Posts Tagged ‘Home Health Care’

HIPAA Rules and the HITECH Act- Patient Privacy

Tuesday, April 30th, 2013

Compliance officers were awaiting the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) final rules on Breach Notification, Enforcement, and the modification to Privacy and Security Rules of HIPAA HITECH. Now that we have the regulations, it is time to review the basics in this ezine and additional requirements in the next article. HIPAA may be one of your largest potential liabilities for your agency.

Key Definitions

Protected Health Information (PHI)

  • Individually identifiable health information
  • Transmitted or maintained in any form
  • Created or received by a covered entity, business associate, or employer

Covered Entity

  • Health Care Providers
  • Insurers
  • Clearinghouses
  • Covered entities may only use and disclose PHI according to Privacy Rule provisions

Disclosures

  • Treatment and  payment sources
  • Individual has opportunity to agree or object
  • Limited data set (facially de-identified, requires data use agreement between parties
  • With authorization

HIPAA Privacy Rule controls privacy unless a state law is stricter.

Treatment

  • CE may disclose PHI for treatment activities to another healthcare provider

Payment

  • CE may disclose PHI to another CE or healthcare provider for the CE payment

Health Care Operations

  • CE may disclose PHI to another CE for specific activities such as QI

Authorization

  • Individual may authorize the release of the PHI in writing with the signature and data provided

Compliance Officers need to keep HIPAA and compliance in front of personnel. Finding ways to do that can be challenging but well worth the effort. For most organizations, some of their greatest risks are those tied to PHI.

Build security into hardware, software, and processes to the greatest extent possible. Make security provisions operate automatically where possible. When replacing manual processes with technology, validate the process and the fact that it does not increase risk. Technology for the sake of technology needs to be monitored also. Review your processes. Educate personnel to be privacy alert.

Build a meaningful HIPAA and Compliance audit system foundation that has value for the organization. It is mandated by the OCR.  Agency audits of organizations  began last year.  Remember, not having an audit program can be costly, the OCR state fine can go up to $1.5 million.

Required elements of a Patient Authorization

When reviewing the patient authorization, be certain it includes:

  • A description of the PHHI to be used or disclosed. Be specific
  • The persons authorized to use or disclose the PHI
  • The person or agency  to whom the CE may disclose the PHI
  • The purpose of the disclosure use
  • The patient’s right to revoke the authorization
  • The consequences if the patient refuses to sign
  • An expiration date of the form
  • Signed and dated by the patient
  • PHI may be re-disclosed by a third party and if a business associate, subject to the same HIPAA regulations
  • Must be written in clear language

HIPAA continues to pose a growing liability for agencies. Review agency policies, procedures, and processes now. More to follow on that topic

The RACs are Coming… The RACs are Coming… And Coding is a Target

Tuesday, January 31st, 2012

RACs have recovered over 96% of all audited claims resulting in take-backs of over 2 billion dollars. Is it any wonder that the home health industry is concerned about their new focus in our industry? The RACs have been identified. The MACs, who will work with the RACs are all now in place.

RACs are contingency based, so, they are motivated to seek out variances.  They can audit 1% of the average monthly Medicare episodes of care (maximum 200) every 45 days per NPI.

Home Health agencies should anticipate to see audits of outlier payments for insulin injections. They should expect, based on coding algorithms to see records reviewed. Are you monitoring your coding and documentation closely? Expect audits.  Fiscal Intermediaries have identified reasons for claim denials and identified high risk areas for non-compliance. Those targeted areas include areas involving coding, homebound status, the documentation of the skilled services delivered, and the overall medical necessity of care administered.

Agencies should be cautious that the codes affixed are well supported by the documentation of the clinician. Too frequently, there has been partial denial of therapy resulting in medical review down-code. Too often and easily, FIs have found clinical documentation incongruent with OASIS M items. Too many times, the reviewers have found that the documentation does not support the focus of care, the sequence for coding, or the medical necessity of the skilled services billed.

