Dear Doctor: the OIG Thinks We Owe Them $12.2 B

The Department of Health and Human Services has done some numbers on payment accuracy for federal programs.  Well, "inaccuracy" is actually what they were talking about. Among a short list of "high-error" programs, Medicare Advantage Part C gets tagged with an 8.5% improper payment rate, which translates into $12.2 B estimated for payment year 2014 (down from their estimated 15.4% error rate in 2009).  It's a big enough number to get the attention of Senators Grassley and McCaskill, as well. But where did they come up with these numbers and why should physicians be concerned?

These numbers arise from an auditing program known in the industry as "RADV", risk adjustment data validation. It is a temptation for clinicians to immediately tune out right now as the acronym floats out in the atmosphere and their eyes glaze over. As one clinician recently told me, "It's just so much alphabet soup. I'm  busy trying to take better care of my patients."  Well, you may be surprised to learn that when you write down whatever you do in the chart, you may be contributing to the perception that we owe the feds a big chunk of change back. 
Here is a way to think about this. The audit is sort of a test of your charts, checking them for the degree to which they agree with a set of coding and documentation standards.  Fail and your healthplan partner gets in deep trouble and (you may not realize it) you may have to take out your own checkbook to repay capitation take-backs. 
Your charts were always your own way of keeping tabs on your patients, right? Reminding yourself what happened previously and what to do the next time the patient shows up in your office.  Well, guess what?  Those charts are the sole source of truth according to the government. And how they are documented, how well they support the diagnostic codes from your claims being submitted to the government will determine what happens next in a $12.2 B legal wrangle. 
The feds have a method of punishment at their disposal called extrapolation:  generalizing the error rate for specific diagnoses in the RADV audit sample to a whole population of Medicare Advantage members enrolled with that affiliated healthplan.  Based on the biopsy of your charts, the feds inflate the scale of their findings and run that against the entire population, multiplied by the whole year's payment to the healthplan. Think of it as an exam on a small sample of charts projected onto an IMAX theater screen, exaggerating everything it views.  
"But wait a minute!", you may object,  "I do not document any differently for patients that are on Medicare plans:  I keep my charts the same way for all my patients. It has never been a problem before. We are not conducting any kind of fraud and all my claims get paid ultimately." 
This is all because the rules for Medicare Advantage are different than fee for service claims billing. There you only have to have an ICD code that loosely agrees with your E&M codes on the claim.  The service codes are what trigger payment under fee for service. 
Now for risk adjustment under Medicare Advantage programs: it's all about the specificity of the ICD code.  The government is not going to complain if your offices under-codes the diagnosis:  going with a simple 250.00 for diabetes mellitus without complications and when it is really 250.40 for diabetes with renal manifestations. This is true, although the CMS payment to the Medicare Advantage plan (and to you, if you are capitated for your services) will be dramatically lower than if you documented the 250.40. That's the way it works: under-code and get under-paid. Of course, you are not coding:  your billing office codes.
However, if your office puts the 250.40 diagnosis on the claim, your chart documentation had better support that diagnosis. Otherwise, if you chart "DM", in the mind of the government, you are "up-coding" with the 250.40 diagnosis on the claim. Once the diagnosis gets uploaded and submitted to the government to adjust the premium payments, that is where the liability starts getting real. Open up the chart and see if it has all the right ingredients that the auditor requires to support the diagnosis.  If not, that diagnoses gets rejected. If you extrapolate those errors, it rolls up to the tune of $12.2B of improper payments that HHS wants to recover. If your practice was taking capitation payments from the healthplan, the recovery process probably has your practice's name on it. 
So think about that for a moment. Let's say your patient really has diabetes with renal manifestations.  If that patient came to you under Original Medicare, your services would be paid for at the taxpayers' expense through the Medicare trust fund, whether you coded the claim as a 250.0 or a 250.40.  But if the patient came in under a Medicare Advantage plan and your billing office under-codes it, you will have to take care of that patient and treat him / her anyway for that condition, but you will not receive the funding appropriate to pay for all the services someone with diabetes with renal manifestations is likely to need.  The taxpayer just saved a lot of money because the risk adjusted premium came in artificially low. On the other hand, if you coded the patient's condition as a 240.40 but your chart documentation does not pass the documentation test, you are now part of the $12.2 B payment "problem".  It's not all your fault, of course. There are other "flies in the ointment" that contaminate the quality of the diagnostic data reporting. But, yes, the OIG thinks we owe the taxpayers $12.2 B back. 
The point of this rant is not to suggest that you become a coder. It is to point out that you are not so removed from the "alphabet soup" of things as you chart away in the exam room. The downstream impact ripples far and wide.  And sometimes it comes home to roost. 
So what should you do about all of this? First, get your billing staff squared away so they understand all of the coding implications. Second, make sure you chart with an intention of being understood by all the involved parties, not just yourself:  use standard terminology and nomenclature. Here is what my good friend and physician executive, Dr. Mark Stern, says: 
"These are documents that  should be available to other providers so they know exactly what is going on with that patient. The whole concept of electronic records is to share information. If a provider writes in his/her own short hand or illegible scribble that delays or result in redundant care, can result in incorrect interpretation, add cost and result in asking the patients and family members the same questions  dozens of time in a single encounter. 
I personally believe speaking with one language is a good thing.  If you have  ever had to  review a stack of charts for a specific issue, speaking one language would reduce misinterpretation. 
I don’t agree with all of CMS documentation guidelines but for the most part they make sense as much as I hate to admit it. Bottom line: training providers to document accurately  using standard language and basic requirements, e.g. medical plan, is a good thing. 
My belief is physicians should not be in the coding business.  HCC’s [hierarchical condition codes] can be something that providers conceptually understand but should not be the thing that drives their documentation or coding. "

