News, Analysis, Trends, Management Innovations for
Clinical Laboratories and Pathology Groups

Hosted by Robert Michel

News, Analysis, Trends, Management Innovations for
Clinical Laboratories and Pathology Groups

Hosted by Robert Michel
Sign In

Preparing for Z-Codes as DEX Genetic Testing Registry Rolls Out to Commercial Health Plans

Palmetto GBA’s Chief Medical Officer will cover how clinical laboratories billing for genetic testing should prepare for Z-Codes at the upcoming Executive War College in New Orleans

After multiple delays, UnitedHealthcare (UHC) commercial plans will soon require clinical laboratories to use Z-Codes when submitting claims for certain molecular diagnostic tests. Several private insurers, including UHC, already require use of Z-Codes in their Medicare Advantage plans, but beginning June 1, UHC will be the first to mandate use of the codes in its commercial plans as well. Molecular, anatomic, and clinical pathologist Gabriel Bien-Willner, MD, PhD, who oversees the coding system and is Chief Medical Officer at Palmetto GBA, expects that other private payers will follow.

“A Z-Code is a random string of characters that’s used, like a barcode, to identify a specific service by a specific lab,” Bien-Willner explained in an interview with Dark Daily. By themselves, he said, the codes don’t have much value. Their utility comes from the DEX Diagnostics Exchange registry, “where the code defines a specific genetic test and everything associated with it: The lab that is performing the test. The test’s intended use. The analytes that are being measured.”

The registry also contains qualitative information, such as, “Is this a good test? Is it reasonable and necessary?” he said.

Bien-Willner will answer those questions and more at the upcoming annual Executive War College on Diagnostics, Clinical Laboratory, and Pathology Management in New Orleans on April 30-May 1. Lab professionals still have time to register and attend this important presentation.

Molecular, anatomic, and clinical pathologist Gabriel Bien-Willner, MD, PhD (above), Palmetto GBA’s Chief Medical Officer, will speak about Z-Codes and the MolDX program during several sessions at the upcoming Executive War College on Diagnostics, Clinical Laboratory, and Pathology Management taking place in New Orleans on April 30-May 1. Clinical laboratories involved in genetic testing will want to attend these critical sessions. (Photo copyright: Bien-Willner Physicians Association.)

Palmetto GBA Takes Control

Palmetto’s involvement with Z-Codes goes back to 2011, when the company established the MolDX program on behalf of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The purpose was to handle processing of Medicare claims involving genetic tests. The coding system was originally developed by McKesson, and Palmetto adopted it as a more granular way to track use of the tests.

In 2017, McKesson merged its information technology business with Change Healthcare Holdings LLC to form Change Healthcare. Palmetto GBA acquired the Z-Codes and DEX registry from Change in 2020. Palmetto GBA had already been using the codes in MolDX and “we felt we needed better control of our own operations,” Bien-Willner explained.

In addition to administering MolDX, Palmetto is one of four regional Medicare contractors who require Z-Codes in claims for genetic tests. Collectively, the contractors handle Medicare claims submissions in 28 states.

Benefits of Z-Codes

Why require use of Z-Codes? Bien-Willner explained that the system addresses several fundamental issues with molecular diagnostic testing.

“Payers interact with labs through claims,” he said. “A claim will often have a CPT code [Current Procedural Technology code] that doesn’t really explain what was done or why.”

In addition, “molecular diagnostic testing is mostly done with laboratory developed tests (LDTs), not FDA-approved tests,” he said. “We don’t see LDTs as a problem, but there’s no standardization of the services. Two services could be described similarly, or with the same CPT codes. But they could have different intended uses with different levels of sophistication and different methodologies, quality, and content. So, how does the payer know what they’re paying for and whether it’s any good?”

When the CPT code is accompanied by a Z-Code, he said, “now we know exactly what test was done, who did it, who’s authorized to do it, what analytes are measured, and whether it meets coverage criteria under policy.”

The process to obtain a code begins when the lab registers for the DEX system, he explained. “Then they submit information about the test. They describe the intended use, the analytes that are being measured, and the methodologies. When they’ve submitted all the necessary information, we give the test a Z-Code.”

Then, the test undergoes a technical assessment. Bien-Willner described this as a risk-based process where complex tests, such as those employing next-generation sequencing or gene expression profiling, get more scrutiny than less-complex methodologies such as a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test.

The assessment could be as simple as a spreadsheet that asks the lab which cancer types were tested in validation, he said. On the other end of the scale, “we might want to see the entire validation summary documentation,” he said.

Commercial Potential

Bien-Willner joined the Palmetto GBA in 2018 primarily to direct the MolDX program. But he soon saw the potential use of Z-Codes and the DEX registry for commercial plans. “It became instantly obvious that this is a problem for all payers, not just Medicare,” he said.

Over time, he said, “we’ve refined these processes to make them more reproducible, scalable, and efficient. Now commercial plans can license the DEX system, which Z-Codes are a part of, to better automate claims processing or pre-authorizations.”