In the RAC demonstration project, 35% of the findings pertained to coding. Expect Home Health coding to become one of the chief areas of focus. Remember, the RACs will be looking at variance which will allow them to view consistency of a client’s OASIS, coding, clinical documentation, and the plan of care.

The RAC attack: how to prepare and manage the audits

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid  (CMS) has implemented, in home health, the  audit process that has proven successful in other areas of the health care industry.  The RAC auditors have been authorized to recover “improper payments “of preapproved areas of risk.  In the demonstration project, high areas of risk included incorrectly coded records, therapy appropriateness, and medically unnecessary services. The RACS use public information from the Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the General Accounting Office (GAO) to focus improper payment audits.

RACs have recovered over 96% of all audited claims resulting in high take-back dollars. Is it any wonder that the home health industry is concerned about their new focus?

RACs are contingency based, so, they are motivated to seek out variances.  They can audit 1% of the average monthly Medicare episodes of care (maximum 200) every 45 days per NPI.  The question is: what action should the home health agency consider now?

Choose a RAC Leader and RAC Response Team

First of all, agencies should appoint a RAC Team Leader who will identify the single point of contact and establish a RAC Response Team. This dynamic team should represent the components of the clinically driven revenue cycle management (RCM) process. Specifically, 1) physicians and clinicians;, nurses, therapists, social workers, 2) quality improvement and documentation specialists, 3) casemanagers, 4) coders, 5) HIM, 6) chargemaster/billing/RCM specialists, 7)  data analysts, 8) Education/Training Specialists, 9) corporate compliance, 10) legal, 11) department heads, 12) mitigation sub-committee that will actually analyze and track each RAC record , and others will be called as needed.  This team will need to address both past and present tactical and oversight issues while prioritizing areas of risk. Additionally, they will review the agency’s ability to complete processes, including audits, and tracking the appeal response.

RAC audits represent significant risk to revenues, profit margins, and workflow stability.  The education of the RAC Response Team is vital in developing the most thorough, yet, efficient approach to establishing RAC risk review and protocol preparedness. Have the team ready.

Identify Vulnerabilities

RAC Response Team education should include lessons learned from the home health industry past: Operation Restore Trust (ORT), May 1995, a two year project in five states resulting in $187.5 million in fines, recoveries, and civil money penalties.  After four years, ORT was credited with a 45% decrease in improper payments, recovery of over $524 million in judgments and settlements and prevention of nearly $11 billion paid in inappropriate claims.

In general, ORT found issues with medical necessity, lack of homebound status, and lack of documentation to support care provided.  Sound familiar? ORT targeted agencies by volume of claims, frequency of medical review issues, LUPA episodes, outliers, therapy thresholds, as well as medical necessity determinations and coding errors.

The recent RAC demonstration results reflected similar focus areas. Agencies should heed those trends identified.

The RAC Response Team should become familiar with regulatory requirements and timeliness. Inservices as well as FAQ sheets with key regulatory highlights and a list of appropriate links to review could be provided. The leader should become familiar with the RAC website as well as monitor the CMS website, alerts, and transmittals.

The RAC Demonstration project showed a 7% payment recovery because of inadequate response to medical record requests so, a process will be needed, to mitigate information flow and manage RAC audit activities thus, create the RAC mitigation sub-committee. This committee or team should function as a subsection of the RAC Response Team, aiding the RAC Team Leader in tracking claims under review.

Identify the patient and document flow, identifying tasks and tools. Diagram patient care flow from intake > admission> medication profile review> discipline specific careplan development > coding >  plan of care development > RAP drop> discipline visits > outcome achievement> QA process review >to final claim submission and A/R management.

