Posts Tagged ‘Z-PICs’

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.

Documentation, Edits, and Auditors, Are You at Risk?

Saturday, September 24th, 2011

In September and October, the ezine and nation-wide teleconference presented by Select Data will focus on Documentation and Compliance. Check the Select Data website for dates for the teleconference:  Documentation Requirements for Compliant Billing.

This week’s article:
Documentation, Edits, and Auditors, Are You at Risk?

Let’s Talk Documentation and Edits

Medicare has been called the “largest wasteful program in the Federal government.” With the expanded overpayment recovery mechanisms and stiffer penalties for those who commit fraud, the Affordable Care Act is committed to increased audits, deterring waste, and stopping those individuals who perpetrate fraud.

CMS will now disallow payment for illegible signatures and lack of documentation to support need or skill. There are widespread edits to AUTOMATICALLY reroute claims at risk for payment errors, for review prior to payment consideration, and to verify that care was appropriate to the plan of care submitted.

The Auditors

We have all heard the acronym auditing groups. They are real and because of the Affordable Care Act they now have more momentum.

¡  RACs- contingency motivated recovery audit contractors (retrospective focus). They are now in place and working closely with the MACs and ZPICs.

¡  MACs (Your Fiscal Intermediary) – can impose “severe administrative action” such as up to 100% prepayment review, payment suspension, and use of statistical sampling for overpayment estimation of claims (current and prospective focus).

¡  CERTs- described as the “QI for MACs“ looking at claims payment accuracy.

MICs- described as the RACs of Medicaid

¡  Z-PICs- primary goal is to identify cases of fraud, develop the investigation, and refer to the OIG. If you receive a Z-PIC letter, one can presume they believe they have grounds for pursuit.

¡  HEAT- The more aggressive investigator of essentially DME and Home Health. Using state of the art technology to expand the CMS Medicaid provider audit program. Their raids result in convictions.

¡  Expansion of DOJ/CMS/HHS Inspector General Medical Strike Forces to Baton Rouge, Brooklyn, Detroit, Houston, LA, Miami-Dade, and Tampa Bay. Raids in these cities are as recent as September, 2011.

NOTE: Fiscal Intermediaries reviewing denials May 28, 2008- October 31, 2009 identified lack of medical necessity and homebound status unsupported in the medical record. In addition, ADRs were not received in a timely manner.

¡  CMS expects that the patient’s physical condition and/or physical limitations are such that it would be a considerable and taxing effort for the patient to leave home.

NOTE: Refer to CMS Benefit Policy Manual, (Pub 100-02), Chapter 7, 30.1

The Edits

There are a growing number of widespread edits including diagnosis in combination with related factors or by itself, changes relating to utilization and skill, number of episodes and number of visits.

Are you monitoring the following:

  • Parkinsons Disease 332.X > 60 days or more with 10 or no therapy visits.
  • Trauma wounds 870-879.
  • COPD Long-term 496 with two episodes or more.
  • Long-term use of Anticoagulants V58.61 with no therapy ordered.
  • 5 Visits in an episode comprised of 1 SN and 4 of any therapy.
  • 5 Visits including 1 MSW.
  • Hypertension 401.X with 3 episodes or more.
  • Daily SN visits with no therapy exceeding 1 episode.
  • Chronic diseases as primary diagnosis two episodes or more.

Claims are Denied When

  • A matrix shows suspected reasonableness substantiated by lack of documentation
  • Orders and plan of care cause alerts
  • Homebound criteria not met every visit
  • SN visit care is not intermittent
  • HIPPS code billed is not validated by documentation
  • CAHABA denied more claims in 2009 and 2010 for lack of proper documentation than any other reason.
  • Long term claims show lack of documentation for reasonableness. The longer term the care, the more redundant the documentation.

Longer Term Care Edits Triggered

  • Parkinsons Disease 2 plus episodes with no therapy.
  • Primary Diagnosis COPD 2 episodes or more.
  • Hypertension 3 plus episodes.

