Clearing up the confusion surrounding Medical Necessity!
by Lori-Lynne A. Webb, CPC, CCS-P, CCP, COBGC, CHDA (originally printed through HCPro March 2017)
Understanding and
determining medical necessity can be very complex for physicians, clinicians,
coders, and billers.A physician or
clinical provider of care may have a completely different understanding,
interpretation, and definition of medical necessity than the patient or a
patient’s family member. A third-party insurance payer may also have another
completely different understanding and application of the term.
Defining medical necessity
So what is medical
necessity? Coders or billers struggle to understand and sort out as the term,
which leads to misinterpretation and misunderstanding of what needs to be communicated
in a variety of areas.
CMS provides a
specific definition under the Social Security Act:
… no Medicare payment shall be
made for items or services that are not reasonable and necessary for the
diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury or to improve the functioning of a
malformed body member.
In essence, the
diagnosis drives medical necessity. Coders need to understand the diagnosis
itself, as well as what services or treatment options are available to the
provider.
Third-party payers add more confusion
Medical necessity can
also be confusing when it comes to who is going to pay for the procedure or
services. Many third-party payers have specific coverage rules regarding what
they consider medically necessary or have riders and exclusions for specific
procedures. Third-party payers may have a specific exclusion for procedures
that they consider experimental, unproven for a specific diagnosis, or
cosmetic.
One example is a
surgeon using a daVinci robotic surgical device to perform a laparoscopic
surgery. Upon pre-authorization for the surgery, the insurance payer states it
will not pay for the surgery if the daVinci is used. The insurer’s policy
includes a rider that deems the daVinci as an experimental surgical device.
However, if the physician uses a traditional laparoscopic or open procedure,
the third-party payer would reimburse. In this case, the insurance carrier is
not stating that the surgery is not medically necessary, just that it will not
reimburse for this surgery if the robotic device is used.
Even if a particular
procedure or service is considered medically necessary, some payers impose limits
on how many times a provider may render a specific service within a specified
time frame. For Medicare and Medicaid, these limitations are known as National
Coverage Determinations (NCD) and Local Coverage Determination (LCD). Private
payers may simply refer to this type of limitation as a policy guideline or
policy exclusion or rider.
Within these
guidelines, payers may define where or when they will cover a specific service,
but may limit coverage to a specific diagnosis. For example, insurance policies
may have a wellness or preventive care benefit, but may only cover one such
visit per year. Some payers may only reimburse for a single Prostate-Specific
Antigen (PSA) test per year. The payer may require a documented screening
diagnosis in coordination with the test.
If the patient
underwent a PSA test January 1, 2012, for screening, his insurance may not pay
for another test until 365 days (or one calendar year) have elapsed. However,
if the patient undergoes a PSA blood test for screening and the test results
are abnormal, the clinician may decide another PSA test is needed. The coder
must submit that claim as a PSA blood test with the appropriate diagnosis for a
sign, symptom, or abnormality, not as a screening.
Documenting medical necessity
Medical necessity
continues to be open for interpretation by all parties involved. Many
third-party payers have created lists of criteria they use to interpret medical
necessity. These lists do not necessarily reflect all options, but payers
include this reference in their policy guidelines.
Most providers have
not developed a comprehensive listing of medically necessary qualifiers, so
coders and clinicians must focus on good documentation and coding accuracy to
communicate the medical necessity of services accurately to payers. If
third-party payers deny reimbursement for medical services, physicians,
clinicians, and coders need to rely on the formal appeal process.
Medical necessity
documentation from a physician or provider should include the following:
§ Severity of the “signs and symptoms” or direct
diagnosis exhibited by the patient. This is our diagnosis driver, and multiple
diagnoses may be involved.
§ Probability of an adverse or a positive
outcome for the patient, and how that risk equates to the diagnosis currently
being evaluated. This is the medical risk vs. gain.
§ Need and/or availability of diagnostic studies
and/or therapeutic intervention(s) to evaluate and investigate the patient’s
presenting problem or current acute or chronic medical condition. In other
words, does the facility, office, or hospital have what the provider or
clinician needs to render care?