Retrospective chart audits as well as present processes and concurrent chart audits should be completed to identify risk. The RAC Response team may decide to contract with third party specialists for comprehensive consulting services to assist the team. The services can include:

  • ICD-9-CM Coding Review (Soon to be ICD-10 CM)
  • Documentation adequacy to substantiate the Plan of Care and the Codes
  • Billing and Revenue Cycle Management (RCM) Review
  • Process and Workflow Analysis
  • Clinical and RCM Resource
  • Presenting OASIS C and Evidenced-Based Practice correlations
  • Conducting RAC training sessions to prepare identified personnel for audits

Comprehensive third party clinical/RCM review of care delivered can assign potential organization susceptibility.  The chart audits can distinguish:

  • If the admission was medically necessary and the plan appropriate and covered all disciplines.
  • If the clinical visits support the plan and the notes
  • If the coding met convention and had adequate documented support
    • Focus on case mix diagnoses
    • Review diagnoses sequencing
  • If therapy, treatment and procedures were appropriate
  • If the reason qualifying homebound status was documented each visit and used objective measureable language
  • Other criteria mutually identified by the RAC Response Team and the outside specialists

The RAC Team should consider reviewing the agency overall compliance process, keeping basic CMS regulations in mind.

There have been no limits placed upon the number of sixty day episodes per beneficiary as long as they remain eligible for the home health benefit.  Payment is adjusted to the patient’s need. It becomes the home health agency’s responsibility to assess the patient accurately. Based upon answers to OASIS items describing the patient’s condition and projected therapy needs, a case-mix adjustment is determined. It is the agency’s responsibility to be certain the assessment is accurate, the care is appropriate, and expected outcomes are achieved. Congruency is a key.

Though no limits have been placed on the number of episodes, the Medicare home health benefit is intended to address short term medical needs designed to be met within 60 days. Ongoing recertification is meant to be the exception, not the norm. That recertification must be signed and dated and have backup support of clinical visit and progress notes, copies of summary reports sent to the physicians, and discharge planning. 42 C.F.R. 484.48.  Sometimes, agencies forget that recertification episodes must be clearly justified and are being reviewed carefully. The RAC Team may wish to call for an audit of patients with two episodes and higher.

Expect recertification assessments to become a focus of review.

Because, the RAC audits have focused on medical necessity, it is vital that the intake process and admission policies be reviewed to ensure compliance.  Involve case managers to discuss how they determine projected visit numbers as well as reconcile their careplan focused visits to the Plan of Care. That Plan of Care is the physician ordered medical certification substantiating the need for home health services. 42 C.F.R. 409.43(c) (3).

The coding processes have historically been one of the highest targeted areas of concern because of inaccurate coding in relation to the assessment and documentation submitted. Improper sequencing of codes with incongruence between assessment and plan of care create chart concerns. Chargemaster functions are to be reviewed to determine how identified problems are corrected. Consider third party coders or third party billing sources who know the rules and assist you to remain compliant.

Billing processes are diverse and should be order centric. A record and process review is necessary to map out areas of high risk, such as physician orders and signatures reconciled prior to final claims dropped. Timeliness requirements should be noted when the process is diagrammed.  Billing can become complex when changes and corrections must be made, so a clear tracking process must be maintained. Personnel must be kept current in billing code changes and CMS requirements.

Anytime adjustments or corrections must be made to the billing, there is a risk for duplicate billing. A strong, consistently reviewed process is needed to track beneficiary eligibility, routine billing requirements, billing adjustments, timeliness, and order centricity.  This review process will go a long way toward preventing automated audits. Remember, the automated audits are intended to locate the simple errors.

The Complex reviews are seeking errors that require more intense review; through medical record reviews.  If a RAC demand letter should arrive, the agency may wish to use that informal discussion period, to discuss the RAC’s reason for the repayment. The agency

You should discuss with the RAC auditor how they can submit supportive documentation. If the RAC agrees to see additional information, they can stop the recoupment process If they do not agree the agency can continue with the appeal process.

Providers/agencies have 120 days (from the date on the demand letter) to file an appeal.  This appeal can halt recoupment but, without a valid appeal, recoupment starts on day 41 per CMS.  Appeal prevention oriented agencies need strong process review and implementation. They need to start their own review now.

Coding and Documentation. Coding and Documentation. Coding and Documentation. They just keep becoming more and more important!