Skilled Nursing

Skilled nursing coverage is clearly identified in the Medicare Benefit Manual Chapter 7.40.3. If the G Code indicates observation and assessment, then documentation of the patient’s change of condition is necessary and nursing is required until the condition is stabilized. There is a need to note the abnormal symptoms of change such as VS, weight changes, pulse ox and respiratory changes, and/or mental status. There is also a need to document the plan modification and the skilled intervention on each visit. Just observing and assessing without clear intervention will not allow for ongoing payment.

Physical Therapy is a Target

Physical therapy remains a target because therapy documentation frequently remains inadequate and the therapy visits seem to adjust to payment regulation changes. This has triggered the new regulations for 13th and 19th visits requirements and 30 day reassessments. Scrutiny of therapy is acute.

In homecare, observable functional ability improvement is expected. Documentation should be clear and concise with objective measurements. To justify therapy for non direct hands-on treatment, therapists must be clear what was taught to a caregiver to qualify it as a necessary treatment. Services provided must be consistent with the severity of the illness originally assessed.

CMS states, “therapy services are provided with the expectation of the beneficiary’s rehabilitation potential that the condition will improve materially in a reasonable and predictable period of time. The term “materially” means having real importance to consequences, to an important degree or perceivable in material form (objectively).”

Diagnosis must illustrate the focus of care. Diagnoses codes must be updated for each episode. The documentation must support the diagnoses, the plan of care, and the treatments.

Diagnoses Edits

Diabetes primary with CHF secondary is downcoded when DM is incorrectly listed as the primary dx. It can only be listed in M1020 when it truly is the focus of care. The documentation must clearly and consistently reflect this focus.

Hypertension as a primary diagnosis for two or more episodes is a clear flag. A clinician must ask, “if the hypertension is unstable for over 180 days, could there be another problem?”

Schizophrenia is questioned when that diagnosis and the corresponding care are not consistent. An injectable med must be supported by adequate need. Why is it required vs the like oral medication?

Daily visits will be at high risk for audit review. They must have documented support with a finite, predictable, and reasonable endpoint. If BID insulin is being administered, an agency would be wise to have clear documentation, each episode, by a Medical Social Worker who investigates and find no willing, able, reliable caregiver to administer the insulin.

Watch out for LUPAs. Your agency should be monitoring the reasons for LUPAs. Trends such as specific physicians or diagnoses should be monitored. Your LUPA level is being monitored by CMS.

One SN visit with 4 therapy visits is an alert. The MACs look for the medical necessity of nursing. If one nursing visit was ordered then there was no plan for intermittent care thus SN will be denied. It will appear to an auditor that the RN opened the case for a therapy only case.

Minimizing  the Risk of Denials

Educate personnel as to how auditors are reviewing claims. Also, make the clinicians aware that auditors are now looking at the clinician as well as the agency.  If the documentation does not support medical necessity, the question becomes, why is the clinician stating the care is needed when the documentation does not support that fact.

Agency internal review should show why the QA/QI clinician concurred with the plan of care and visit documentation provided. Conduct routine audits and find issues before CMS summons you.

Be certain that ADRs are answered promptly. RACs auditors find that one reason they have had such success is because requested items were not provided timely.

In 2011 and 2012, CMS has required that the MACs not only consolidate fiscal intermediary edits but have them uniform throughout their jurisdiction. Agencies should stay current with MAC Alerts and Newsletters. Consider attending MAC workshops and ask that the edits be made available to providers.

References:

CMS Medicare Benefit Policy Manual, (CMS) Pub 100-02) Chapter 9.

www.cms.hhs.gov/Manuals/IOMlist.asp

OASIS Implementation Manual Chapter 3

Audit Tools to Protect against RAC, MAC, Z-PIC audits…

Friday, October 15th, 2010

It seems that everyone is facing an audit. The best protection is adhering to regulation and following agency policy and procedures. But agencies need to know if procedure is being followed.

This month we are presenting a few audit tools for you to consider. The first is an extensive tool that you may wish to consider for quarterly reviews or as a review before dropping a claim.

For the next few weeks we will be offering a series of tools for your consideration. We believe you may find them helpful.

Download the following tool below (both in XLS and PDF formats).

Chart Audit Tool Excel

Chart Audit Tool PDF

UPDATED for 2011: Chart Audit Tool (2011 Ready) Excel