This sounds like good advice and I hope you agree.  

Tags: RADV audits, extrapolation

Log on to Your Rise Account

Forgot your password?
Create an Account

Association Sponsors

Latest Posts

Keep M.E.A.T. on Your List for a Healthy Audit

By Jeanmarie Loria, Advize Health, LLC If you’re reading this article, chances are you already know what HCC Coding is – but we’ll give you a refresher anyway. Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) and Risk Adjustment Coding is a CMS-mandated payment model. This model works to identify those with chronic and other serious illnesses and prescribes a risk factor score to each patient, taking into consideration their ailments and other demographics. With every payment model comes a specific set of audit and review requirements that must be met to maintain the integrity of the system, and this is where MEAT (Monitor, Evaluate, Assess/Address, Treat) comes in handy. In a face to face visit M.E.A.T. maybe found in the chief complaint, history of present illness, review of systems, physical exam, assessment and/or plan....
Read More

Getting It Right: True North in Healthcare Reform

The movement to repeal and replace "ObamaCare" created so much political noise that clear thinking has been hard to come by. The 2010 legislation that created the marketplace for individuals and small business (the Affordable Care Act or ACA), has almost evolved into a political Rorschach test. The more that politicized options and alternatives to repealing, replacing, or repairing it were discussed, the harder it was to put into focus the original problems the legislation was designed to address. Nevertheless, the rancorous divisions over what needs to happen to fix problems in the individual insurance market remain a distraction from the real issue at hand: the cost of healthcare weighing down the economy and what we need to do to fix it. With all the intense debates swirling around this topic, an impression emerges that “solving the ObamaCare issues” is something that must be accomplished as an isolated matter, discrete and independent of other problems. The heated debates concentrate on the mechanics and tactics required to solve the "uninsured problem", the "under-insured problem", and for some, the federal budget problems created by the subsidies for low-income enrollees in these plans. This single-issue mono-vision obscures a reality that must be addressed. This perspective completely misses the fact that something is going on that is far more corrosive to the wellbeing of all of us as consumers of health care, as taxpayers, and as a nation: something that overshadows the tug ‘o war over ObamaCare. The critical and overlooked issue is that health care expenditures in the U.S are at least twice as expensive as other nations, which consume so much of the national economy...
Read More

Upcoming Conference


Qualipalooza: The 2nd Annual RISE Quality Leadership Summit 

This unique event incorporates three conferences presented side-by-side: the Star Ratings Strategic Planning Forum, the HEDIS Forum, and the CAHPS, HOS & Member Survey Forum. Register for one conference for an in-depth examination of a single area, or design your own event by opting for the all-access pass and choosing the sessions from each conference which correspond exactly to your interests.


Upcoming Webinar

Successful and Meaningful Techniques for Integrating Risk and Quality Interventions

Quality measurement and risk adjustment regulations are increasing and the financial impact upon health plans is progressively driving accountability and influencing profitability through payments, penalties, and bonuses. To improve performance and optimize risk and quality payments, Health Plans need to streamline processes, employ best practices for data capture, and focus on strategic interventions that use a member-centric approach.  

Connect With Us

Copyright © 2014 Resource Initiative & Society for Education. All rights reserved.