Educational Videos: CY2011 Changes Part II of III

Saturday, November 5th, 2011

Therapy Changes Will Impact Home Health Agencies

With the changes in CMS release auditors such as RACs, MACs, Z-PICs, and Heat, Therapist are now the center of focus.  CMS has asked for this CY2011 is more visits by the qualified Therapist, more supervision.  Their belief is that the qualified therapist, identified as the physical therapist, occupational therapist, speech language therapist, should be making supervisory visits every 30 days and should be making the actual visit to the client on the 13th and 19th visit.

Missed and PRN Visits

Tuesday, June 28th, 2011

With the advent of the new Surveyor guidelines that went into effect May 1, 2011, the focus is data collection and outcome achievement moving away from the prior focus on process. Outcome achievement starts with a great assessment, careplan, and visit strategy that means adherence to physician frequency orders. What happens if the clinician misses a visit?

Missed Visit
In home health care under the CMS guidelines, a missed visit occurs when a scheduled RN, LVN/LPN, HHA, PT, PTA, OT, OTA, S/LP, or MSS does not keep an appointment with a patient.  Examples:  1) Because of an ice storm, a PT does not visit the patient as planned.  2) The RN wound care specialist does not visit the patient as she is detained with another patient.

If calls to the agency to apprize them of the situation and a call to the patient results in the rescheduling of the visit to maintain the physician-ordered frequency, then there is no missed visit.  The agency must communicate with the patient to ensure that his or her needs are met and there is no jeopardy.

Though the physician must be notified, there is no need to get an order.  The agency can notify the physician by phone, fax, e-mail, or mail. 

If no rescheduling within the physician prescribed frequency can be accomplished, then a call to the physician to apprize him/her of the missed visit is necessary and, in this case, a new order may be necessary.

Make certain documentation reflects the missed visit and is a part of the clinical record.

The Interpretive Guidelines for the Conditions of Participation, §484.18, discuss notification of the physician when a visit is missed.

PRN visit
A PRN visit is an additional visit or visits, ordered by the physician, that can be made when the  specifics of the identified care are warranted.

It must include a specified number of visits during a designated time (usually a certification period) and a specific reason or a delineated description of signs and symptoms necessitating the visit.  The reason for the visit must be anticipated and the frequency predicted based upon the assessment of the situation.  Reasons for a PRN visit might include the need to change a catheter, manage an IV, or reassess vitals if a B/P exceeds specific parameters.  Other situations might include a description of signs and symptoms that are linked to the patient’s specific medical condition, such as specific fluctuations in blood glucose readings. PRN orders can apply to any discipline if they are written specifically. Examples of complete, valid orders include:

2 wk 6 + 2 PRNs when blood sugar is over 280 then 1 w3 + 2 PRN visits when BS over 280 .

PRN visits can be denied if the order was found invalid/ lacking in specificity. Both the services and the number of PRN visits to be permitted for each type of service must be clearly identified as well as predictable.  CMS state that “Open-ended, unqualified PRN visits do not constitute physician orders since neither their nature nor their frequency is specified”.

CAHABA states,

PRN Orders

Medicare Benefit Policy Manual (CMS Pub. 100-02, Ch. 7 §30.2.2)

  • PRN orders are acceptable only when the orders are qualified for a specific potential need of the beneficiary and quantified to a specific number of visits to meet this need.
  • When a PRN visit is made, the date and reason for the visit should be explained in the medical record.
  • When an extra visit is billed and the plan of care contains open ended and/or unqualified PRN orders, an additional physician order must be obtained for the visit. If the agency does not have a signed interim order for the visit, the visit will be denied as in excess of orders.

Example 1: A beneficiary with a Foley catheter requires monthly catheter changes. The physician orders “Two (2) PRN visits per month for problems with the Foley catheter including blockage and/or leakage around the catheter.”  Visits are allowed because the physician specifically quantified the number of visits and qualified the visits to a specific need.