In 2021, the company began offering the coding system for Medicare Advantage plans, with UHC the first to come aboard. “It was much easier to roll this out for Medicare Advantage, because those programs have to follow the same policies that Medicare does,” he explained.

As for UHC’s commercial plans, the insurer originally planned to require Z-Codes in claims beginning Aug. 1, 2023, then pushed that back to Oct. 1, according to Dark Daily’s sister publication The Dark Report.

Then it was pushed back again to April 1 of this year, and now to June 1.

“The implementation will be in a stepwise fashion,” Bien-Willner advised. “It’s difficult to take an entirely different approach to claims processing. There are something like 10 switches that have to be turned on for everything to work, and it’s going to be one switch at a time.”

For Palmetto GBA, the commercial plans represent “a whole different line of business that I think will have a huge impact in this industry,” he said. “They have the same issues that Medicare has. But for Medicare, we had to create automated solutions up front because it’s more of a pay and chase model,” where the claim is paid and CMS later goes after errors or fraudulent claims.

“Commercial plans in general just thought they could manually solve this issue on a claim-by-claim basis,” he said. “That worked well when there was just a handful of genetic tests. Now there are tens of thousands of tests and it’s impossible to keep up.

They instituted programs to try to control these things, but I don’t believe they work very well.”

Bien-Willner is scheduled to speak about Palmetto GBA’s MolDX program, Z-Codes, and related topics during three sessions at the upcoming 29th annual Executive War College conference. Clinical laboratory and pathology group managers would be wise to attend his presentations. Visit here (or paste this URL into your browser: https://www.executivewarcollege.com/registration) to learn more and to secure your seat in New Orleans.

—Stephen Beale

Related Information:

Palmetto Issuing ‘Z-Codes’ to Track Molecular Dx Utilization, Gather Data CPT Codes Can’t Provide

McKesson and Change Healthcare Complete the Creation of New Healthcare Information Technology Company

UnitedHealthcare Commercial: Reimbursement Policy Update Bulletin: January 2024

UnitedHealthcare’s Z-Code Requirement for Genetic Testing Claims Impacts Laboratories and Payers

UHC Delays April 1st Z-Code Commercial Implementation to June 1, 2024

UHC Will Delay Enforcement of Z-Codes for Genetic Test Claims

EHR Sales Reached $31.5 Billion in 2018 Despite Concerns over Usability, Interoperability, and Ties to Medical Errors

Cerner and Epic are the industry’s revenue leaders, though smaller vendors remain popular with physician groups

Sales of electronic health record (EHR) systems and related hardware and services reached $31.5 billion in 2018. And those sales will increase, according to a 2019 market analysis from Kalorama Information. This is important information for clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups that must interface with the EHRs of their physician clients to enable electronic transmission of lab orders and test results between doctor and lab.

The Kalorama report, titled, “EMR 2019: The Market for Electronic Medical Records,” ranks EHR companies based on revenue rather than market penetration. Kansas City-based Cerner holds the No.1 spot on the list. That may be due to Cerner’s securing one of the largest IT contracts in the federal government—a potential $10 billion deal over 10 years with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to replace the VA’s VistA medical record system.

Is Bigger Better?

Kalorama’s ranking includes familiar big EHR manufacturer names—Cerner (NASDAQ:CERN) and Epic—and includes a new name, Change Healthcare, which was born out of Change Healthcare Holding’s merger with McKesson. However, smaller EHR vendors remain popular with many independent physicians.

“We estimate that 40% of the market is not in the top 15 [in total revenue rankings],” said Bruce Carlson, Kalorama’s publisher, in an exclusive interview with Dark Daily. “There’s a lot of room. There are small vendors out there—Amazing Charts, e-MDs, Greenway, NextGen, Athena Health—that show up on a lot of physician surveys.”

“The EHR is really important,” noted Bruce Carlson (above), Publisher at Kalorama. “Since there are a variety of systems—sometimes different from the LIS [laboratory information management system]—you want to make sure you know the vendors and the space.” Carlson says opportunities remain for new entrants in the 700-plus competitor space, which is expected to see continued mergers and acquisitions that will affect clinical laboratories and their client physicians. (Photo copyright: Twitter.)

Interoperability a Key Challenge, as Most Medical Laboratories Know

Interoperability—or the lack thereof—remains one of the industry’s biggest challenges. For pathologists, that means seamless electronic communication between medical laboratories and provider hospitals can be elusive and can create a backlash against EHR vendors.

Kalorama notes a joint investigation by Fortune and Kaiser Health News (KHN), titled, “Death by a Thousand Clicks: Where Electronic Health Records Went Wrong.” The report details the growing number of medical errors tied to EHRs. One instance involved a California lawyer with herpes encephalitis who allegedly suffered irreversible brain damage due to a treatment delay caused by the failure of a critical lab test order to reach the hospital laboratory. The order was typed into the EHR, but the hospital’s software did not fully interface with the clinical laboratory’s software, so the lab did not receive the order.

