Posts Tagged ‘MACs’

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!

The Performance Improvement Plan; Silent but Powerful

Thursday, January 19th, 2012

Among RACs, MACs, MICs, and Z-PIC concerns, along with new survey protocols, new CY 2012 regulations, the advent of 5010, Accountable Care Organizations, and looming ICD-10 CM, what tools can a leader utilize to help mitigate risk? One such tool is the agency Performance Improvement Plan.

Some agencies treat these plans as necessary evils while others embrace the strength of the process and its ability to reduce risk. Recently, we have been asked about initiating a workable, useable, beneficial program.

The Purpose

The purpose of a Performance Improvement Program, Plan, or Process (PIP) is to outline a process that needs improvement. The team that will review the improvement process needs to baseline the present processes seeking efficiencies or other outcomes. This Performance Improvement Plan should support the organization Mission and its Corporate Plan.

Quality Concepts

·            The PIP is established to benefit the organization. It should address an issue or issues that require improvement.

·            The entire organizational team chosen for this Program should be actively included in all phases.

·            Focus on patient or operational outcomes, but try not to take on too many projects at once.

Suggested Patient Care Functions

·            Rights and Responsibilities

·            Ethics and Compliance

·            Assessment and OASIS

·            Adequate Documentation of Care

·            Patient Education and Re-Teaching

·            Continuum and Care Transitions

Agency/Organizational Operations

·            Leadership

·            Ethics and Corporate Compliance

·            HIPAA Privacy and Security

·            Management of Resources

·            Appropriate and Current Policies and Procedures

·            Infection Control

·            Supportive Environment Conducive to Optimum Employee Performance

·            Safety

·            Fiscal Soundness

Responsibility

The Board of Directors approves the Agency Administrator position and the Performance Improvement Program supports with adequate resources and financial support. The Agency Administrator oversees the program or appoints a delegate and assures the Program is continuous, is providing meaningful process monitoring and improvement. Annually, at minimum, results are reported to the BOD.

The Process and the Design

Processes should approach an issue that requires improvement. Processes are designed to be in alignment with the agency mission and strategic plan. They should also be based on evidenced based processes or best practices. They may be benchmarked against other organizations.

Measurement

There needs to be a sound way to collect data. The data will be collected, measured, and analyzed. The goal is to decide the statistical control methods, agree upon how the data will be collected, and determine how it will be measured. Is the agency seeking to evaluate a present process? Design a new process? Assess Performance? Identify areas of Improvement?

Over what period of time will you collect data? Will you evaluate your methods of collection and tools of measurement? Will you evaluate unusual occurrences? Will you keep drilling down until you locate the root cause of the issue?

Assess

The agency should be assessing for improved efficient processes. Will you analyze and discuss new processes so the best process is chosen. Who will be involved? How will they be involved? Will you reevaluate the new processes? When?

Improvement

Buy- in comes with improvement. Be certain that the new processes are truly an improvement. For each issue resolved or impacted, be certain there are clear recommended actions with a responsible party named who will monitor the new processes. Have a timeframe delineated for evaluation as well as evaluation of the “improvement.” Be certain everyone knows the expected outcome. Survey results and identify satisfaction levels.

Buy- In

Buy- in can drive motivation and success. It is important that employees see results for the extra work of the PIP. This process can be applied after Organization Risk Assessments. It teaches problem resolution and hones skill sets. It encourages team building and drives results in an organized fashion. Organizational learning is essential for success. This is one simple way of achieving positive results while reinforcing respect and value for each employee.

Recently, I was speaking with an agency leader, whose firm is known for its Performance Improvement Projects. She has two teams. The key is fun as they attack real problems. Each team identifies projects that impact improved care, outcomes, impact employee morale, or directly impact costs. They present two projects each to the BOD or the Professional Advisory Committee. This allows many to be involved,

Each team defends their chosen project as to benefits derived. They defend the value of the project. Each year the BOD presents a cash bonus and dinner to the team with the best project over the past 12 months. The Leader stated employees via to be on the committees and the PIP are becoming more creative. They are “attacking real problems and finding real solutions we all can live with.” Employees see they are impacting positively on their agency; its care and reputation. They also see the value of group dynamics, peer pressure, and improved performance.

For 2012, the employees have proposed a third team. Leadership is thrilled at that proposal and the fact that she frequently hears, “That should be referred to the PIP, because we can do better.”

