The healthcare industry is focused on the triple aim: reducing healthcare costs, improving patient experience, and improving the health outcomes of populations. Healthcare organizations will no longer be paid based on the volume of services provided but rather on the value of care delivery.
Those who regularly attend the annual AHIMA Convention and Exhibit no doubt have seen the exceptional quilt created each year by AHIMA member Katy Sheehy, MPA, RHIA, and sponsored by the Dames of Distinction to be bid at auction. The quilt is auctioned in support of the Linda Culp Memorial Scholarship fund, which was established in memory of the late Linda Culp, a former HIM professional, hospital chief executive officer, and AHIMA member. If you have seen the quilt, you have probably asked yourself, "Who are these people?"
Sepsis isn’t the only clinical condition with an updated definition that could impact coding and documentation. A task force of the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP) recently changed terminology related to pressure ulcers that includes new terms that are not yet part of ICD-10-CM.
CMS recently released its seventh maintenance update for National Coverage Determinations to incorporate ICD-10 and other coding updates, which may require providers to contact Medicare Administrative Contractors regarding previously submitted claims.
The addition of thousands of new diagnosis and procedure codes in a single year might typically be cause for concern for hospitals, with ICD-9-CM updates before the 2012 code freeze rarely topping more than a couple hundred per year.
Few in the healthcare industry would argue that the way the government currently pays for drugs is the most cost-effective, efficient, and equitable method possible.
Last year, as ICD-10 implementation approached, organizations throughout the U.S. reported varying levels of comfort with regard to readiness and understanding of the impact of ICD-10 on physician workflow. For some, it was business as usual. For other physicians, ICD-10 became one more check box on the list of reasons to leave practice.
CMS proposed an extensive five-year, two-phase plan to overhaul Part B drug payments for physicians and hospitals in March outside of the normal OPPS rulemaking cycle that could be implemented as early as this fall.
In our last article, I provided an overview of the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model, described in a recent Healthcare Financial Management Association webinar as one of the biggest Medicare changes since the implementation of DRGs.
Under the CJR, which began April 1, acute care hospitals in selected geographic areas assume quality and payment accountability for retrospectively calculated bundled payments for lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR) episodes.
The impact of CDI on CJR patient selection
A Medicare fee-for-service beneficiary is included in the CJR model when a claim is submitted for an inpatient encounter assigned MS-DRGs 469 or 470. These surgical MS-DRGs include total hip and knee replacements, ankle arthroplasties, partial hip replacements, lower leg, ankle and thigh reattachments, and hip resurfacing procedures. In the CJR final rule, CMS noted that the majority of the procedures in these MS-DRGs are total and partial hip replacements, and total knee replacements (see Figure 1 on p. 5).
The key CDI vulnerability associated with CJR patient selection is inaccurate MS-DRG assignment. The included MS-DRGs are replacement—not revision—procedures. Joint revision procedures are more complex, have higher costs, and are therefore assigned to different MS-DRGs (466-468, revision of hip or knee replacement with or without MCC).
If the coder omits assignment of the ICD-10-PCS code for the removal of the original device and only codes the replacement procedure, a patient with a revision—who should be assigned to MS-DRGs 466-468—will instead be misclassified into MS-DRGs 469 or 470, and will skew CJR clinical and cost outcomes.
