Mar 1, 2013 | Compliance, Legal, and Malpractice, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology
Final Stage 2 rules give providers another year to meet Stage 1 ‘meaningful use’ criteria and shorten Stage 2 requirements from one-year to just 90 days
Clinical laboratory managers and pathologists may be interested to know that, over the fall months, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released three new rules that affect users of health information technology (HIT).
One rule covers Stage Two of Meaningful Use and includes guidance on how providers should address the need to encrypt patient data. The second rule updates eligibility criteria that providers implementing electronic health record (EHR) systems must meet to qualify for federal incentives. Because medical laboratories and pathology groups maintain ongoing electronic interfaces with hospitals and office-based physicians, it is useful to know some of the key elements of these three recently issued federal regulations. The third rule establishes a date for conversion to ICD-10.
The new regulations were contained in a 1,354-page document published in the Federal Register. These rules represent “a tsunami of change” for providers, observed Patricia B. Wise, RN, MS, MA, COL (USA ret’d), Vice President for healthcare information systems for the Chicago-based Healthcare Information Exchange and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Wise was quoted in a Modern Healthcare story. (more…)
Feb 22, 2013 | Coding, Billing, and Collections, Compliance, Legal, and Malpractice, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Uncategorized
Issue does not directly affect clinical laboratories and pathology groups, but puts spotlight on some hospitals and physicians who frequently use these codes.
Could increased use of electronic health records (EHR) systems be causing more hospitals and physicians to commit fraud because of upcoding? That’s the assertion of certain federal health officials. They attribute the increased proportion of Medicare claims for more complex and more expensive services by some providers to be, in some part, acts of fraud.
Most pathologists and clinical laboratory managers will notice the irony in these allegations that providers are upcoding services to Medicare patients in fraudulent ways. After all, the federal government is currently paying billions of dollars in financial incentives to encourage providers to implement and use certified EHR systems with the goal of lowering healthcare costs, while improving patient outcomes.
OIG Audit Findings Are Source of Fraud Allegations
Insinuations of provider fraud came after the public learned of findings of an audit done by Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General (OIG). The OIG determined that payments for more complex Level 5 E/M services increased by 21% between 2001 and 2010. During that same period, payments for medium-complexity patient services decreased by 11%.
For all of 2010, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) paid out $33.5 billion for E/M billings. This was about one-third of Medicare Part B payments for physician services. These numbers were part of a story published in Modern Healthcare.
Now that much larger numbers of physicians and hospitals are using electronic health record (EHR) systems, Medicare has noticed a steady increase in the proportion of claims submitted at higher and more complex codes, increasing reimbursement. In response to one federal government audit, Kathleen Sebellius, Secretary of Health and Human Services (r) and Attorney General Eric Holder (l) held a joint press conference to announce to healthcare providers that there would be stricter audits of providers who are using billing codes for complex patient visits with greater frequency. (Photo by Manuel Balce Ceneta, copyright Associated Press.)
(more…)
Nov 9, 2011 | Coding, Billing, and Collections, Compliance, Legal, and Malpractice, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology
Some medical laboratory organizations risk coming up short on the deadline for implementation of 5010 standards
Less than eight weeks remain before the January 1, 2012, deadline for implementation of Form 5010. Every sector of the healthcare system—from government and private payers to hospitals, physicians, pathologists, and clinical laboratories—is involved in this important healthcare reform.
Many providers and payers are scrambling to meet the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) version 5010 compliance deadline. This is the latest version of standards for the conversion of electronic health records (EHRs).
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) continues to maintain a hard line position regarding the deadline, according to an article in Modern Healthcare. “There is no wiggle room,” Denise Buenning, Director of the Administrative Simplification Group in CMS’ Office of E-Health Standards and Services, stated. “We’re holding fast to the date.”
(more…)
Oct 28, 2008 | Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory Pathology
Federal officials underestimated the costs and time needed to implement the complex new codes for ICD-10, according to a new study released last week on October 14. As a result, laboratories and physician groups can expect to incur significantly higher costs to convert from the current International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9), to ICD-10.
The report by Nachimson Advisors, LLC, estimated that every provider will incur conversion costs in at least six ways. The report detailed and projected these costs for physician groups of small, medium, and large. It calculated that the typical small group of three physicians would incur costs of $83,290 to comply with ICD-10. A typical medium-sized group of 10 physicians would spend $285,195, and a typical large physician practice of 100 providers would spend $2,728,780. These costs include expenses for: 1) education; 2) process analysis; 3) changes to superbills; 4) information technology; 5) documentation; and, 6) cash flow disruption. Detailed coverage of the impending conversion to ICD0-10 is provided in the current issue of The Dark Report that was published on October 20, 2008.
One large laboratory with operations nationwide estimated that it will spend about $40 million to convert to ICD-10, including costs for information technology and staff education. This national lab further stated that implementation of ICD-10 code sets is projected to be twice as expensive as implementing the National Provider Identification (NPI) system that caused severe cash-flow problems for labs earlier this year.
A group of organizations representing physicians and laboratories, including the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Clinical Laboratory Association (ACLA), commissioned the report. The deadline for compliance with ICD-10 is October 1, 2011, but physician trade groups are lobbying Congress to order the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to delay implementation. One reason the conversion is complicated is because ICD-10 uses 155,000 seven-digit codes, compared to the existing 17,000 codes in ICD0-9. Conversion will be particularly complex for laboratories because of the extensive system changes and the need to train not only staff, but the physicians who refer specimens to the laboratory.
“We have known this transition was going to be a big problem for a few years,” said ACLA President Alan Mertz. “The Nachimson study confirms that belief. ACLA has also consulted with our members and some of the larger labs tell us the costs for transitioning to the new codes and then the ongoing costs to use the new codes will be quite high. It will be costly for lab billing personnel to have to go back to the referring physicians to get the right diagnosis codes.”
Joseph M. Heyman, M.D., Board Chair of the AMA, said, “The AMA is deeply concerned that HHS is rushing head-first into the transition to a complex coding system without fully recognizing the impact on the health care system. Physicians, insurers, medical labs and others are raising the alarm that the costs, documentation and training required by ICD-10 will be significantly greater than HHS now recognizes.”
Medical laboratories and pathology group practices will need to develop a strategy for handling the transition from ICD-9 to ICD-10. Although providers are already pressuring federal health policymakers to delay the October 1, 2011 implementation date for ICD-10, there are many reasons why the United States must move to ICD-10. These reasons are detailed in current issue of The Dark Report.
Related Information:
