Pages

Tampilkan postingan dengan label Amazon. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Amazon. Tampilkan semua postingan

99306 CPT® Code Description, Progress Notes, RVU, Distribution (Level 3 Initial Nursing Facility Care)

This 99306 CPT® lecture reviews the procedure code definition, progress note examples, RVU values, national distribution data and explains when this code should be used in the nursing facility setting (nursing home).  CPT stands for Current Procedural Terminology. This code is part of a family of medical billing codes described by the numbers 99304-99306.  CPT® 99306 represents the high (level 3) initial nursing facility care visit (whether you are the attending or a consultant) and is part of the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS).  This procedure code lecture for initial nursing facility care, to be used for new or established patients, is part of a complete series of CPT® lectures written by myself, a board certified internal medicine physician with over ten years of clinical hospitalist experience in a large community hospitalist program. I have written my collection of evaluation and management (E/M) lectures over the years to help physicians and nonphysician practitioners (nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified nurse midwives and physician assistants) understand the complex criteria needed to stay compliant with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and other third party insurance companies.

You can find my entire collection of  medical billing and coding CPT® lectures together in one place on my Pinterest site (CPT® lectures here and other associated E/M lectures here).  You don't need to be a Pinterest member to get access to any of my CPT® procedure lectures. As you gain understanding of these E/M procedure codes, remember you have an obligation to make sure your documentation supports the level of service you are submitting for payment. The volume of your documentation should not be used to determine your level of service. The details of your documentation are what matter most. In addition, the E/M services guide says the care you provide must be "reasonable and necessary" and all entries should be dated and contain a CMS defined legible signature or signature attestation, if necessary.

99306 MEDICAL CODE DESCRIPTION


My interpretations discussed below are based on my review of the 1995 and 1997 E&M guidelines, the CMS E&M guide and the Marshfield Clinic audit point system for medical decision making. These resources can be found in my hospitalist resources section. The Marshfield Clinic point system is voluntary for Medicare carriers but has become the standard audit compliance tool in many parts of the country. You should check with your own Medicare carrier in your state to verify whether or not they use a different criteria standard than that for which I have presented here in my free educational discussion.  I recommend all readers obtain their own updated CPT® reference book as the definitive authority on CPT® coding.  I have provided access through Amazon to the 2016 CPT® standard edition pictured below and to the right. CPT® 99306 is a new or established patient procedure code and can be used by certain qualified healthcare practitioners to get paid for their initial admission or consulting role for initial nursing facility care.  The American Medical Association (AMA) describes the 99306 CPT® procedure code as follows:

 Initial nursing facility care, per day, for the evaluation and management of a patient, which requires these 3 key components:  A comprehensive history; A comprehensive examination; Medical decision making of high complexity.  Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs.  Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of  high severity.  Typically, 45 minutes are spent at the bedside and on the patient's facility floor or unit.

The initial nursing facility care codes should be used whether the patient is an established patient or a new patient to the provider.  An established patient is defined as an individual who has received professional services from a doctor or other qualified health professional of the exact same specialty and subspecialty who belonged to the same group practice within the past three years.

This medical billing code can be used for time based billing when certain requirements are met. However, documentation of time is not required to remain compliant with CMS regulations.  If billed without time as a consideration, CPT® 99306 documentation should comply with the rules established  by the 1995 or 1997 guidelines referenced above. The three important coding components for an inintial nursing facility care note are the:
  1. History
  2. Physical Exam
  3. Medical Decision Making Complexity
For all initial nursing facility care notes (99304-99306), the highest documented three out of three above components determine the correct level of service code. Compare this with the requirement for the  highest documented two out of three above components for subsequent nursing facility care encounters (99307-99310).  Again, three out of three components are needed to determine the correct level of care for CPT® 99306.  The following discussion details the minimum requirements necessary to remain compliant with CPT® 99306.    In addition, as with all E/M encounters, a face-to-face encounter is always required.  In the case of initial nursing facility care codes 99304-99306, Medicare does not allow incident to billing, where the the service is provided by someone other than the physician and the physician may collect 100% of allowable charges in these situations.  Services billed incident to are billed under the physician's provider number.  Per Medicare document MLM 4426:
“Incident to” E/M visits, provided in a facility setting, are not payable under the Physician Fee Schedule for Medicare Part B. Where a physician establishes an office in a facility, the “Incident to” E/M visits and requirements are confined to this discrete part of a SNF/NF designated as his/her office. The place of service (POS) on the claim should be “office” (POS 11).

Documentation requirements for a CPT®99306 initial nursing facility encounter are as follows:
  • Comprehensive history:  Requires 4 or more elements of  the history of present illness (HPI) OR documentation of the status of THREE chronic medical conditions. At least one item each from past history (illnesses, operations, injuries, treatments), social history and family history is also required. In addition, a complete review of systems is also required (10 or more organ systems). 
  • Comprehensive examination:  The CMS E&M services guide on pages 29 and 30 describe the acceptable body areas and organ systems for physical exam.  Either a general multi-system examination or complete examination of a single organ system (with other symptomatic or related body area(s) or organ system(s)--1997 guidelines) is acceptable.  For a general multi-system examination,  1997 guidelines require documentation of at least two bullets each in at least nine organs systems or body areas (described on pages 50-53 in E/M services guide) while 1995 guidelines require findings from about 8 or more of the 12 organ systems, not otherwise specified.   Requirements for a complete single organ exam are discussed in the  E/M services guide from pages 57-79. 
  • Medical decision making of high complexity (MDM):  This is split into three components. The 2 out of 3 highest levels in MDM are used to determine the overall level of MDM. The level is determined by a complex system of points and risk. What are the three components of MDM and what are the the minimum required number of points and risk level as defined by the Marshfield Clinic audit tool? 
    • Diagnosis (4 points) 
    • Data (4 points) 
    • Risk (high); The risk table can be found on page 35
The medical decision making point system is highly complex. I have referenced it in detail on my E/M pocket cards linked here and described below as well. These cards help me understand what type of care my documentation supports. I carry these cheat sheet cards with me at all times and reference them all day long.  As a hospitalist who performs E/M services almost exclusively, these cards have prevented me from under and over billing thousands of times over the last decade.  Note, while I don't have a card specifically for initial nursing facility care codes, the E/M documentation requirements for the low (99304), mid (99305) and high (99306) initial nursing facility care encounters are equivalent to the requirements for the low, mid and high level initial inpatient hospital care E/M visits for which I do have a card available.

