Posts tagged ‘HHA’

December 2, 2012

HHQI releases best practices on patient self-management

Selman-Holman Associates is a coordinator with this, and it is exciting! HHQI now has released its Best Practice Intervention Package on patient self-management.

Are you familiar with your community’s efforts to improve the 30-day readmission rates of patients to your local facilities? Most communities around the country are addressing this issue in one form or another. Have you been contacted by someone in your community to discuss this issue? If not, you may want to ask yourself, ‘why not?’

As we all know, home health plays a central role in helping patients regain their health and remain in their homes. If you are not currently ‘at the table’ for your community discussions, now is the time to contact other providers –other home health agencies as well as hospitals, nursing homes, SNFs and physician offices – and begin the discussion as to what you can do as a community to improve the quality of care you provide to your citizens as they move from one care setting to another.

The Home Health Quality Improvement (HHQI) national campaign recently released the focused Best Practice Intervention Package (BPIP) on the topic of Patient Self-Management. This BPIP is much smaller than the previous packages updating the content published in 2011.

If you haven’t downloaded it yet, please do so and share with your community partners. To download this, please go to the HHQI website and either register or login.

The BPIPs are found under the “Education” tab on the blue tool bar.

November 16, 2012

Nephrostomy tubes are response 2 on M1018

A clarification from CMS on M1018 and nephrostomy tubes …

Question: When answering M1018, if client has a nephrostomy tube do you mark indwelling/suprapubic catheter?
Answer from CMS: If the nephrostomy tube is utilized for urinary drainage, it is an indwelling
catheter, therefore Response 2 – Indwelling/suprapubic catheter would be selected.
See more Q&As.

November 11, 2012

Once again: 401.9 is a valid code

I have received another email from someone who attended my class asking me to verify that 401.9 is a valid code … others at her agency are telling her that it is not a valid hypertension code.

It is. 401.9 is valid. It is a useful code and one that you may have to use, depending on documentation.

401.9 is a valid code and is the correct code for HTN when no other information is available. It would be upcoding to change your hypertension code if you did not have additional information. There are many codes that we use that do not provide points, and this code is no longer case-mix. We must code according to the patient’s condition and the coding guidelines regardless whether the code is case-mix. Remember that if the patient has a heart condition, such as acute MI, chronic insufficiency, CAD or heart failure, then you’ve still earned those points that used to be awarded for 401.9.

October 15, 2012

TX HHA owner pleads guilty to $374 million in fraud

From the Northern District of Texas ….

A Dallas-area home health services company owner admitted his role in a $374 million home health fraud scheme in which he and others conspired to bill Medicare for unnecessary services that were never performed. Cyprian Akamnonu, 64, of Arlington, Texas, entered his guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud before U.S. District Judge Sam A. Lindsay in Dallas federal court.

According to court documents, beginning in at least January 2006, Akamnonu, along with his wife Pat Akamnonu, owned and operated Ultimate Care Home Health Services, Inc. Cyprian Akamnonu admitted that he directed his wife and others to recruit Medicare beneficiaries from Dallas neighborhoods for home health services they did not need and for which they did not qualify. Once the beneficiaries were recruited, Cyprian Akamnonu would take prescriptions for home health services to the offices of Medistat Group Associates, P.A., owned and operated by co-defendant Jacques Roy, M.D.

See the whole release from the Department of Justice

October 14, 2012

OIG FY2013 work plan is out

The Office of the Inspector General work plan for home health agencies (and all providers) was just released. As usual, OIG is telling us exactly what we need to pay attention for the upcoming fiscal year, starting Oct. 1, 2013. The highlights are below:

Face-to-Face Requirement: OIG wants to see how well HHAs are complying with new F2F requirements.F2F encounters must occur within 120 days: either within the 90 days before beneficiaries start home health care or up to 30 days after care begins. (42 CFR § 424.22.) (OEI; 01-12-00390; expected issue date: FY 2013; work in progress. Affordable Care Act.)

