One year following the official implementation of ICD-10, the coding industry is beginning to report valid results regarding accuracy, productivity, and denial trends. While some of these facts and figures are self-reported by HIM directors and anecdotal in nature, other findings are grounded in hard, fast coding performance data. Such is the case with the results from Central Learning (www.centrallearning.com), a web-based system that electronically assesses coder knowledge using real medical record cases and expert-verified answer keys.
This article summarizes coder performance data as measured across 50 health systems and 300 coders as of June 30, 2016. It compares these findings with other industry reports and extrapolates key findings for HIM directors and revenue cycle executives. Since coding and diagnosis-related group (DRG) assignment are the major drivers behind health system revenue streams, consistent data analysis helps to ensure accurate coding and reimbursement.
According to Central Learning data, coding accuracy is slightly increasing after nine months under ICD-10 for both experienced coders and coders-in-training. While the industry overall still lags behind the 95% accuracy benchmark achieved in ICD-9, we're getting closer in all three major patient types: inpatient, outpatient, and emergency services.
Fifty health systems are represented in the data, providing a broad-based assessment. We compared coder accuracy from Q1 (January 1?March 31) with Q2 (April 1?June 30) to identify recent, timely trends in code quality. The figure on p. 13 lists the most current benchmark of our status through June 30, 2016.
The May 2016 issue of Perspectives outlined 225 hospital requirements from the accreditation manual?nine from the Information Management (IM) chapter and five from the Record of Care, Treatment and Services (RC) chapter?that have been deleted. This initiative is part of the Joint Commission's project REFRESH and improving the survey process.
Observation hours start accruing not when the patient comes into the hospital, but when the physician writes the order for observation. Observation hours end when all medically neces¬sary services related to observation are complete.
The accurate capture of acute respiratory failure has been a long-standing challenge for CDI programs. The accurate reporting of this condition as a post-procedural event can be even more difficult.
CMS is looking to implement the Section 603 provisions of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 regarding off-campus, provider-based departments (PBD) by January 1, 2017, according to the 2017 OPPS proposed rule (https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2016-16098.pdf). The agency is proposing to pay the nonfacility or office Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) amount to the performing/supervising physician and preclude hospitals from billing on a UB-04 form or receiving OPPS payment for services performed at these locations for 2017, but plans to explore other options for 2018 and beyond.
Physicians would be paid at the higher nonfacility rate of the MPFS, but only hospitals that have employed or contracted physicians that reassign their billing to the hospital would get paid under the MPFS for these services.
Hospitals would be able to bill claims on CMS-1500 forms for physicians who have already reassigned their billing to the hospital, as in the case of employed physicians. Otherwise, hospitals would have the option of enrolling the location as the type of provider or supplier it wishes to bill to meet the requirements of that payment system (e.g., ambulatory surgery center or group practice).
"This proposal will be very challenging for hospitals that have community physicians practice at their off-campus outpatient departments that will no longer be paid under OPPS," says Valerie Rinkle, MPA, lead regulatory specialist and instructor for HCPro, a division of BLR, in Middleton, Massachusetts.
"These physicians would bill with the office place of service code and the hospital would have to figure out how to get compensated," she says. "This will likely require hospitals to rewrite their agreements with these physicians."
The cost of healthcare is quickly rising across the nation, and patients are shouldering the majority of the price increases through higher deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses as expenditures continue to shift from employers to patients. According to a TransUnion Healthcare report released during HFMA's 2016 National Institute in Las Vegas (www.marketwired.com/press-release/-2137926.htm), patients experienced a 13% increase in medical costs between 2014 and 2015.
A rise in self-pay patients usually signifies an increase in bad debt risk that can have a sharp and negative effect on revenue streams. As expected, healthcare organizations responded to this upward trend in patient financial responsibility by dedicating more attention and resources to managing their self-pay accounts. But are additional complications necessary? Can self-pay accounts be managed more effectively by actually taking fewer and more logical steps?
Recent work with pre-acute care providers, such as emergency medical services (EMS) and emergency medicine physician groups, reveals that most of these providers are struggling to address self-pay accounts. Hospitals and health systems report similar concerns. Addressing the rise in self-pay patients requires a shift change in revenue cycle management strategies and tactics.
Instead of raising the level of complexity required to manage self-pay receivables, providers should try to simplify efforts?work smarter, not harder. Determining patient propensity to pay is one of these practical steps. Using the pre-acute care sector as one example, qualification for accounts management can be radically simplified with significantly fewer steps.
When I look back on 30 years of involvement with HIM, it's hard to believe that I was also passionate about another profession at one time. But I actually came to my career as a coder by way of my associate's degree in veterinary science.
Q: What recommendations do you have for handling medical records for staff members who are also patients at the organization where they work? Should we provide extra protection for these patients? What can we do to ensure that staff members are not accessing their coworkers' records without permission or need?
A: I am a firm believer in not adding special protection to any record, because it implies that some records are more confidential than others. In fact, all records are confidential and staff should not access any record unless it is necessary to do so to do their jobs. And, if it is necessary, they should only access the minimum necessary to do the job. HIPAA requires access monitoring, so your organization should conduct routine audits to determine whether staff are accessing records without a work-related reason. There is now software available that can conduct routine audits by staff member and department. This software can be used to reassure staff that their information is not being accessed by coworkers and to hold accountable those who are not following the policy/law. When a staff member raises a concern, an audit should be run to determine whether inappropriate access has occurred, and if it has, sanctions should be applied. Organizations should also consider having a policy that staff should not handle coworkers' (or family members') records (except in an emergency) without the permission of their supervisor.
All of these points should be reviewed at orientation and during (at minimum) annual training to ensure all staff understand that the organization takes such transgressions seriously and will take action as needed to protect the privacy of every patient's information.