CLINICAL EXAMPLE OF CPT® 99306


Here is a note for a high level initial nursing facility encounter (CPT® 99306) for new or established patients.  In this case, an internist is being asked to evaluate a patient as a consultant at the request of the nursing facility physician attending.    
C/C: My leg is red
HPI:  78yo female with  calf pain. Admitted for weakness to the SNF following a recent stroke.  She has left lower extremity 6/10, dull and constant pain that started two days ago and is associated with edema and erythema.  Internist was asked to evaluated as a consultant at the request of the rehab physician.  (4 elements from HPI)
PFSH:  Recent stroke, HTN, HLP. on Lipitor, aspirin, and lisinopril.  Quit smoking on the day of her hospital admission 6 days ago.  Mother with a history of stroke.    (All 3 elements documented)
ROS:  Except as dictated above, all other systems were reviewed and otherwise negative without further pertinent positives or negatives (10+ROS documented.  This notation is allowable under E/M rules)
Exam: 120/80 85 102.7 temp, well appearing (9 organ systems with at least 2 bullets each)
HENT:  Normal
Eyes:  Normal
CV:  Normal
Respiratory:  Normal
GI:  Normal
Psychiatric:  Normal
Lymphatic:  Normal
Neurological:  Mild residual weakness in left leg and arm following stroke.  Cranial nerves intact.
Skin:  Edema, warmth, redness left leg, lines consistent with cellulitis, marked with skin marker.
Labs
WBC 13K (1 point for documenting lab in complexity of data decision making section).  Venous Doppler report reviewed.  No clot.  (1 point for documenting review of a vascular study report in  complexity of data decision making). 
Impression
  1. Cellulitis (4 points for new problem, further workup planned under the number of diagnosis for medical decision making
    Plan
    Start antibiotics.  Reviewed case details with rehab physician  Vitals stable except for fever. Initiate oral antibiotics. Check a sed rate and xray of the leg to verify no fracture from falling after stroke.  Reviewed old records, no xray done during acute care stay in the hospital  (2 points for documenting discussion of case with another health care provider/reviewing old records).  Continue work up with followup lab in am.  Follow glucose to verify lack of diabetes as this can change antibiotic coverage decisions.  Follow Cr to adjust antibiotic dosing.    See orders for full details.
    This patient meets criteria for a level three initial nursing care facility care code because it contains all the required medically necessary and reasonable elements for a comprehensive history, a comprehensive physical exam and high complexity medical decision making.  Note, the only documentation difference between a level 3 (CPT ® 99306)  initial nursing facility care evaluation and the level 2 (CPT® 99305) initial nursing facility care evaluation is the requirement for high vs moderate complexity in MDM respectively.  History and physical exam element requirements are otherwise identical.

    Medical decision making in this initial encounter is high complexity because this patient achieved 4 points for a new problem with further workup planned under the diagnosis component and they received 4 points under the data portion as well (1 + 1 + 2).   In this clinical example, the risk table does not apply.  However, I use the risk table every day to qualify my patients for level three initial care codes.  I think physicians constantly underestimate their level of risk because they deal with the same medical problems day in and day out and their daily encounters do not appear risky to them.  But remember,  the risk is for the patient, not for the physician.  Documentation of high risk drug toxicity  is frequently underestimated when choosing the level of E/M service.   I highly recommend physicians read and understand the risk table to better understand why they are likely  undercoding every day.

    The point system detailed above  is part of the Marshfield Clinic audit tool I use every day with my bedside E/M pocket cards detailed below.  High impact risk table elements are part of these cards.  I use them  to make sure my billing and coding accurately reflects the level of service I provide. Why am I able to document the things I did above and have it comply with E/M rules?  Detailed next are important points to remember when documenting the history, physical exam and MDM.  This information is referenced in detail directly from the E/M services guide linked above.

    E/M DOCUMENTATION PEARLS 

     

    The information detailed below comes straight from the E/M services guide. Read and understand these important nuggets of information. What and how you document is far more important than the volume you document. Providing auditors with documentation you have provided the services listed below will elevate your level of service quite rapidly into higher levels of E/M service. You are already providing this service.  Let CMS give you credit for the work you are doing, but are probably forgetting to document appropriately.   Remember to document, document, document.
    • History
      • The chief complaint, ROS and PFSH may be listed as separate elements or included in the description of the HPI.
      • A ROS and PFSH obtained during an earlier encounter does not need to be re-recorded if there is evidence the physician reviewed and updated the previous information.    This update may be documented by describing new ROS  or PFSH information or noting there has been no change in the information and noting the date and location of the earlier ROS and or PMFSH.  The E/M services guide does not place a time limit on how far back the previous documentation can be reviewed.  
      • The ROS and PFSH can be recorded by ancillary staff or on a form completed by the patient and the physician must note they have reviewed and confirmed the information and supplement any other relevant information.
      • If the physician is unable to obtain a history from the patient or other source, the physician should describe the patient's condition which prevents obtaining a history.    
    • Physical Exam
      •  Specific abnormal and relevant negative findings of the affected or symptomatic body area(s) or organ systems(s) should be documented. Writing "abnormal" is not sufficient.
      • Abnormal findings on exam should be described
      • Writing "negative" or "normal" is sufficient to document normal findings related to unaffected areas or asymptomatic organ systems. 
    • Medical Decision Making (accurate  documentation of these issue can quickly increase level of MDM service being provided):
      • Number of Diagnoses and/or Management Options:
        •  Each diagnosis should have documentation that the problem is improved, controlled, resolving, resolved, uncontrolled, worsening or failing to change as expected.
        • For problems without a diagnosis, the assessment may be stated in the form of a differential diagnosis such as possible, probable, or rule out diagnosis.  
        • Document the initiation or change in treatment.  
      • Amount and/or Complexity of Data to be Reviewed:
        • Document a decision to obtain and review old medical records or obtain history from sources other than the patient, such as family or other caretakers. 
        • Document relevant findings from the review of old record or discussion with family or other caretakers.  Simply documenting "Old records reviewed" or "additional history obtained from family" without elaboration is not enough.
        • Document your discussion of contradictory or unexpected test results with the interpreting physician.
        • Document you personally reviewed an image or tracing or specimen.
        • Notations such as "wbc elevated" or "chest x-ray unremarkable" is acceptable.
      • Risk or Significant Complications, Morbidity, and/or Mortality
        • Remember to document comorbidities and other factors that increase the complexity of MDM by increasing the risk of complications, morbidity and mortality. 
        • Referral for urgent invasive procedures and surgeries should be documented or implied.
        • USE THE TABLE OF RISK!  That's what it's there for.  I have detailed the most common risk elements I use in my daily practice on my E/M card shown below.   
      • There are many other points to consider when documenting MDM.  There are too many to list here individually, but most are described in the MDM portion of my E/M bedside pocket cards detailed below.  In addition, I recommend thoroughly reviewing pages 13 through 18 of the E/M services guide for a thorough understanding of the finer points of E/M coding.


    MEDICARE RULES FOR INITIAL ENCOUNTER:  PHYSICIAN VS QUALIFIED NONPHYSICIAN PRACTITIONER EVALUATION


    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has rules defining which qualified healthcare professionals are allowed to bill for the initial nursing facility (NF) care encounter.  Medical Learning Network Matters documents MM4246 and SE1308  and this summary document are great resources to help providers navigate these complex rules. Briefly, Medicare distinguishes between delegation of physician visits in skilled nursing facilities (SNF -- Place of Service Code 31, for patients in a Part A SNF stay), and nursing facilities (NF -- Place of Service Code 32, for patients who do not have Part A SNF benefits, patients who are in a nursing facility or in a non-covered SNF stay).  The setting is determined by whether the visit to a patient in a certified bed is to a resident whose care is paid for by Medicare Part A in a SNF or to a resident whose care is paid for by Medicaid in a NF.

         SNF FACILITY RULES (PLACE OF SERVICE CODE 31)


    The initial comprehensive visit in a SNF must be provided by a physician and must occur no later than 30 days after a resident's admission into the SNF.  The physician may not delegate the initial visit to another qualified health professional in a SNF stay.  However, after the initial comprehensive visit in a  SNF (99304-99306) the physician may delegate future subsequent care visits (99307-99310) to other qualified nonphysician practitioners (NPP), whether they are employed by the facility or not.  With these follow-up visits, physician co-signature is not required.  Note also, no visits at SNFs may be billed as split/shared services.  

