Is Ambiguity Our Friend Any More? (Redux of July 15)

By Kevin Mowll, Executive Director of the RISE Association

HCC coding is a rigorous and demanding science, as I have learned from the coding workshops RISE has put on for coders. There are admitted “grey zones” where different coders come up with different conclusions on which codes are allowable and which are riskier bets. This ambiguity allows payers with higher tolerances 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 RADV audit, what will the failure rate be when the tally is done? For the Medicare Advantage program, CMS has yet to announce the long-promised extrapolation penalty and the FFS benchmark, so are these more aggressive plans betting that (a) they will not be tagged among the 30 MAOs audited each year, and (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. CMS has come under pressure to turn up the heat on MA plans and, in the HIX marketplace, there will be 100% RADV audits for the 2016 plan year. Now CMS has publishes a request for information regarding expanding the RAC program to Medicare Advantage as required under the Affordable Care Act, according to an article in Modern Healthcare by Bob Herman, published at the end of December.  http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20151228/NEWS/151229937?utm_source=modernhealthcare&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20151228-NEWS-151229937&utm_campaign=am

 

I referred to the following in the July 2015 version of this editorial:  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 to me 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.

The new news is that, if CMS launches the RAC audits, the privately contracted auditors will be motivated by earning a share of the recoveries on erroneous claims of diagnoses by the plan.  This is enabling the ambiguity factor to be turned in favor of an aggressive auditor at the expense of the MA plan. The opportunities permitted by this ambiguity have now become liabilities.

We operate in an area with certain ambiguities require decisions that draw bright lines where none really exist. 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. 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”.

It is not clear how aggressively the HIX RADV program will be instructing the SVA auditors to be, but the sheer fact that 100% of plans being audited elevates the exposure of every issuer in the HIX space.  Therefore, it seems to me that the need for industry alignment around “best practices” on HCC coding is an imperative.  Comprehensive and consistent training of HCC coders needs to be conducted in order to establish a more uniform approach and standard of practice.  Secondly, it also means that a bottom-up training and education of provider practices in documentation and CDI is also going to be necessary, along with HCC coding information-sharing and guidance. 

In short, rather than establish bright line guidance and training for all those involved in the “food chain” of HCC accuracy, HHS and CMS are taking the approach of auditors and prosecutors, failing anything better or easier.  Under legislative mandate by the ACA itself, this is the course they will take. 

Consequently, it seems that it remains with industry to self-police and transform all the stakeholders’ work practices to come into conformity around a set of best practices.  


Categories: risk adjustment, CMS, HIX
Tags: RADV, HIX, RAC audits, HCC coding

Log on to Your Rise Account

Forgot your password?
Create an Account

Sponsors

Latest Posts

CMS Gives EDPS Transition Some Breathing Room

CMS published the final call letter for 2018 yesterday, April 3, which included a welcome accouncement regarding the transition from RAPS to EDPS-based RAF scores. Citing numerous public comments on the subject, CMS throttled back the speed with which they plan to switch over to an encounter-based methodology. Instead of the blended rates originally contemplated, they announced that the more modest blend of 85% RAPS to 15% EDPS would be used in 2018, allowing more time to improve the reliability of the encounter data methods. While the RISE data collaboration study was not cited, we believe that the educational value of our study, along with our communication and advocacy of a more moderate approach by CMS, contributed to the confidence with which plans and other interested parties spoke up during the open comment period. Once again, we owe thanks to the folks at Avalere and Inovalon, as well as at AHIP, for the collegial and professional collaboration. Also, we want to thank the health plans that actively participated in our study for making this work possible. ...
Read More

Take Aways from RISE Nashville Summit

The 11th Annual RISE Nashville Summit continued the event’s tradition of yearly growth. The return to downtown Nashville was widely applauded by attendees, who were glad to be back near Broadway’s nighttime funk and fun. While festive, this year's event occurred in the wake of the new administration in Washington, D.C., and the healthcare themes surrounding the "repeal and replace" of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) cast a long shadow. In contrast to the upbeat, confident notes struck by last year’s keynote speaker Senator Tom Daschle, this year’s sobering keynote address by Howard Fineman, NBC/MSNBC political analyst, The Huffington Post Media Group global editorial director, and bestselling author, was an assessment of the pluses and minuses of our new president. Mr. Fineman's remarks indicated that the political alliances in power will seek to undo what Senator Daschle viewed as "irreversible” a year ago....
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

The Impact of Quality Incentive Models in Medicaid Markets

 

Thirty-one of our fifty states now have Medicaid managed care, and several markets are expected to implement managed care in the next few years. More than $160B in Medicaid spending occurs through the Managed Care Organizations. As more and more states seek to do more with less, increasing accountability for health quality outcomes is placed on health plans. Join this webinar to learn the typical quality payment approaches states use, issues often faced by health plans under each model and what states are expected to do with payment models tied to quality performance in light of near term Medicaid reform efforts.

More

Connect With Us

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