Employment of Home Health Aides With Criminal Convictions: OIG wants to see the rate of compliance with state requirements for criminal background checks for HHA applicants and employees. Federal law requires that HHAs comply with all applicable State and local laws and regulations. (Social Security Act, §1891(a)(5), implemented at 42 CFR § 484.12(a).) A previous OIG review found that 92 percent of nursing homes employed at least one individual with at least one criminal conviction. (OEI; 12-12-00630; expected issued date: FY 2013; work in progress)

States’ Survey and Certification: Timeliness, Outcomes, Followup, and Medicare Oversight: OIG will review the timeliness of HHA recertification and complaint surveys conducted by State Survey Agencies and Accreditation Organizations, the outcomes of those surveys, and the followup of complaints against HHAs. The office will also look at CMS oversight designed to monitor HHA surveys. (OEI; 06-11-00400; expected issue date: FY 2013; work in progress)

Missing or Incorrect Patient Outcome and Assessment Data: OASIS is a focus. OIG will look at OASIS data to identify payments for episodes for which OASIS data were not submitted or for which the billing codes on the claims are inconsistent with OASIS data. (OAS; W-00-13-35600; various reviews; expected issue date: FY 2013; new start)

Medicare Administrative Contractors’ Oversight of Claims: OIG will review the activities that CMS and its contractors performed to identify and prevent improper home health payments from January to October 2011. (OEI; 04-11-00220; expected issue date: FY 2013; work in progress)

Home Health Prospective Payment System Requirements: OIG will look at compliance and documentation with various aspects of the home health PPS, including the documentation required in support of the claims paid by Medicare. This includes looking at services including part-time or intermittent skilled nursing care, as well as other skilled care services, such as physical, occupational, and speech therapy; medical social work; and home health aide services. (OAS; W-00-12-35501; W-00-13-35501; various reviews; expected issue date: FY 2013 ;work in progress and new start)

Trends in Revenues and Expenses: OIG will review cost report data to analyze HHA revenue and expense trends under the home health PPS to determine whether the payment methodology should be adjusted. (OAS; W-00-10-35428; various reviews; expected issue date:FY 2013; work in progress)

I’ll have a post on more of the OIG report soon.

Read the entire OIG work plan

June 12, 2012

Connolly issues automatic edit for RAP with no CMS Issue Number

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) Connolly recently issued a new RAC issue: RAP claim without corresponding home health claim CMS Issue Number.

The National Association for Home Care & Hospice (NAHC) has requested clarification from CMS about the basis for this since home health Requests for Anticipated Payment (RAP) are supposed to be automatically recovered through the Medicare claims processing system when a home health agency fails to submit a final claim within a certain time period (120 days or 60 days of the RAP payment).

Connolly is the RAC for Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virgin Islands, Virginia, and West Virginia.

Tags: , , , ,
June 8, 2012

Don’t overlook HHCAHPS and PBQI education

SHA is conducting some education on score and performance improvement. So often, we focus on the day-to-day and not on how to use the data we have to improve our outcomes and patient care.

Teresa Northcutt will be teaching on HHCAHPS and PBQI. Look here for the specifics!

HHCAHPS: Improving Scores and Patient Satisfaction webinar, June 19, 12:00-1:30pm CDT

HHAs are required to participate in the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Home Health survey; do you know how this information will be used? How are the national scores calculated, and what does you agency rate mean? How can you improve your agency’s scores in key areas like medications and pain?

The objectives:

  • Understand the purpose and uses of HH-CAHPS
  • Interpret the national scores and where your agency ranks
  • Identify actions to improve scores on medications and pain

PBQI Reports for Improvement webinar, June 26, 12:00-1:30pm CDT

The objectives:

  • State the difference between OBQI and PBQI
  • Interpret agency Process-Based Quality Improvement reports
  • Utilize PBQI Measure information to improve OBQI scores
Tags: , , ,
March 26, 2012

OIG finds $432 million+ in HHA claims issues

The HHS Office of the Inspector General conducted a study looking at home health claims from 2002-2008 and found that$432 million in Medicare monies were inappropriately paid either because medical necessity was not established or coding was inaccurate. Millions more dollars were lost to CMS or HHAs because of upcoding or downcoding.