         NURSING FACILITY RULES (PLACE OF SERVICE CODE 32)


    At the option of the state, any required physician task in a NF (including tasks which the regulations specify must be performed personally by the physician, such as the initial comprehensive evaluation) may also be satisfied when performed by qualified non-physician practitioners who are not an employee of the facility but who are working in collaboration with the physician and must be completed no later than 30 days after admission.      That means, in this place of service code 32, the initial nursing facility encounter (99304-99306) can be delegated to qualified non-physician practitioners such as nurse practitioners (NPs), physician assistants (PAs) and clinical nurse specialists (CNSs) who are not employees of the facility but work in collaboration with the physician.  They may also perform other required physician visits and medically necessary follow-up visits (99307-99310).  Visits by non-physician practitioners employed by the NF may not take the place of the physician required visits, but can perform medically necessary visits and write orders based on those visits.    Note also, no visits at NFs may be billed as split/shared services.  

         DUALLY-CERTIFIED FACILITIES (SNF/NFs)


    In situations where beds are dually certified under Medicare and Medicaid, the facility must determine how the resident stay is being paid.

    WHAT CODE TO USE WHEN CONSULTING IN A NURSING FACILITY


    Medicare eliminated consult codes in 2010.  So what code should a physician or qualified NPP use when evaluating a patient as a consultant for the initial visit in a SNF or NF?  Transmittal 2282 from the CMS manual helps explain.
    "The general policy of billing the most appropriate visit code, following the elimination of payments for consultation codes, shall also apply to billing initial visits provided in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) and nursing facilities (NFs) by physicians and nonphysician practitioners (NPPs) who are not providing the federally mandated initial visit. If a physician or NPP is furnishing that practitioner’s first E/M service for a Medicare beneficiary in a SNF or NF during the patient’s facility stay, even if that service is provided prior to the federally mandated visit, the practitioner may bill the most appropriate E/M code that reflects the services the practitioner furnished, whether that code be an initial nursing facility care code (CPT codes 99304-99306) or a subsequent nursing facility care code (CPT codes 99307-99310) when documentation and medical necessity do not meet the requirements for billing an initial nursing facility care code."

    ARE PROLONGED SERVICE CODES ALLOWED?


    Prolonged service codes (CPT® 99356 and 99357) are allowed for medically necessary prolonged care services for code groups 99304-99306 (initial nursing facility care) and 99307-99310 (subsequent nursing facility care) and 99318 (annual nursing facility assessment).

    CAN I BILL FOR ACUTE CARE HOSPITAL DISCHARGE AND NURSING CARE FACILITY ADMISSION ON THE SAME DATE?


    Per the Medicare Claims Manual 30.6.9.2.D (page 60)

    D. Hospital Discharge Management (CPT Codes 99238 and 99239) and Nursing Facility Admission Code When Patient Is Discharged From Hospital and Admitted to Nursing Facility on Same Day
    A/B MACs (B) pay the hospital discharge code (codes 99238 or 99239) in addition to a nursing facility admission code when they are billed by the same physician with the same date of service.


    CAN I BILL OFFICE OR ER VISIT AND INITIAL NURSING FACILITY CARE ON THE SAME DATE?


    No.  Per the August 2015 CMS Manual Change Request 9231 (page 13):

    C. Office/Outpatient or Emergency Department E/M Visit on Day of Admission to Nursing FacilityMACs may not pay a physician for an emergency department visit or an office visit and a comprehensive nursing facility assessment on the same day. Bundle E/M visits on the same date provided in sites other than the nursing facility into the initial nursing facility care code when performed on the same date as the nursing facility admission by the same physician.

    CAN I BILL FOR INITIAL NURSING FACILITY CARE IF I EVALUATE THEM AT A HOSPITAL BEFORE TRANSFER?


    Medicare Contractor WPS provided this insight during their question and answer publication here:

    Question 3: Can the admission to a Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) or Nursing Facility (NF) be performed from the hospital? Is there a requirement that the patient must be seen physically in the home within a certain time period? 
    Answer: We received confirmation from CMS on this question.  When the physician is performing the assessment for the admission to the SNF or NF at the hospital, the physician may bill this using place of service (POS) 31 - SNF or 32 - NF.  If the patient is discharged from the hospital and admitted to the SNF or NF on the same day, both services may be approved by Medicare when the physician provides both services. You can find more information in the IOM Publication 100-04, Chapter 12, Section 30.6.9.2 D. There are requirements as to the time-frame for the assessment and plan of care for the patient in a SNF. You can find more information in the IOM Publication 100-04, Chapter 12, Section 30.6.13.

    CAN I BILL A DISCHARGE AND ADMISSION ON THE SAME DATE TO AN INPATIENT REHABILITATION FACILITY (POINT OF SERVICE 61)

    Medicare Contractor WPS provides more insight from here:

    Question 12: The patient is discharged from the acute care hospital and admitted to an Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) on the same day. Can we bill a discharge visit and an admission on the same day when performed by the same physician? 
    Answer: No. The CMS IOM Publication 100-04, Chapter 12, Section 30.6.9.1.E states that when a transfer from one facility to another occurs, the physician may bill a subsequent hospital visit code.

    DISTRIBUTION OF ESTABLISHED PATIENT CARE CODES 


    What is the distribution of CPT® code 99306 relative to other levels of service in this medical code group (99304-99306)?  Data from the most recent 2014 CMS Part B National Procedure Summary Files data (2014 zip file) shows how many CPT® 99306 encounters were billed and the dollar value of their services for Part B Medicare.    As you can see in the image below, E/M code 99306 had 1,346,325 allowed services in 2014 with allowed charges of $227,436,197.75 and payments of $175,681,052.90.  Based on a review of the summary file, a total of 2,723943 visits were allowed for 99304-99306 in 2014. The code CPT®99306 was used 49.4% of the time in this code group (99304-99306).

     photo 6960ad26-5fed-4b1d-9902-14ff684ccba4_zpsmlbirtzt.png
    Screen shot of 2014 Part B National Procedure Summary File for Nursing Facility codes.

    RVU VALUE 


    How much money does a CPT® 99306 pay?  That depends on what part of the country you live in and what insurance company you are billing.  E/M procedure codes, like all CPT® billing codes, are paid in relative value units (RVUs).  This complex  RVU discussion has been had elsewhere on The Happy Hospitalist. For raw RVU values, for 2016 a CPT® 99306 is worth 4.68 total RVUs.  The work RVU for 99306 is valued at 3.06.  A complete list of RVU values on common hospitalist E/M codes is provided at the linked URL.  What is the Medicare reimbursement for CPT® code 99306? In my state, a CPT® 99306 pays just over $158 in 2016.  The dollar conversion factor for one RVU in 2016 is $35.8043.


    My coding card taught me that I should be billing for the work I'm providing and it has taught me how to document appropriately. You can see many more of my E/M lectures by clicking through to the link provided here.  If you need bedside help determining what level of care you have provided, I recommend reviewing the pocket card described below.


    LINK TO E/M POCKET CARD POST

    EM Pocket Reference Cards Using Marshfield Clinic Point Audit

    Click image for high definition view



    E/M Coding Lecture Slideshow Presentation For Hospitalists

    Presented here is a slideshow evaluation and management (E/M) coding lecture presentation I was asked to provide for the local Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) chapter meeting October, 2014.  This lecture is not sponsored or affiliated with any SHM resource but is my interpretation of  numerous resources, including CPT and CMS, I have researched over many years to help physicians master correct E/M coding.  The 2015 CPT® manual is an invaluable coding resource and can by found on Amazon through the image below and to the right.

