Is Ambiguity Our Friend Any More?

I have heard from some plans that they relish the flexibility that ambiguity grants them to “sail closer to the wind” when it comes to policy decisions regarding HCC coding. It permits them to harvest more diagnoses and the revenue that they bring, which does all kinds of good things for maintaining rich plan benefits and lower premiums to compete in the market. Isn’t that a good thing? Well, maybe not.

When it comes to walking it all back from the charts in a contract level RADV audit, what will the failure rate be when the tally is done? CMS has yet to announce the long-promised extrapolation penalty and the FFS benchmark, so are these plans betting that (a) they will not be tagged among the 30 MAOs audited each year, or (b) even if they are among those being audited, their validation failure rate will not compare so badly to the presumed FFS benchmark?

The stakes around these policy decisions have recently escalated, however. HHS has published a schedule of estimated levels of improper payments for Part C of Medicare Advantage in 2014 amounting to $12.2B or 9% of total payments.  On Part D, this is estimated at 3.3%, adding up to $1.9B. The aim is to recover this amount of money from the MA and Part D plans.  https://paymentaccuracy.gov/tabular-data/projected-by-program/237

In contrast to previous statements by CMS regarding the plan for RADV extrapolation, it appears that these figures presume no FFS benchmarks to dampen the error rate by comparison. It seems that any chart validation error is an overpayment and, consequently, needs to be recovered. Here is a point of divergence between the HHS OIG and the CMS program, which has enormous financial implications for MA plans: zero tolerance for any chart audit discrepancy. That is what the industry had originally feared:  the “nuclear option” for extrapolation, which would be financially catastrophic.

Next, consider the Department of Justice enforcement actions taken against a physician in Florida contracted with Humana, charged with bilking the risk adjustment system by deliberately upcoding diagnoses for his Humana members. This action puts into perspective the fact that the providers originating the patient encounters are also at risk for False Claims Act prosecution based upon their contributions to an erroneous flow of data factored into health plan risk scores.

At the healthplan level, we have to find ways to achieve the most accurate snapshots of our members’ health conditions without overstating them and thereby running risks of stepping out-of-bounds on compliance. We use “RADV” as code for this particular worry now. Yet given the additional emerging issues above, it is no longer limited to risk exposure under a CMS contract level RADV audit:  the scope and scale of these risks has dramatically expanded. The OIG can conduct their own independent RADV audits.

We operate in an area with certain ambiguities require decisions that draw bright lines where none really exist. When push comes to shove as to what combination of diagnostic codes and specific chart documentation will actually pass muster under RADV audit conditions, we enter into a very gray zone. While training by CMS in the past has outlined the general framework of what is and is not acceptable, we often find ourselves at a loss for clarity when we get into the particulars. For example, at RISE, we hear an ongoing debate about where and when past medical history is acceptable and under what circumstances. CMS has steered clear of giving guidance on specific instances, instead referring to ICD-9 guidelines and The Coding Clinic for interpretative support. But even so, these resources have not provided the definitive answers to some of the nitty gritty “for instances”. This resulting ambiguity creates the proverbial vacuum which nature abhors, and on a plan-by-plan basis, our policy decisions attempt to fill. Consequently, when asked, coders from different firms around the country are all over the map on what they would and would not accept for retro-chart audits.

My argument is that this ambiguous situation creates a lot of confusion, at a minimum, but it also invites those that are more risk tolerant to drag the whole industry across a line that the OIG and DOJ might be happy to draw. I suggest that, if we can land on more concrete guidance about what will ultimately validate under a RADV audit, we would benefit as an industry and the specter of large scale payment recovery efforts would be lifted. Essentially, we should all be on the same page, including the OIG and DOJ. I suggest that the time for convergence is now. 


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.

More

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.