Example 2: A beneficiary with a Foley catheter requires monthly catheter changes. The physician orders include “PRN visits.” In this instance, since the orders are not quantified as to the number of visits or qualified as to a specific potential need of the beneficiary, no PRN visits are allowed.

Summary

Well written PRN orders and clear concise documentation supports patient need  The orders are acceptable (per CAHABA), if audited, when they are qualified for a specific potential need of the patient with a quantified  number of visits to meet this need. Make certain the physician is made aware of  PRN visit use, where appropriate. Also, be certain to inform the physician of trends in use of PRN visits which begin to identify a clear need for order frequency  modification.

Part 4: Record Reviews/Home Visits/Analysis/Assigning Citations

Thursday, April 28th, 2011

As stated in Parts 1-2 of this series, CMS has released the new survey protocols, including new guidance as to what HHA surveyors will be expecting from HHA. It is believed the new protocols will provide more survey consistency. According to CMS, the revised survey process incorporated in the protocols is “data-driven, patient outcome-oriented and less structure and process-oriented.” This guidance is effective May 1, 2011.

The protocols focus on the 34 highest-priority standards that closely relate to care quality. During the CMS April 6, 2011 training for surveyors, Pat Sevast (a nurse consultant with the CMS Survey and Certification group) stated that just one finding related to the standards could merit a citation which is a significant move from the present behavior that is seeking non compliant trends at an agency; ie, one of five records or 20% of records reviewed yielded a specific ongoing trend.

With the new survey protocols, a surveyor could cite an agency if just one patient file reflected a patient care issue or a lack of one omitted supervisory visit.  Industry leaders expect an increasing number of condition-level citations. The new protocols allow for one standard level citation to trigger a partial extended survey. If that would occur, the agency would be evaluated against the level 2 standards thus increasing their risk for serious citations.

The training for surveyors included Ms Sevast noting that CMS expects surveyors to cite at a condition level the patient rights’ conditions of participation (CoP) if an agency is out of compliance with two of the highest-priority standards and one level 2 violation. That would trigger an automatic extended survey necessitating review of all CoPs.

So what should an agency do?

Agencies should review the new survey protocols and become familiar with the Home Health “G” Tags and Abbreviated Identifiers, HHA Survey Investigation Worksheets and Calendar, and HHA Survey Investigation Worksheets as well as the Revised Home Health Survey Protocols of February 11, 2011 and the advanced copy of Appendix B- Guidance to Surveyors.

Parts 1-3 of the Select Data article regarding Survey Protocols published in the March 30, 2011 ezine looked at the types of surveys, level 1 and 2 citations, surveyor prep for the survey as well as the new entrance interviews, and the entrance information with specific information gathering techniques.

This segment, part 4, looks at the clinical records and home visits.

The number of records reviewed is still determined by the unduplicated census of the prior year as well as the number of records and home visits necessary to assess compliance with the CoPs.  There is an increase in required home visits by the surveyor as the focus is essentially patient care oriented.

Home visits to patients should include those receiving high-tech care, home health aide services  as well as patients triggering “at risk” of Level 1 and Level 2 potentially avoidable events. Some of the areas the surveyor will be looking at:

  • storage of records,
  • the most recent plan of care and its specificity as to orders and goals,
  • when the patient was visited in relation to the physician’s order,
  • completeness of the comprehensive assessment,
  • evidence of “major decline or improvement,”
  • how coordination of services are met,
  • any evidence of the patient/caregiver contributing,
  • care provisions not in compliance with the law,
  • case conferences, informal conferences and telephone calls,
  • patient specificity of the plans and visits,
  • evidence of patients denied or not offered services,
  • patients hospitalized,
  • patients with LUPAs,
  • reconciliation of care provided to orders given by the physician,
  • inter-related factors of patients with co-morbidities and the care received,
  • therapy visits made at ordered frequency,
  • evidence that PTAs, COTAs, and LVN/LPNs were supervised appropriately,
  • evidence home health aide visits were made every two weeks,
  • if an RN or PT ever observed the aide’s provision of care,
  • evidence the aide careplan was specific to the patient,
  • evidence of consistent documentation of VS, insulin injections, B/P, pain frequency/ severity/interventions,
  • how corrections are made in the record,
  • evidence of discharge summaries in discharge records,
  • evidence of consistent assessment of patient status and progress over the visits.