    This slideshow presentation  focuses on the difference between a level 2 vs a level 3 hospital admission and a level 2 vs a level 3 hospital follow-up visit.  Because Medicare is aggressively increasing audits of E/M documentation, physicians have an obligation to educate themselves about the rules that determine the correct level of service.  I have previously provided detailed discussions for both scenarios linked above.

    I chose to focus this lecture presentation on  both sets of these CPT codes (99222 vs 99223 admission and 99232 vs 99233 follow-up)  because they are a large portion of the E/M codes used by hospitalists.  Based on the rules given to hospitalists and other physicians to accurately code E/M visits, mastering correct coding documentation can appropriately help physicians get paid for the work they are providing and minimize over and under billing.

    I am a practicing hospitalist with over 10 years of clinical experience.  I have written an entire collection of E/M lectures that can be found here to help guide practitioners through the  coding process.  In addition, I have created a bedside pocket E/M reference card, that I personally use every day, to  accurately determine the most appropriate level of E/M care at point of care service for most inpatient and clinic visit scenarios.

    If you are unable to view the coding lecture below, here is a direct link to the slideshow presentation.

    E/M CODING LECTURE SLIDESHOW 




    This laminated E/M bedside pocket card below is available for purchase. All proceeds are donated to charity.


    LINK TO BEDSIDE E/M CODING CARD POST
    EM Pocket Reference Cards Using Marshfield Clinic Point Audit

    Click image for high definition view



    99232 vs 99233 Coding Comparison (Subsequent Care Hospital Follow-Up).

    This lecture will assist physicians and non-physician practitioners (NPP) determine if their inpatient hospital follow-up note documentation meets criteria for a level 2 (CPT® 99232 mid level subsequent care) or a level 3 (CPT® 99233 high level subsequent care) evaluation and management (E/M) code.  Recovery Audit Contractors will most likely continue to target E/M codes for improper payments.  Physicians and  NPP must pursue documentation education to prevent accusations of over billing and to prevent under billing for work provided.  I am an internal medicine physician with over 10 years experience as a clinical Hospitalist.  Based on my decade of experience and exhaustive review of E/M coding criteria, I believe many level 2  hospital follow-up notes would qualify for a level 3 follow-up note if practitioners understood how to document work already being provided.  The link above provides free access to dozens of billing and coding lectures I have written to help others quickly decipher the complex rules used to determine the correct CPT® code for most inpatient and outpatient hospital and clinic encounters. 

    CPT® DEFINITIONS


    The American Medical Association's 2015 Standard Edition CPT® provides definitions of all E/M services.  This valuable resource is available through Amazon by clicking on the image to the right.   I have previously discussed level two inpatient subsequent care (99232) and level three inpatient subsequent care (99233) codes in detail and I recommend all readers thoroughly review these lectures at their convenience.  Remember, for hospital follow-up notes, only 2 out of 3 elements from history, physical examination and medical decision making must meet criteria for the level of care to be correctly determined.  This is unlike initial hospital care visits (CPT® 99221-99223 and 99218-99220) that require all three elements to meet minimum documentation criteria.

         LEVEL 2 (99232) CRITERIA

    A level 2 subsequent hospital care note requires documentation of at least 2 of the following 3 components:  An expanded problem focused interval history; An expanded problem focused exam; Medical decision making of moderate complexity.   Usually, the patient is responding inadequately to therapy or has developed a minor complication (25 minutes).

         LEVEL 3 (99233) CRITERIA

    A level 3 subsequent hospital care note requires documentation of at least 2 of the following 3 components:  A detailed interval history; A detailed examination; Medical decision making of high complexity.  Usually, the patient is unstable or has developed a significant complication or a significant new problem (35 minutes).
    Unlike the minor differences between a level 2 and level 3 H&P, documentation requirements between the level 2 and level 3 hospital follow-up note are significantly different and will be reviewed below.

                   TIME 

    The CPT® definitions also provide guidance on expected time for the encounter.  However, time can only be used in conjunction with the rules of counseling and coordination of care.  Time based billing has been discussed elsewhere on The Happy Hospitalist and is not relevant to this discussion.

         CLINICAL EXAMPLES 


    Appendix C of the CPT® manual provides pages and pages of clinical examples for a level 2 and level 3 hospital inpatient subsequent care visit.  These examples are a tragic example of failure to appreciate the complexities of patient care.  These one and two sentence scenarios cannot tell the whole picture nor do they represent the reality and complexity of patient encounters in real life.   I provide two Internal Medicine examples below from the CPT® handbook.

              Level 2 Subsequent Hospital Care (99232)
    Subsequent hospital care visit for a 62-year-old female with congestive heart failure, who remains dyspneic and febrile.
    CPT® provides this scenario as an appropriate level 2 subsequent care visit.  I disagree.  Most patients in this situation with multiple other comorbidities would clearly qualify for medical decision making of high complexity based on the Marshfield Clinic audit tool (described in detail below).  In addition, a level 3 history and physical examination would be medically indicated for this clinically complex situation with a broad differential diagnosis.  This clinical description in CPT® 2014inappropriately fails to recognize the risk and complexity of inpatient hospital care.  These CPT® clinical examples are not representative of real life patients.  Most patients do not present with single diseases.  Their complexity rises exponentially with other comorbid conditions.  I do not place faith on these CPT® examples for providing appropriate coding guidance.   This is why alternative methods have been developed to define moderate and high complexity and risk in audit situations. Here is a 2014 CPT®  handbook example of a level 3 subsequent hospital care.

              Level 3 Subsequent Hospital Care (99233)
    Subsequent hospital visit for a type 1 diabetes mellitus patient with a new onset of fever, change in mental status, and a diffuse petechial, purpuric eruption.
    I agree.  However, I also believe a higher percentage of hospital subsequent care visits are complex enough to warrant level 3 coding independent on the patient's clinical response to treatment.  A patient need not always be failing treatment or be unstable to meet criteria for level 3.  For example, patients with HTN, COPD, DM and a new onset stroke on a heparin drip with frequent lab draws for drug management should be appropriately be billed as a high level 99233 for many days, independent of the patient's clinical response to treatment or the development of complications.  The Marshfield Clinic audit tool provides support for this statement.  Physicians have an obligation to accurately describe variables which provide coding audit personnel a rationale to support high complexity coding decisions.
       

      COMPARISON BETWEEN A LEVEL 2 AND LEVEL 3 FOLLOW-UP


    As stated above, the audit components of a level 2 and a level 3  inpatient or observation hospital admission are exactly the same with the exception of the medical decision making (MDM) component.   Unfortunately, this is not true for hospital follow-up visits.  The history, physical examination and medical decision making components all have different documentation requirements.   While CPT® definitions include reference to the stability of the patient, response to therapy or development of new complications, these factors are rarely used independently of the Marshfield Clinic audit tool rules to define the appropriate level of documentation.  Many complex patients with multiple comorbidities may contain all the documentations elements necessary to achieve level 3 hospital follow-up status despite the lack of new complications or  decreased stability. Great medical care that prevents deterioration in the patient condition should not be used to down charge high complexity care provided by practitioners. Based on the CPT® definitions, audit decisions are decided with a detailed analysis of history, examination and medical decision making documentation.