The number of HHAs grew from 7,052 to 9,801, and increase of 39 percent. Medicare spending on home health increased 84 percent from $8.5 billion in 2000 to $15.7 billion in 2007. The sharp rise in payments created the push to investigate payments.

HHS reviewed the claims of almost 500 beneficiaries to see whether Medicare coverage requirements were met.

The office found that 22 percent of claims were in error because services were not medically necessary or claims were coded inaccurately, resulting in $432 million in improper Medicare payments. Also, HHAs upcoded about 10 percent ($278 million) of claims and downcoded about 10 percent ($184 million) of claims.

OIG believes it needs to investigate more to determine what services are met and what potential for fraud is involved.

Read the complete report.

March 1, 2011

Even with unexpected discharge, M0090 rules

Question: I understand that for a transfer, or unexpected discharge, the data collected at the last skilled visit is used for the remote documentation.  However, we have had several instances of losing several HHA, PTA, and OTA visit reimbursements, as we are using the last skilled visit as the last billable visit. Is this correct?  Sometimes there are nearly two weeks of forfeited visits due to this rule, which we are not sure we are interpreting correctly.

Lisa says: Your HHA, PTA and OTA visits are billable and should be included on your claim. Completing the OASIS DC is a separate issue. The last qualified clinician who saw the patient has to complete the OASIS based on information obtained at that last visit. But remember that the M0090 date is still the date the assessment was completed which is after the other billable visits were provided.

December 14, 2010

Check box does not meet F2F requirements, but labels might

These questions are the Q&As from NAHC from questions that the organization has received on the face-to-face encounter issue.

Question:  Clarify the regulatory requirement of no standardized language. To be used in documentation of F2F are we able to create a form that contains check box options for the physicians in regards to diagnosis, etc.?
Answer: A check box would not meet CMS’ intent since the agency would be providing prescribed verbiage that a physician must choose from. This “standardized” language may not fit with the clinical condition of the patient. The full text from CMS in the Federal Register reads: “The law requires this as a condition for HH payment. We proposed that the documentation of the encounter be a separate and distinct section of, or an addendum to, the certification, and that the documentation include why the clinical findings of the encounter support HH eligibility. We believe that our proposed documentation requirements meet the Congress’ intent for more physician involvement in determining the patient’s eligibility and managing the care plan. We believe that were we to allow the HHA to craft standard language which the physician would then simply sign, we would not achieve the sort of physician involvement in the eligibility determination and care plan which was the Congress’ intent. As such, we believe that if a HHA were to develop standardized encounter language to be signed by the physician, they would not be adhering to the statutory payment requirements that the “physician document” the encounter.”

Question:  May a home health agency put labels on a form for the physician to complete?
Answer: When asked if it would, however, be acceptable for the agency to at least label the section of the 485 or addendum where the physician’s documentation should be placed, titling it for example “Physician Verification of Face-to-Face Encounter,” and then to include subheadings which include: Date of Encounter, Medical Condition for Encounter, Services Needed, Clinical Findings, Homebound Status, Physician Signature, Date. CMS responded Yes, this is fine.  As long as the info/clinical findings and how the findings support eligibility are documented by the physician, in his/her own words.

Question:   If a hospitalist documents the F2F and certifies the patient, is the primary physician (who will sign the 485 and oversee the episode of care) required to complete a face to face as well?  Or does the hospitalists F2F meet the requirement?
Answer: No, a second face-to-face by the physician ordering services and signing the plan of care is not required.

Question:   If a F2F encounter occurred within the past 90 days prior to referral for homecare and the reason for the F2F was not related to the homecare referral we must then get an additional F2F encounter documented?
Answer: Yes a second encounter will be required.

Question:   I thought the face to face for homecare was effective for admissions as of 1/1/11?
Answer: The face-to-face encounter is required for any patient with a Start of Care Medicare fee-for-service episode 1/1/11 and after. It is not required for recertification episodes.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,189 other followers