Educational Videos: RACs, MACs, Z-PICs, Part II of IV

Thursday, January 19th, 2012

RACs, MACs, Z-PICs, Part II of IV

CERTS – (Comprehensive Error Rate Testing) To better calculate the performance of the FIs and MACs, as well as to look at the reasons for their errors, CMS decided to look at a number of additional rates. The additional rates include

—   provider compliance error (how well providers prepared claims for submission)

—   paid claims error rates (measures how accurately FIs and MACs make coverage, coding, and other claims payment decisions). CERTs randomly select a sample of about 100,000 claims each reporting period.

—  CERTs review the claims for proper Medicare coverage, coding, and billing rules, and if not in compliance, they assign an overall error rate.

CERTs also identify if providers received overpayment letters or notices of adjustments to be made for claims that were overpaid and underpaid. CERTs are considered the Quality Improvement specialists who track and trend the performance of fiscal intermediaries and Medicare Administrative Contractors.

Z-PICs – Zone Program Integrity Contractors will perform Medicare Program integrity functions for CMS. They will interact with each MAC to handle fraud and abuse issues within their jurisdictions. ZPICs are seen to consolidate the work of present CMS Program Safeguard Contractors (PSCs) and Medicare Drug Integrity Contractors (MEDICs) and are divided into 7 zones.

The Z-PICs act with the Department of Justice and FBI and act as the investigators when fraud is very strongly thought to have been found. The Z-PICs have the power to suspend claims for up to a year and the agency has no appeal recourse during that time.  That power can cripple or financially devastate an agency.

HEAT –This auditing body is considered the more aggressive investigator of essentially DME and Home Health.  There has been expansion of DOJ/CMS/HHS Inspector General Medical Strike forces to Baton Rouge, Brooklyn, Detroit, Houston, LA, Miami-Dade, and Tampa Bay and as recently as September, 2011, they have struck, arresting 91.

The HEAT is the technologically oriented auditing body using state of the art analytics to expand the CMS Medicaid provider audit program. This program leadership has meetings with top anti-fraud leaders in Congress/Law enforcement/Private sector.

CMS states that their mission includes, “providing additional resources to our civil enforcement efforts under the False Claims Act to increase dollars recovered; data sharing, including access to real time data; detect patterns of fraud through technology; strengthening partnerships among Federal agencies between public and the private sectors.”

Clearly, with all of the auditing bodies, CMS is making a bold statement; fraud and abuse will not be tolerated.. Unfortunately, in this kind of environment, innocent casualties can occur. Agencies need to take action now.

Educational Videos: RACs, MACs, Z-PICs, Part I of IV

Thursday, January 19th, 2012

RACs, MACs, Z-PICs, Part I of IV

CMS has Unleashed the Auditors

Annually, CMS receives 1.2 billion claims. That breaks down to 4.3 million claims per work day, 574,000 claims per hour, and 9,579 claims per minute. Fraud and abuse are on the rise and the pressure is on.

CMS has unleashed the age of the auditor with the advent of the RACs, MACs, CERTs, MICs, Z-PICs, and now, the HEAT.

RACs- The contingency motivated Recovery Audit Contractors (retrospectively focused). The RAC Demonstration Project of 2005-2007 recovered over $1.3 billion, mostly due to medically unnecessary services (45%), incorrect coding (35%), and insufficient documentation (10%). With four RAC approved firms covering specific geographic regions, these auditors are expected to continue their positive recovery program. The RAC demonstration project yielded a cost of only 22 cents for every $1.00 recovered. They are now in place and ready to go at measure. Certain RACs have been held back until all MACs were in place. That is now completed.

MACs – Medicare Administrative Contractors have been transitioning in and replacing the Regional Home Health Intermediaries (RHHIs). There are 15 MACs with 4 focusing only on DME claims. Though providers fear the RACs, they are well aware of the power of the MAC. This auditing body can impose “severe administrative action” such as up to 100% prepayment review, payment suspension, and use of statistical sampling for over payment estimation of claims (current and prospective focus). MACs have power and Congress is encouraging them to use it.

RACs, MACs, Z-Pics:The Auditors are Unleashed

Saturday, October 15th, 2011

What are your agency case mix averages by admission: clinician: diagnosis?

Do you know your top five diagnostic patient profiles?

How do you set visit frequencies? Formula-based or what seems right?

Are you making visits that have no impact on patient outcomes?

Are you auditing for homebound status?

Are you auditing documentation for medical necessity?

What is your cost per visit by discipline?

What is your recertification percentage?

Do you know your supply utilization per patient?

Do supply usage have adequate supportive documentation?

Do you know what coding, operational, or billing edits you are routinely triggering?