    An auditor, who may have no medical training, must rely on tools that reliably determine the appropriate level of care provided.  Medicare's E/M Services Guide provides detailed instructions for history and physical examination elements.  However, guidance for determining medical decision making complexity is vague and difficult to reproduce with consistency in an audit situation.  Enter the Marshfield Audit Clinic Tool and point system that was developed to provide reproducible interpretation.   After a side-by-side review of history and physical examination elements for a level 2 and level 3 hospital follow-up care note, a detailed review of the Marshfield Clinic audit tool and MDM will be provided.

    HISTORY:  LEVEL 2 VS. LEVEL 3


    The history requirements for a 99232 and 99233 encounter are quite different.  Required elements can be reviewed on pages 26-30 of Medicare's E/M Services Guide.  Here is a summary of those requirements:

         LEVEL 2 HISTORY


              HPI:  1-3 elements  or documentation of the status of three chronic medical conditions
              ROS:  1 or more systems
              PMFSH:  None

         LEVEL 3 HISTORY


              HPI:  4 or more elements or documentation of the status of three chronic medical conditions
              ROS: 2-9 systems
              PMFSH:  None

     

    PHYSICAL EXAMINATION:  LEVEL 2 VS. LEVEL 3

     

    The physical examination requirements for a 99232 and  99233 encounter are quite different.  Required elements can be viewed on page 31 (for 1995 guidelines) page 49 (1997 guidelines) of Medicare's E/M Services Guide.

         LEVEL 2 PHYSICAL EXAMINATION

              1995 guidelines:  a limited examination of the affected body area or organ system and other symptomatic or related organ system(s).
              1997 guidelines:  a limited examination of the affected body area or organ system and any other symptomatic or related body area(s) or organ system(s).  1997 guidelines allow for a multi-system exam (described on page 13 of the E/M Services Guide) or a single organ exam (described on page 18 of the E/M Services Guide).  A general multi-system exam should include performance and documentation of at least six elementsidentified by a bullet (•) in one or more organ system(s) or body area(s).  A single organ system exam should include performance and documentation of at least six elementsidentified by a bullet (•) in one or more organ system(s) or body area(s).

     

         LEVEL 3 PHYSICAL EXAMINATION

              1995 guidelines: an extended examination of the affected body area(s) and other symptomatic or related organ system(s).
              1997 guidelines:  an extended examination of the affected body area(s) or organ system(s) and any other symptomatic or related body area(s) or organ system(s).  1997 guidelines allow for a multi-system exam (described on page 13 of the E/M Services Guide) or a single organ exam (described on page 18 of the E/M Services Guide).  A general multi-system exam should include at least six organ systems or body areas . For each system/area selected, performance and documentation of at least two elements identified by a bullet (•) is expected. Alternatively, a detailed examination may include performance and documentation of at least twelve elements identified by a bullet (•) in two or more organ systems or body areasA single organ system exam, other than the eye and psychiatric examinations, should include performance and documentation of at least twelve elementsidentified by a bullet (•), whether in a box with a shaded or unshaded border. Eye and psychiatric examinations should include the performance and documentation of at least nine elements identified by a bullet (•), whether in a box with a shaded or unshaded border. 


    MEDICAL DECISION MAKING (MDM):  LEVEL 2 VS. LEVEL 3


          MARSHFIELD CLINIC AUDIT TOOL


    Where did the Marshfield Clinic point system E/M tool come from? It was developed in the early 1990s at a 600 physician multi-site, multi-specialty, mostly office-based practice in Wisconsin where Medicare's 1995 EM guidelines were beta tested. This medical decision making point system audit tool was developed by clinic staff and their local Medicare carrier. These scoring tools never made it into the official guidelines, but are accepted as a standard audit tool by most carriers today.  I have created an E/M pocket reference guide as a rapid bedside decision tool that incorporates their guidance into clinical decisions.  Details of this bedside reference can be found at the link provided just above.  These cards are available for purchase.  All proceeds are donated to charity.


    LINK TO E/M POCKET REFERENCE POST

    EM Pocket Reference Cards Using Marshfield Clinic Point Audit

    Click image for high def view


         CMS GUIDANCE ON MEDICAL DECISION MAKING


    Why do many Medicare carriers use the Marshfield Clinic Audit Tool to determine the correct level of service provided?  Medicare's description of medical decision making in the Evaluation and Management Services Guide (page 33) contains vague language that cannot be reliably reproduced in clinical practice.  Here is a screen shot of the E/M Services Guide discussing medical decision making criteria.

    Medicare E/M Services Guideline Medical Decision Making

    How can a practitioner or auditor reliably determine when the number of diagnoses are multiple or extensive?  How can a practitioner or auditor reliably determine when the  amount and complexity of data is moderate or extensive?  They can't.  Ironically, determining the correct level of medical decision making complexity is complex.   Just as the CPT® definitions use vague language in defining their codes, the E/M Services Guide also uses the same difficult language to guide physicians and other NPPs.  This is a tragic.  This is why The Marshfield Clinic Audit Tool for MDM was developed and used by auditors and practitioners to stay compliant.  Pages 33-37 of the E/M Services Guide provides the basis for the Marshfield Clinic Audit Tool point system shown above on The Happy Hospitalist's bedside pocket E/M reference card.  It provides quick access to documentation elements converted into Marshfield Clinic Audit Tool points. It may also help providers remember to document work provided but rarely described in the chart in order to get credit for documentation elements in an audit situation.    For example, in the number of diagnoses or management options component of medical decision making,  three points is given for a new problem with no workup planned when using the Marshfield Clinic Audit Tool.  This is based on Medicare's E/M Services Guide (page 34) description of diagnosis complexity here.
    The number and type of diagnostic tests employed may be an indicator of the number of possible diagnoses. Problems which are improving or resolving are less complex than those which are worsening or failing to change as expected. 
    This same point system applies to the amount and/or complexity of data to be reviewed.  For example, one point is given for ordering a lab or an  x-ray in the Marshfield Clinic Audit Tool.  This  decision is based on Medicare's E/M Services Guide (page 35) description of amount and/or complexity of data to be reviewed.
    If a diagnostic service (test or procedure) is ordered, planned, scheduled, or performed at the time of the E/M encounter, the type of service, eg , lab or x -ray, should be documented.
    Medicare does provide decent guidance on risk of complications and/or morbidity or mortality with their risk table (shown below).  However, some elements within this table contain vague language that can be open to interpretation and require  physicians and other NPP to document their thought processes aggressively to avoid accusations of  incorrect billing when they believe high risk to the patient is present.

          SIDE-BY-SIDE MDM CRITERIA COMPARISON (Level 2 vs Level 3)


    If you feel lost in this discussion, now is the time to place close attention.  Using Medicare's E/M Services Guide as a reference, I have incorporated the Marshfield Clinic point system as a side-by-side reference below.

    Within the diagnosis and data elements of MDM,  points are provided for defined elements of documentation found during a chart audit.  For example, one point is allowed for a self limiting or minor problem in the diagnosis section of MDM while one point may be given for evidence the provider requested prior records.   This is the basis of the point system under the Marshfield Clinic Audit Tool that is used by most Medicare carriers.

