Over the past couple months, HIMB has had audits on the brain. We covered the progress of the 2-midnight audits and walked you through the pass-fail meaningful use audits in detail. Now it's time to get a bird's-eye view of the 2016 audit landscape to ensure you're prepared for whatever comes your way this year.
Recovery Auditors
With 2-midnight rule audits shifting to the BFCC-QIOs, Crump predicts the Recovery Auditors will likely spend 2016 focusing on diagnosis-related group (DRG) audits and medical necessity reviews. These audits will likely focus on reviewing medical necessity for procedures, tests, and treatments in relation to what the Payment Integrity Manual states should be captured in the health information. Records that do not capture information related to local and national coverage determinations will likely be the low-hanging fruit if the Recovery Auditors are approved to focus on these reviews, says Dawn Crump, MA, SSBB, CHC, vice president of audit management solutions for CIOX Health in Alpharetta, Georgia.
To prepare for the Recovery Auditors, HIM professionals should focus on analyzing the risk at their facility. In addition, they should ensure there is a continuous feedback loop not only within the department but outside of it as well. Coding, compliance, and medical staff should be in the loop too, Crump says. Solid communication and education can go a long way in ensuring everyone is well prepared for an audit.
Establishing good quality checks, especially with EMRs, can also help a hospital bolster its audit preparation. HIM should be involved in checking that the information in the record tells the patient's complete story, Crump says.
"Records are evolving and EMRs are evolving, so I think status quo needs to be checked on a regular basis," she says.
For example, EMRs don't always capture all of the needed information. As local and national coverage determinations change for high-risk procedures and admissions, HIM and coding should be involved in the process of ensuring the EMR captures the latest changes and meets the new requirements; this way, the hospital will be ready to present information in the event of an audit, Crump says.
The readmission rate is dropping, but are hospitals just doing a quick shuffle--shifting patients from inpatient status to observation services--to make that change happen?
The study "Readmissions, Observation, and the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program" published in the February 24 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine says that is not the case. The decline in readmissions is real, says the study, and likely in response to the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), which fines hospitals for excessive readmissions.
CMS implemented the HRRP in 2010 in an effort to save the government money on the $17 million in estimated avoidable costs incurred each year from unnecessary hospital readmissions and to spare patients the poor outcomes that send them back to the hospital after they are discharged home.
The readmission rate has declined since the implementation of HRRP. But at the same time, some pointed to the fact that use of observation services was increasing and wondered if the two were connected. Others questioned whether the HRRP was actually making a difference in readmission rates, which were already on the decline before the program went into place.
The findings of this study validate what some case managers say they knew all along.
"Personally, as a director of case management I have never seen observation status used to avoid the readmission penalty," says June Stark, RN, BSN, MEd, director of care coordination at St. Elizabeth's Medical Center, Steward Healthcare in Boston.
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.
Accurate patient matching within the EMR should not be a concern limited to HIM professionals. Ensuring that medical record data is correct and complete and that duplicate records are not created is key to various healthcare initiatives, including population health management, analytics, information governance, patient-centric care, health information exchanges, and finance. It all starts with the patient's record. Reducing the number of duplicate records at a hospital and being able to effectively match records is critical to ensuring that these healthcare initiatives are successful, says Lesley Kadlec, MA, RHIA, CHDA, director of HIM practice excellence for AHIMA.
"Patient matching is really the underpinning of all the strategic initiatives that are going on in healthcare," Kadlec says. "You have to have accurate patient information to have accurate patient care. Ensuring that you have the right patient and the right information at the right time is really what drives the physicians' and clinicians' ability to actually provide that patient with care."
More than half of HIM professionals work with mitigating duplicate patient records, and of that group, 72% do so on a weekly basis, according to a recent survey of AHIMA members. Unfortunately, less than half of all respondents have quality assurance in place for their registration or post-registration processes. (A summary of the data is available in the Journal of AHIMA.)
"The challenge is having the staff to be able to dedicate to making the corrections, doing the matching, and ensuring that everything is getting put back together," Kadlec says.
Patient matching and duplicate records are a major issue right now because hospitals are using so many different systems and there is often a lack of information governance across those systems, says Megan Munns, RHIA, identity manager at Just Associates, Inc., based in Denver.
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.