How are you applying the data collected to your business processes?

The RACs, MACs, MICs, and Z-PICs are now in place. The auditors are expected to perform. They have been chosen based upon performance.

Algorithms and Matrices are in place using Predictive Analytics.

Per Wikipedia, predictive analytics “encompasses a variety of statistical techniques from modeling, data mining and game theory that analyze current and historical facts to make predictions about future events”.

CMS is using predictive models to identify patterns found in transactional data gathered to identify risks and potential future behaviors.  They are looking at diagnoses in relation to visit frequencies and recertifications. They are looking at HIPPS scores compared to visit frequencies and durations. They are looking at predictive models that capture relationships among many factors to allow assessment of risk or potential associated with a particular set of assessment/care frequency/payments expected. In other words, what are the guiding decision-making factors for agency transactions? This is one reason why there needs to be rhyme and reason for visit frequency and patient diagnoses and care needed.

Predictive analytics look at past performance to assess how likely an agency is to exhibit a specific behavior in the future. That behavior is then compared to other agencies’ behavior in order to calculate risk, then encompasses models that seek out subtle data patterns that  answer questions about that agency’s overall  performance. These analytics quickly become fraud detection models.

The MACs are using predictive models to perform calculations during live transactions to evaluate the risk or opportunity of a given agency transaction, in order to guide a decision. Individual agency modeling systems can simulate likely human behavior or reaction to specific situations.  The new term for animating data specifically linked to an individual in a simulated environment is avatar analytics. Hopefully, CMS is not there yet but gaming experts ARE employed by CMS.

The government is serious about attacking fraudulent behavior. The danger that exists is that some agencies not intending to commit fraud, but who are not auditing their data submitted, may be triggering alerts. Home Health Agencies can no longer afford to provide care without auditing the assessment, the care predicted, and the care provided.

The RACs have also identified that insufficient documentation for medical necessity will be one of the first area of focus for their audits. But, no agency should believe that only therapy documentation will be scrutinized. Skilled nursing with observation and assessment O/A continues to be high on the list for visit and episode denials.

What happens if compliance measures are not employed? Targeted Medical Reviews (TMRs)/(ADRs) Additional Documentation Requests will rise. There will be claim denials and Medicare audits.

CMS has Unleashed the Auditors

Annually, CMS receives 1.2 billion claims. That breaks down to 4.3 million claims per work day, 574,000 claims per hour, and 9,579 claims per minute. Fraud and abuse are on the rise and the pressure is on.

CMS has unleashed the age of the auditor with the advent of the RACs, MACs, CERTs, MICs, Z-PICs, and now, the HEAT.

RACs- The contingency motivated Recovery Audit Contractors (retrospectively focused). The RAC Demonstration Project of 2005-2007 recovered over $1.3 billion, mostly due to medically unnecessary services (45%), incorrect coding (35%), and insufficient documentation (10%). With four RAC approved firms covering specific geographic regions, these auditors are expected to continue their positive recovery program. The RAC demonstration project yielded a cost of only 22 cents for every $1.00 recovered. They are now in place and ready to go at measure. Certain RACs have been held back until all MACs were in place. That is now completed.

MACs – Medicare Administrative Contractors have been transitioning in and replacing the Regional Home Health Intermediaries (RHHIs). There are 15 MACs with 4 focusing only on DME claims. Though providers fear the RACs, they are well aware of the power of the MAC. This auditing body can impose “severe administrative action” such as up to 100% prepayment review, payment suspension, and use of statistical sampling for over payment estimation of claims (current and prospective focus). MACs have power and Congress is encouraging them to use it.

CERTS – (Comprehensive Error Rate Testing) To better calculate the performance of the FIs and MACs, as well as to look at the reasons for their errors, CMS decided to look at a number of additional rates. The additional rates include

—   provider compliance error (how well providers prepared claims for submission)

—   paid claims error rates (measures how accurately FIs and MACs make coverage, coding, and other claims payment decisions). CERTs randomly select a sample of about 100,000 claims each reporting period.

—  CERTs review the claims for proper Medicare coverage, coding, and billing rules, and if not in compliance, they assign an overall error rate.

CERTs also identify if providers received overpayment letters or notices of adjustments to be made for claims that were overpaid and underpaid. CERTs are considered the Quality Improvement specialists who track and trend the performance of fiscal intermediaries and Medicare Administrative Contractors.