    Medical Decision Making Point System

    While this point system is not officially part of Medicare's E/M Services Guide, the risk table is.  The risk table is available on page 20 or 37 of the Evaluation and Management Services Guide.  I have provided a screen shot here for quick reference.  The highest element anywhere on the risk table determines the highest overall level of risk on the risk table.  For example, a patient with an abrupt change in neurological status meets criteria for high risk on the risk table regardless of any other data points on the table.

    Risk Table E/M CMS

    To determine the overall level of MDM complexity, the highest two out of three elements from diagnoses, data and risk determine the overall level of MDM.  In other words, the highest level of documentation for data and diagnosis, data and risk or diagnosis and risk will determine the overall level of MDM.  Below are the minimum MDM criteria for a level 2 and level 3 subsequent hospital care.  For example a patient who's documentation supports 3 diagnosis points, 1 data point and moderate risk would qualify for level 2 MDM. A patient who's documentation supports 2 diagnosis points, 4 data points and high risk would qualify for level 3 MDM.  A patient who's documentation supports 2 diagnosis points, 2 data points and high risk would not qualify for either level 2 or level 3 MDM for subsequent hospital care visit.

         LEVEL 2 MDM (highest 2 out of 3 determines overall level of MDM)

    DIAGNOSIS:  3 points
    DATA:  3 points
    RISK TABLE:  moderate

         LEVEL 3 MDM (highest 2 out of 3 determines overall level of MDM)

    DIAGNOSIS:  4 points
    DATA:  4 points
    RISK TABLE:  high

     

    LEVEL 2 PERMUTATIONS


    Here are all eleven potential documentation permutations for medical decision making of a level 2 subsequent hospital care evaluation.  However, keep in mind subsequent hospital care evaluations only require the highest two out of three elements from history, physical examination and medical decision making.  E/M rules do not mandate medical decision making as a required element.  The two out three highest levels of documentation in diagnosis, data and risk will determine the overall level of MDM.   If MDM is going to be used, the following graphics describe all permutations of moderate complexity medical decision making (level 2).  This same exercise can be done to determine high complexity medical decision making (level 3)

    Remember to always consider medical necessity.  For example, ordering a head CT to increase the complexity of medical decision making on a chief complaint of pulled hamstring may raise some red flags if the chart undergoes an audit.  I believe if you're anywhere in the ball park of practicing standard of care, justifying medical necessity will rarely be a determining factor in having to support your level of care based on history, physical or decision making.

    Level 2 hospital medical decision making option
    Level 2 hospital medical decision making example
    Level 2 hospital medical decision making example
    Level 2 hospital medical decision making example
    Level 2 hospital medical decision making example
    Level 2 hospital medical decision making example
    Level 2 hospital medical decision making example
    Level 2 hospital medical decision making example
    Level 2 hospital medical decision making example
    Level 2 hospital medical decision making example
    Level 2 hospital medical decision making example



    WHERE CAN I GET A COPY OF THE POINT SYSTEM?


    Many examples of the Marshfield Clinic point system are available on the internet.  Page two of this Codeapedia reference provides a detailed description of the point system.  This point system  is the basis for the bedside E/M reference card provided by The Happy Hospitalist pictured above and  linked here again for easy reference.

    MANY LEVEL 2s ARE PROBABLY LEVEL 3s


    Practitioners who know how to accurately document their work are probably providing level three subsequent hospital care visits without knowing it.  So much of what physicians and NPP do in their daily practice is taken for granted as not complex enough to rise to the highest levels of care.  Practitioners who  understand the elements of the risk table and are educated about the elements of the Marshfield Clinic Audit Tool point system can and should be coding the highest level of care when their documentation supports it.  Many hospitalized patients are complex enough to require high levels of history and physical to discover or prevent complications of therapy and have high complexity medical decision making regardless of their clinical status as stable or improved.  Many complications are prevented and clinical deterioration is prevented due to time consuming high complexity MDM.  Medical necessity should never be questioned in these patients

    In reality, many physicians and other NPP are scared to bill too many level 3 hospital follow-up notes for fear of getting audited.  No fear should exist if documentation supports level 3  work already being provided.  If all providers would document work they are already providing and billed appropriately, level 3 subsequent care distribution would rise dramatically and physician outliers, who are coding correctly, would disappear.  Practitioners  worried about getting audited as an outlier should continue to document work they are already providing and to bill correctly, regardless of their status as an outlier.  Being an outlier is not fraudulent when documentation supports correct coding decisions.   It's quite possible that most physicians who aren't billing higher levels of  99233 vs 99232 visits are the outliers because they either don't document work they are already providing, are not providing work that is medically necessary or are intentionally under billing for fear of an audit.

    RVU COMPARISON


    Most E/M services are given a relative value unit (RVU) value by CMS.  I have previously discussed RVUs.  The most updated table of RVU values can be found here.  The difference in relative value units assigned to a level 2 vs. a level 3 subsequent hospital care visit are significant.  For practitioners who's compensation may be determined by productivity, coding accurately for work already being provided can boost payments significantly.  What are the RVU values for a level 2 and level 3 hospital follow-up?  For Medicare patients in 2016, one RVU is worth $35.8043.

         LEVEL 2 (99232)
    • work RVU 1.39; total RVU 2.02
         LEVEL 3 (99233)
    • work RVU 2.0; total RVU 2.91
    A level 3 hospital subsequent care visit is valued nearly 45% higher than a level 2 based on total RVU and work RVU.  This difference is significant.  Since subsequent hospital care visits represent a large percentage of most hospital based medical physicians, appropriately coding level 3 instead of level 2 when documentation supports those efforts would provide a significant increase in revenue opportunity.

    DISTRIBUTION OF LEVEL 2 vs. LEVEL 3 HOSPITAL FOLLOW-UP


    What is the distribution of level 2  and level 3 hospital admissions?  This can vary depending on specialty.  One Medicare carrier has provided us insight into 99232 vs 99233 coding distribution at 62% and 30% respectively.  Other Medicare distribution data is available at the CPT® 99232 and CPT® 99233 articles linked near the top of this lecture.  These distribution numbers confirm similarity with SHM/MGMA data.

    PAYMENT COMPARISON


    Payments will vary based on geographical location.  Providers in New York would generally get paid more than providers in North Dakota.  For example, in some localities, a level 2 subsequent hospital care visit pays around $70 and a level 3 subsequent hospital care visit around $100, a nearly 45% increase.  Failure to document work already being provided can be expensive.  Given the large volume of subsequent care visits provided by Hospitalists and other hospital based specialties, knowing how to document work already being provided is valuable in any practice.

    RAC AUDITORS


    Medicare may be targeting inappropriate payments to providers for subsequent hospital care visits.  A practitioner's best defense against accusations of fraud is to document thoroughly for work provided and to practice standard of care.  Despite being an outlier,  accurate stand alone documentation of medically necessary care should always support any coding distribution that results.   I have thoroughly reviewed Medicare's Evaluation and Management Services Guide and can confirm that fear of an audit is not an element that should be used to guide coding decisions.




    Level 2 vs. Level 3 H&P Coding Comparison.