The home visit and interviews.

Home visit probes will focus on “compliance related to patient rights, accepted professional standards of practice, coordination of care, and comprehensive assessment of patients, plan of care, services provided, and clinical records.” Though not all inclusive, consider the surveyor will be looking at:

  • any instances of personnel providing care that may not be in accordance with laws, regulations, state practice acts, accepted professional standards, or agency policies and procedures,
  • communication by providers with patients/caregivers,
  • evidence that care is delivered by accepted professional standards,
  • evidence that care providers follow CDC guidelines,
  • evidence the aide follows the plan as identified by written instructions,
  • evidence that “medications in the home are the same as those listed on plan of care, interim orders, and clinical record notes,”
  • and asking the clinical personnel “about instances of patient care noted in home visits or record reviews that deviated from the physician orders, accepted professional standards or agency policy.”

The surveyor will interview the patient caregiver to validate that care documented in the plan is the care that is provided, will ascertain if needs are being met by the agency, identify if caregivers are satisfied with the care, that medications presently taken are what have been prescribed (and will compare it to physician orders found in the clinical record), that there is participation by the patient/caregiver in the planning of care, and if they understand the process for handling a complaint. These are minimum areas of review and the agency should be aware that the surveyor may ask when visits occurred, did the clinician and care provider wash their hands, and did they bring their own towels? The surveyor may ask to see all medications taken, including OTC meds and engage the patient/caregiver in discussing when and how they take the meds.

It is important that agencies review processes that are in place to be certain that appropriate agency personnel understand policy and those procedures that support that policy. There needs to be consistency of statements when speaking with the surveyors, who will now have a greater number of interviews scheduled then documented.

The information analysis

This process requires surveyors to review the information gathered during the survey and exercise judgments about the effect of care upon patient outcomes, the degree of severity of any behaviors not fully in compliance, the frequency of the non compliance, and how the services were impacted.

Standard and Condition Level Deficiencies

Data Tags (G-Tags) are assigned to the standards in the interpretive guidelines. If a data tag is assigned to a condition it becomes a condition level data tag. If assigned to a standard level deficiency it is cited at a standard level tag.

If a Level 1 standard-level deficiency is identified, “the surveyor is required to move to a partial extended survey and the surveyor examines, at a minimum, the Level 2 standards under the same condition and any other standards the surveyor chooses to examine.” A review of all Level 2 standards that relate to a deficiency at  Level 1 standards is the minimum requirement.

Any condition level deficiency “requires a move to an extended survey which includes a review of all CoPs and the policies and procedures that resulted in the substandard care.” Substandard care is defined by CMS as “one or more CoPs out of compliance.”

Summary

The new survey process is data-driven and begins with the surveyor’s pre-survey preparation. The surveyor will be focusing on patient care and outcomes derived. The Appendix B of the State Operations Manual has been revised and all are encouraged to read about the new survey process. The definition of a standard survey has been revised to increase the survey’s focus on those standards most related to patient care. Surveyor worksheets are available online at the CMS worksite and provide insight as to the depth and path of the survey. CMS has established a special mailbox for questions related to the new survey protocols hhasurveyprotocols@cms.hhs.gov. Appendix B Guidance to Surveyors: Home Health Agencies of the State Operations Manual offers, in addition to the surveyor process, a full listing of the G-Tags and the interpretive guidelines allowing the agency to see the basis for the interview questions.

This survey process is believed to offer more consistency and focus. The new process complements the patient/outcome focus of OASIS and the drive for improved outcomes and quality patient care.  The surveyors training has been completed. It would be interesting to hear from agencies that experience the new process. Arm yourself with information. Let the new process begin!