CMS clarifies NPI implementation
HIPAA Weekly Advisor, November 5, 2007
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to HIPAA Weekly Advisor!
CMS clarified a few points regarding the upcoming NPI implementation process, according to an October 24 Communication.
The Communication discusses the following:
- Reasons as to why residents at teaching hospitals and academic medical centers should obtain an NPI.
- Information for Medicare providers concerning NPI implementation dates. CMS notes that it "has not yet announced the date by which an NPI will be required for primary provider fields on 837 professional electronic claims and 1500 paper claims processed by carriers, A/B MACs and DME MACs. This will occur prior to May 23, 2008; a specific date will be announced once available."
- Information for Medicare providers on common claims problems and errors that cause rejections.
- Information clarifying the NPI Requirement on Medicare Institutional Claims for January 1, 2008. CMS states the following, "effective 1/1/08, NPIs will be required to identify the primary providers (the Billing and Pay-to Providers) in Medicare electronic and paper institutional claims (i.e. 837I and UB-04 claims). You may continue to use the legacy identifier in these fields as long as you also use the NPI in these fields. This means that 837I and UB-04 claims with only legacy identifiers in the Billing and Pay-to Provider fields will be rejected starting on 1/1/08." CMS also states, "You may continue to use only legacy identifiers for the secondary provider fields in the 837I and UB-04 claims, until 5/23/08, if you choose."
- Suggestions for claims submitters as to how to test for rejections, including sending a small number of claims using NPIs only (no legacy identifiers).
For more information, click here.
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to HIPAA Weekly Advisor!
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
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- QA:Coding multiple initial infusions
- News and briefs: Oklahoma Osteopathic Association against residency bill change
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- 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
- 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?
- Q&A tackles coding questions about injections and infusions
- Joint Commission Center announces handoff communication solutions
- Inside best practice: Reduce patient falls with a stoplight
- Identify modifiable risk factors to prevent patient falls
- Searched