“Many software vendors and LIS systems were in use prior to the real launching of EHRs—the [federal government] stimulus programs,” Carlson told Dark Daily. “There are a lot of legacy systems that aren’t compatible and don’t feed right into the EHR. It’s a work in progress.”

Though true interoperability isn’t on the immediate horizon, Carlson expects its arrival within the next five years as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ramps up pressure on vendors.

“I think it is going to be a simple matter eventually,” he said. “There’s going to be much more pressure from the federal government on this. They want patients to have access to their medical records. They want one record. That’s not going to happen without interoperability.”

Other common criticisms of EHRs include:

  • Wasted provider time: a recent study published in JAMA Internal Medicine notes providers now spend more time in indirect patient care than interacting with patients.
  • Physician burnout: EHRs have been shown to increase physician stress and burnout.
  • Not worth the trouble: The debate continues over whether EHRs are improving the quality of care.
  • Negative patient outcomes: Fortune’s investigation outlines patient safety risks tied to software glitches, user errors, or other flaws.

There’s No Going Back

Regardless of the challenges—and potential dangers—it appears EHRs are here to stay. “Any vendor resistance of a spirited nature is gone. Everyone is part of the CommonWell Health Alliance now,” noted Carlson.

Clinical laboratories and pathology groups should expect hospitals and health networks to continue moving forward with expansion of their EHRs and LIS integrations.

“Despite the intensity of attacks on EHRs, very few health systems are going back to paper,” Carlson said in a news release. “Hospital EHR systems are largely in place, and upgrades, consulting, and vendor switches will fuel the market.”

Thus, it behooves clinical laboratory managers and stakeholders to anticipate increased demand for interfaces to hospital-based healthcare providers, and even off-site medical settings, such as urgent care centers and retail health clinics.

—Andrea Downing Peck

Related Information:

EMR 2019

EMR Market Tops $30 Billion, Despite Intensifying Criticism and Challenges

VA-Cerner $10B EHR Control Finally Gets Signed

McKesson and Change Healthcare Announce New Company Will be Named Change Healthcare

Assessment of Inpatient Time Allocation among First-Year Internal Medicine Students Using Time-Motion Observation

Kalorama Report Analyzes Global EMR/EHR Market as Tech Giants Apple, Google, and Microsoft Prepare to Launch Their Own Offerings. Will This Alter Current Conditions for Clinical Laboratories and Pathologists?

Could McKesson Settlement Set a Precedent That Would Require Clinical Laboratories to Track Physician Test Ordering?

McKesson agreed to pay a $150 million settlement for not reporting suspicious opioid orders and this case establishes a precedent that could ensnare other providers

In today’s world of the Internet-of-Things, it is becoming easier to collect data on every purchase made by individuals and companies. That ability to track the actions of consumers and commercial business has not escaped the notice of law enforcement and regulatory authorities. For example, at some future point, it could be that regulators would want to access data held by clinical laboratories on the test ordering patterns of their client physicians.

A recent ruling by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) in a case involving McKesson Corp. (NYSE:MCK), may set a precedent that could eventually be cause for concern for medical laboratories that work with physicians who may be ordering more tests than are considered medically necessary under current regulations.

McKesson is a retail distributor of pharmaceuticals, and provider of health information and care management technologies and medical supplies. In a settlement with the DOJ, McKesson agreed to pay a record $150 million in civil penalties, as well as a staggered suspension of sales of controlled substances for a period of time from distribution centers in Colorado, Ohio, Florida, and Michigan, for alleged violations of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). (more…)

Congress Takes Aim at Healthcare Technology Data Blocking in a Move That Might Benefit Many Clinical Pathology Laboratories

CMS wants pathologists and other healthcare providers to report “every issue—small, medium and large,” when someone gets in the way of information sharing

Federal health officials are taking steps to end technology vendors’ “data blocking” practices that inhibit the electronic transfer of patient information. This is a tactic that has proven costly for pathology groups and clinical laboratories that want to interface their laboratory information systems with providers’ or hospitals’ electronic healthcare records (EHRs).

The fiscal year 2015 Omnibus Appropriations Bill passed by Congress in December directed the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) to decertify electronic health record products that are knowingly interfering with the sharing of health information. (more…)

Top 10 Rankings of EHR Market Share Put Epic First as Hospitals, Physicians, and Clinical Laboratories Make Progress on Interoperability

In both the hospital market and the ambulatory market, Epic has the best-selling electronic health records system, according to data issued by ONCHIT

Across the nation, clinical laboratories and pathology groups are busy interfacing their laboratory information (LIS) systems to the electronic health record (EHR) systems of their client hospitals and physicians. Yet, few lab managers know which EHR systems are dominating the market and which EHR systems are barely surviving.

In fact, it can be a challenge to understand market share by vendor. That is because market share can be determined in multiple ways. Dark Daily found three different rankings of EHR vendors. Each was based on slightly different sets of data. (more…)

;