Z-PICs – Zone Program Integrity Contractors will perform Medicare Program integrity functions for CMS. They will interact with each MAC to handle fraud and abuse issues within their jurisdictions. ZPICs are seen to consolidate the work of present CMS Program Safeguard Contractors (PSCs) and Medicare Drug Integrity Contractors (MEDICs) and are divided into 7 zones.

The Z-PICs act with the Department of Justice and FBI and act as the investigators when fraud is very strongly thought to have been found. The Z-PICs have the power to suspend claims for up to a year and the agency has no appeal recourse during that time.  That power can cripple or financially devastate an agency.

HEAT –This auditing body is considered the more aggressive investigator of essentially DME and Home Health.  There has been expansion of DOJ/CMS/HHS Inspector General Medical Strike forces to Baton Rouge, Brooklyn, Detroit, Houston, LA, Miami-Dade, and Tampa Bay and as recently as September, 2011, they have struck, arresting 91.

The HEAT is the technologically oriented auditing body using state of the art analytics to expand the CMS Medicaid provider audit program. This program leadership has meetings with top anti-fraud leaders in Congress/Law enforcement/Private sector.

CMS states that their mission includes, “providing additional resources to our civil enforcement efforts under the False Claims Act to increase dollars recovered; data sharing, including access to real time data; detect patterns of fraud through technology; strengthening partnerships among Federal agencies between public and the private sectors.”

Clearly, with all of the auditing bodies, CMS is making a bold statement; fraud and abuse will not be tolerated.. Unfortunately, in this kind of environment, innocent casualties can occur. Agencies need to take action now.

Can Audits be Prevented?

Maybe not, but exposure for paybacks can be limited by enacting solid compliance measures.

Prepare now. Be aware of what other providers have faced with auditors.

Be certain a clinical documentation chart audit is available for all disciplines for clinical records.

The following items should be included in every clinical note:

Homebound status: Identify what taxing effort was exerted if a patient left the house since the last clinical visit. Be certain all assistive devices are listed and/or the caregivers needed, the purpose for leaving the home, and if this was expected and/or a part of the careplan.

Identify what skilled the visit. If teaching was conducted, was it initial teaching, reinforcement teaching, or was it re-teaching? Identify in objective terminology measureable progress towards goals; ie for the psych nurse, what evidence toward cognitive structural behavior was identified? For physical therapy, how many feet were walked since the last visit and where does this relate to the plan? For the SN, did the patient identify at least two key side effects for their medications? Does the patient know what their medication is for and what it is expected to do for them? Do they know how to safely take their medications?

Compare the Visits to the POC: Compare the visit note to the plan of care that is developed by the clinician based upon the assessment. Have physician orders or notification for changes in condition. Note all change of condition clearly.

SN should be reviewing the body systems noting VS and pain assessments.

When Teaching: Note if the teaching is New, Reinforced Teaching, or Reteaching of the same subject to, perhaps, another caregiver. Note the caregivers willingness and capacity to learn and carry out the learning skills. Note the patient and caregiver’s learning in percentage; ie 70% or 80%.

Interdisciplinary communication: Comments to the physical therapist or the home health aide or other disciplines should be clearly noted. The visits should show the progress of the care in relation to the plan of care.

Specificity of wounds, skin conditions, falls risk, depression, and the focus of care are necessary. Auditors look for detail; for reasons that support skill. No skill can mean denial of visit payment.

For Diabetics Receiving Insulin

Be certain homebound status is clearly and adequately documented.

Skilled Visits must have skill identified such as specific instructions.

Return demonstration responses by the patient or caregiver should be documented. Note the patient or caregiver’s ability to follow their diet. Give examples to support diet and meal planning learning.

Caregiver willingness and availability should be specifically noted on each visit.

More Strategies

Review all claims against known edits prior to submission.

Have a system that prevents claims from being submitted without a signed physician order.

Counsel and hold clinicians accountable for accurate, complete, and concise documentation that matches the planned care expectation.

Clinicians must now be aware that surveyors are looking at their assessments, discipline specific plan of care, the overall plan of care, the visit documentation outlining care provided and patient response, and the outcomes at the episode conclusion. The diagnoses listed in M1020/M1022 must be compliant with ICD-9 coding guidelines, be unresolved, must read as the table of contents for the clinical record, and must be supported by the clinical documentation.

RAC auditors use clinicians and coders on their team to provide more specific auditing. Ask your clinicians: could their visits withstand that kind of auditing review?

Establish peer review sessions at your agency. Proud clinicians want their peers to think highly of them. Peer Review audits can be an excellent defense against an audit, not only because they can be enlightening to clinicians as to what is expected, but because they can be a motivation for excellence.