediary's claim processing system had "an outlier pricing issue" which caused these errors. Rush did make a mistake when it did not use HCPCS codes when billing for implantable devices, creating the three underpayments. The hospital would have received higher reimbursement if the HCPCS codes had been correctly used. Your APCs Weekly Monitor is a free weekly e-zine from HCPro, publisher of Briefings on APCs, the monthly newsletter devoted entirely to managing under APCs, and the newsletter, APC Answer Letter, with answers to readers' questions about coding for APCs. The Monitor is a complimentary companion publication with a specific mission: to provide answers to your tough questions about the APC regulations. If you have a question about APC coding that you would like addressed
in the Monitor, post it on our Web site at himinfo.com.
Each week, our team of experts answers a question that will appeal to
the majority of readers. The elected question and the corresponding
answer are delivered to your inbox every Friday. TODAY'S TOPIC: Wound coding Question: For a patient seen in the wound center for wound treatment using debridement, do we code and bill both a visit code and the debridement CPT code? For a patient seen in the burn center for burn treatment with whirlpool and dressing changes, do we code and bill both a visit code and the whirlpool/dressing change code? Answer: When a patient is seen in the wound care center for wound treatment via debridement, the coding depends on the circumstances of the visit. Was the patient presenting specifically for the debridement or was the patient presenting for evaluation of the wound? If for debridement, only the wound debridement code would be used. If the patient was presenting for evaluation of the wound and after evaluation it was determined that debridement was necessary, both the E/M code and the debridement codes should be billed, since the patient was evaluated and the management was determined based on that evaluation. Make sure the debridement was medically necessary. The documentation in the medical record should be evaluated to determine how to code each individual case. When the patient is presenting specifically for whirlpool with dressing changes, only the whirlpool should be coded. If the patient presents for evaluation and it is determined that whirlpool treatment is necessary, an E/M visit code is billed. Dressing changes should not be separately billed. If only a dressing change is performed, an E/M code should be assigned. PAY PER VIEW: Doctors aren't the only providers with documentation deficits In HIM and compliance circles, we're always discussing the lack of thorough documentation by physicians. But documentation problems often go beyond the doctor-to nurses, therapists, and case managers. Read more HERE. The cost is $10. Medical Records Briefing subscribers have free access via their online subscriptions. ASK THE EXPERT: We have been reporting the new 2003 CPT codes and noticed a distinct difference in coding and documentation instructions for excision lesions. How will this affect our APC payment? Read HERE for the expert's answer! Coding and Compliance Feature Article of the Month: Cross-training, certification focus push Florida coders up the ladder
Questions from readers are answered by a team of experts working in the APC area within the health care industry. Their answers are provided as advice. Readers should consult the federal regulations governing OPPS, related CMS sources, and with their local fiscal intermediary before making any decisions regarding the application of OPPS to their particular situations. Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to APCs Weekly Monitor! Related Products
Most Popular
Related Articles |