These bullet points
reflect the basics of evaluation and management (E/M) guidelines that are
currently in place from CPT®: the history, exam, and medical
decision making processes. Coders will have an easier time evaluating medical
necessity from this aspect. Of course, a good understanding of this integration
of medical necessity within the E/M guidelines makes communicating this same
principle to the providers much easier. Coders should encourage providers to
continually enhance their documentation to improve overall coordination between
the medical record, coding accuracy, and third-party payer reimbursement.
The third-party payers
employ a wide spectrum of policies defining medical necessity is and should
encompass. Physicians, clinical providers, and coders should review what these
payers have established within their guidelines. Someone within the physician
office, hospital, or medical facility should thoroughly scrutinize these
guidelines before establishing a contractual relationship with a particular
third party payer. This up-front communication will help avoid claim denials in
the future.
Here are some examples
of what some third party payers are currently including in their medically
necessary verbiage:
§ Treatment is consistent with the symptoms or
diagnosis of the illness, injury, or symptoms under review by the provider of
care.
§ Treatment is necessary and consistent with
generally accepted professional medical standards (i.e., not experimental or
investigational).
§ Treatment is not furnished primarily for the
convenience of the patient, the attending physician, or another physician or
supplier.
§ Treatment is furnished at the most appropriate
level that can be provided safely and effectively to the patient, and is
neither more or less than what the patient is requiring at that specific point
in time.
§ The disbursement of medical care and/or
treatment must not be related to the patient’s or the third party payer’s
monetary status or benefit.
Documentation of all
medical care should accurately reflect the need for and outcome of the
treatment.
Treatment or medical services deemed to be medically necessary by the provider of those services,(e.g., physician, therapist, clinician, etc.) does not imply or infer that the service(s) provided will be covered by or deemed a medically necessary service payable by a third-party insurance payer.
Treatment or medical services deemed to be medically necessary by the provider of those services,(e.g., physician, therapist, clinician, etc.) does not imply or infer that the service(s) provided will be covered by or deemed a medically necessary service payable by a third-party insurance payer.
Medical Necessity Q&A
Q:
Could you give me some guidance on how I can instruct my MD's on
avoiding vague and/or subjective clinical documentation?
A:. Ask your providers to adequately
describe his/her skilled care provided
and give a clear picture of the treatment and/or “next steps” to be taken.
Do not use vague or subjective descriptions like "tolerated
treatment well," "improving," "caregiver instructed on med
management," or "continue with plan of care." "patient is here for follow up"
examples of more complete and compliant statements:
1. Patient tolerated ROM
exercises with a pain level of 6/10.
2. Patient was able to
verbalize understanding and importance of checking their blood sugars prior to
administering insulin.
3. Plan for next visit: to
continue education on importance of daily inspection of feet for diabetic
patient, provide wound care, etc.
Q I work in dermatology and need to know what documentation is required for excisions? We are struggling with getting paid
A: The provider should
include the actual "size" of the lesion/mass they are going to
excise. Then they should document the
area of the excision which needs to include the lesion + any margins. (Height, Width, Depth) and if
circular/elliptical etc… and denote the "why" it was performed that
way. If you have to appeal, the
problem with using strictly the sizes from a pathology report, is that tissue "shrinks" once it is excised, and the would
"enlarges" once the tissue is excised.
Q. What is the BEST way to document our time
spent… the CPT codes state a vague "time" amount but the doctors
struggle with this..
A. Notation of Time in/Time out is always very
helpful… it is also helpful if the
provider "explains" the
time. Eg - spent 20 minutes of our 30 minute visit
discussing how to properly use their new asthma inhaler. Or I
was requested by Dr. Doe for "standby" for a possible cesarean section
during vaginal delivery. I entered the
delivery room at 0800 and departed at 0915 status post a successful vaginal
delivery.
Coders must understand
the complex relationships between the physician, the patient, the medical
record documentation, the coder, the biller, the insurance payer, and the
communication between all of these entities to successfully guide the
interpretation of medical necessity.
No comments:
Post a Comment