    This lecture will assist physicians and other non-physician practitioners (NPPs) determine if their initial hospital admission note documentation meets criteria for a level 2 (mid level H&P) or a level 3 (high level H&P) evaluation and management (E/M) code.  Recovery Audit Contractors will likely continue to target high level initial hospital encounters for improper payments.  Physicians and other NPPs must continue to pursue documentation education to prevent accusations of over billing and to prevent under billing for work provided.  I am an internal medicine physician with over 10 years experience as a clinical hospitalist.  Based on my decade of experience and exhaustive review of E/M coding criteria, I believe most level 2 H&P hospital admissions would qualify for a level 3 H&P if practitioners understood how to document  work already being provided.  The link above provides free access to dozens of billing and coding lectures I have written to help others quickly decipher the complex rules used to determine the correct CPT® code for most inpatient and outpatient hospital and clinic encounters. 

    CPT® DEFINITIONS


    The American Medical Association's 2015 Standard Edition CPT® provides definitions of all E/M services.  This valuable resource is available through Amazon by clicking on the image to the right and below.   I have previously discussed level two initial inpatient and observation hospital admission (CPT® 99222 and 99219) and level three initial inpatient and observation hospital  admission (CPT® 99223 and 99220) codes in detail and I recommend all readers thoroughly review these lectures at their convenience.

    To simplify understanding of the differences between a level 2 and a level 3 hospital H&P, I will treat the criteria for a level two initial inpatient hospital admission (CPT® 99222) the same as a level two initial observation hospital admission (CPT® 99219) and I will treat the criteria for a level three initial inpatient hospital admission (CPT® 99223) the same as a level three initial observation hospital admission (CPT® 99220).  In both cases, their criteria are equivalent for all intents and purposes.

         LEVEL 2  CRITERIA

    A level 2 initial hospital admission note requires documentation of a comprehensive history, a comprehensive examination and medical decision making of moderate complexity.  Presenting problem(s) are usually of moderate severity (50 minutes).

         LEVEL 3  CRITERIA

    A level 3 initial hospital admission note requires documentation of a comprehensive history, a comprehensive examination and medical decision making of high complexity.  Presenting problems are usually of high severity (70 minutes).
    Supporting documentation required for a level two note is identical to a level three note for history and examination.  Shown in red, the only difference is the complexity of the medical decision making that documentation supports.  If an initial hospital admission note does not have documentation to support a comprehensive history and examination, the highest level of service that can be billed is a level 1 H&P (99221 or 99218).

                   TIME 

    The CPT® definitions also provide guidance on expected time for the encounter.  However, time can only be used in conjunction with the rules of counseling and coordination of care.  Time based billing has been discussed elsewhere on The Happy Hospitalist and is not relevant to this discussion.

                   NATURE OF THE PRESENTING PROBLEM

    The CPT® definitions also provide guidance on the nature of the presenting problem.  How does one audit a note for moderate severity or high severity?  The CPT® handbook attempts to define moderate severity and high severity.  Unfortunately, they chose to use the words moderate and high within their own definition.  This makes standardized interpretation difficult.
    Moderate severity:  A problem where the risk of morbidity without treatment is moderate, there is moderate risk of mortality without treatment; uncertain prognosis OR increased probability of prolonged functional  impairment. 
    High severity:  A problem where the risk of morbidity without treatment is high to extreme; there is a moderate to high risk of mortality without treatment OR high probability of severe, prolonged functional impairment.
    These vague CPT® definitions are difficult to interpret in clinical practice.   How does one audit moderate or high risk based on this CPT® guidance?  One cannot.  That's why these elements of the CPT® definition are rarely enforced in audit scenarios without using alternative tools (discussed below) to define the level of risk and complexity.   What may be moderate or high to one patient, doctor or specialty may be moderate or high to another.  One  could argue all patients that need to be admitted to the hospital risk a high probability of morbidity or mortality without treatment.  That's why they are in the hospital.

         CLINICAL EXAMPLES 


    Appendix C of the CPT® manual provides pages and pages of clinical examples for a level 2 and level 3 hospital admission.  These examples are a tragic example of failure to appreciate the complexities of patient care.  These one and two sentence scenarios cannot tell the whole picture nor do they represent the reality and complexity of patient encounters in real life.   I provide two Internal Medicine examples below from the CPT® handbook.

              Level 2 H&P (99222)
    Initial hospital visit for a 61-year-old male with history of previous myocardial infarction, who now complains of chest pain.
    CPT® provides this scenario as an appropriate level 2 admission.  I disagree.  Consider the scenario where an emergency department physician recommends admission to the hospital for evaluation and management of this patient with chest pain and a known prior history of myocardial infarction.  If the patient declined admission and left the emergency department against medical advice, any reasonable discharging physician would have an informed consent discussion with the patient detailing the high risk of death or disability.   By default, that would make this presenting problem of high severity and in direct conflict with the  assumption that this presenting problem was of moderate severity.  However, a cardiologist, after reviewing the data in the emergency department may have a different perspective and believe safe discharge from the emergency department is acceptable with low risk for complications.  There in lies the dilemma.    Defining moderate and high severity is open to great interpretation and cannot be reliably audited for payment purposes.  Therefor, it should not be audited without more definitive criteria.

    Regardless of the inability to audit vague terminology such as moderate or high, these CPT® clinical examples are not representative of real life patients.  Most patients do not present with single diseases.  Their complexity rises exponentially with other comorbid conditions.  I do not place faith on these CPT® examples for providing appropriate coding guidance.   This is why alternative methods have been developed to define moderate and high complexity and risk in audit situations. Here is a CPT® example of a level 3 inpatient hospital admission.

              Level 3 H&P (99223)
    Initial hospital visit for a 70-year-old male with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma who has developed fever and lymphadenopathy.
    I agree.  However, I also believe the vast majority of all hospital admissions are complex enough to warrant the highest level of service.  That's why they are in the hospital.    In addition, based on risk defining criteria that has been developed, thorough documentation of work provided will often provide confirmation of high complexity medical decision making.
       

    DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A LEVEL 2 AND LEVEL 3 H&P


    The audit components of a level 2 and a level 3  inpatient or observation hospital admission are exactly the same with the exception of the medical decision making (MDM) component.   While CPT® definitions include reference to the severity of the presenting problem, I've established above how determining the level of service based on that criteria is impossible.  Official CPT® examples do not represent the realities of clinical medicine.  So how is the correct level of service determined?  Based on the CPT® definitions, audit decisions are decided with a detailed analysis of history, examination and medical decision making documentation.

    As discussed above, the history documentation requirements and the examination documentation requirements are identical for a level 2 and level 3 initial hospital admission note.  An auditor, who may have no medical training, cannot reliably categorize medical decision making, risk or severity of a presenting problem as moderate or high without checkbox criteria to assist in their efforts.  Even Medicare's own Evaluation and Management Services Guide provides only vague instructions on determining the level of complexity for MDM.   Enter the Marshfield Audit Clinic Tool and point system (reviewed below)  that was developed to provide additional guidance and support.  The only audit tool difference between a level 2 and a level 3 initial hospital admission is the medical decision making component.  For a level 2 hospital H&P, documentation should support medical decision making of moderate complexity.   For a level 3 hospital H&P, documentation should support medical decision making of  high complexity.  This is where the Marshfield Clinic Audit Tool provides guidance.

    MEDICAL DECISION MAKING (MDM)


          MARSHFIELD CLINIC AUDIT TOOL


    Where did the Marshfield Clinic point system E/M tool come from? It was developed in the early 1990s at a 600 physician multi-site, multi-specialty, mostly office-based practice in Wisconsin where Medicare's 1995 EM guidelines were beta tested. This medical decision making point system audit tool was developed by clinic staff and their local Medicare carrier. These scoring tools never made it into the official guidelines, but are accepted as a standard audit tool by most carriers today.  I have created an E/M pocket guide as a rapid bedside decision tool that incorporates their guidance into clinical decisions.  Details of this bedside reference can be found at the link provided just above.  These cards are available for purchase.  All proceeds are donated to charity.


    LINK TO E/M POCKET REFERENCE POST

    EM Pocket Reference Cards Using Marshfield Clinic Point Audit

    Click image for high def view


         CMS GUIDANCE ON MEDICAL DECISION MAKING


    Why do many Medicare carriers use the Marshfield Clinic Audit Tool to determine the correct level of service provided?  Medicare's description of medical decision making in the Evaluation and Management Services Guide (page 33) contains vague language that cannot be reliably reproduced in clinical practice.  Here is a screen shot of the E/M Services Guide discussing medical decision making criteria.

    Medicare E/M Services Guideline Medical Decision Making

    How can a practitioner or auditor reliably determine when the number of diagnoses are multiple or extensive?  How can a practitioner or auditor reliably determine when the  amount and complexity of data is moderate or extensive?  They can't.  Ironically, determining the correct level of medical decision making complexity is complex.   Just as the CPT® definitions use vague language in defining their codes, the E/M Services Guide also uses the same difficult language to guide physicians and other NPPs.  This is a tragedy.  This is why The Marshfield Clinic Audit Tool for MDM was developed and used by auditors and practitioners to stay compliant.  Pages 33-37 of the E/M Services Guide provides the basis for the Marshfield Clinic Audit Tool point system shown above on The Happy Hospitalist's bedside pocket E/M reference card.  It provides quick access to documentation elements converted into Marshfield Clinic Audit Tool points. It may also help providers remember to document work provided but rarely described in the chart in order to get credit for documentation elements in an audit situation.    For example, in the number of diagnoses or management options component of medical decision making,  four points is given for a new problem with more workup planned when using the Marshfield Clinic Audit Tool.  This is based on Medicare's E/M Services Guide (page 34) description of diagnosis complexity here.
    The number and type of diagnostic tests employed may be an indicator of the number of possible diagnoses. Problems which are improving or resolving are less complex than those which are worsening or failing to change as expected. 
    This same point system applies to the amount and/or complexity of data to be reviewed.  For example, one point is given for review or ordering of  laboratory services in the Marshfield Clinic Audit Tool.  This  decision is based on Medicare's E/M Services Guide (page 35) description of amount and/or complexity of data to be reviewed.
    If a diagnostic service (test or procedure) is ordered, planned, scheduled, or performed at the time of the E/M encounter, the type of service, eg, lab or x-ray, should be documented.
    Medicare does provide decent guidance on risk of complications and/or morbidity or mortality with their risk table (shown below).  However, some elements within this table contain vague language that can be open to interpretation and require  physicians and other NPPs to document their thought processes aggressively to avoid accusations of  incorrect billing when they believe high risk to the patient is present.  Drug therapy requiring intensive monitoring is one such element.  I have provided a detailed review of that component here.

          SIDE-BY-SIDE MDM CRITERIA COMPARISON


    If you feel lost in this discussion, now is the time to place close attention.   When combined with history and examination documentation, the MDM makes up the final necessary component  for determining the correct CPT® code.  Remember, the history and examination documentation required for a level 2 and level 3 hospital H&P admission are identical.  Both require the highest level of service.  For history, documentation must include at least four HPI elements or the status of three relevant chronic medical conditions, 10 or more review of systems and at least one element each from past history, family history and social history.  For examination, documentation generally requires at least 2 bullets each from 9 organ systems, although I recommend readers review different examination documentation options available at the 99222 and 99223 links near the top of this lecture.

    The only documentation difference between level 2 and a level 3 hospital H&P admission is in the medical decision making component.  I will try my best to tie it all together and show you just how similar a level 2 and level 3 admit are in their medical decision making elements.  Using Medicare's E/M Services Guide as a reference, I have incorporated the Marshfield Clinic point system as a side-by-side reference below.

    Within the diagnosis and data elements of MDM,  points are provided for defined elements of documentation found during a chart audit.  For example, one point is allowed for a self limiting or minor problem in the diagnosis section of MDM while one point may be given for evidence the provider requested prior records.   This is the basis of the point system under the Marshfield Clinic Audit Tool that is used by most Medicare carriers.

    Medical Decision Making Point System

    While this point system is not officially part of Medicare's E/M Services Guide, the risk table is.  The risk table is available on page 20 or 37 of the Evaluation and Management Services Guide.  I have provided a screen shot here for quick reference.  The highest element anywhere on the risk table determines the highest overall level of risk on the risk table.  For example, a patient with an abrupt change in neurological status meets criteria for high risk on the risk table regardless of any other data points on the table.

    Risk Table E/M CMS

    To determine the overall level of MDM complexity, the highest two out of three elements from diagnoses, data and risk determine the overall level of MDM.  In other words, the highest level of documentation for data and diagnosis, data and risk or diagnosis and risk will determine the overall level of MDM.  Below are the minimum MDM criteria for a level 2 and level 3 initial hospital admission.  For example a patient who's documentation supports 3 diagnosis points, 1 data point and moderate risk would qualify for level 2 MDM. A patient who's documentation supports 2 diagnosis points, 4 data points and high risk would qualify for level 3 MDM.  A patient who's documentation supports 2 diagnosis points, 2 data points and high risk would not qualify for either level 2 or level 3 MDM for an initial hospital admission.

         LEVEL 2 MDM (highest 2 out of 3 determines overall level of MDM)

    DIAGNOSIS:  3 points
    DATA:  3 points
    RISK TABLE:  moderate

         LEVEL 3 MDM (highest 2 out of 3 determines overall level of MDM)

    DIAGNOSIS:  4 points
    DATA:  4 points
    RISK TABLE:  high

     

    LEVEL 2 PERMUTATIONS


    Here are all eleven potential documentation permutations for medical decision making of a level 2 hospital H&P admission.  Remember, the two out three highest levels of documentation in diagnosis, data and risk will determine the overall level of MDM.   This same exercise can be done to determine a level 3 hospital H&P admission as well.

    Remember to always consider medical necessity.  For example, ordering a stress test to increase the complexity of medical decision making on a chief complaint of big toe pain may raise some red flags if the chart undergoes an audit.  I believe if you're anywhere in the ball park of practicing standard of care, justifying medical necessity will rarely be a determining factor in having to support your level of care based.

    Level 2 hospital medical decision making option
    Level 2 hospital medical decision making example
    Level 2 hospital medical decision making example
    Level 2 hospital medical decision making example
    Level 2 hospital medical decision making example
    Level 2 hospital medical decision making example
    Level 2 hospital medical decision making example
    Level 2 hospital medical decision making example
    Level 2 hospital medical decision making example
    Level 2 hospital medical decision making example
    Level 2 hospital medical decision making example

    A level 2 hospital admit E/M service could often meet documentation audit criteria for a  level 3 hospital admit if providers documented work already being provided but not described.   Some coders may say high risk must be present to meet criteria for a level 3 admit.  These coders are not following the rules provided by Medicare's Evaluation and Management Services Guide.  In reference to diagnoses, data and risk, page 33 of the E/M Services Guide says:
    To qualify for a given type of decision making, two of the three elements in the table must be either met or exceeded.
    I again direct the provider and their coders to the E/M Services Guide as their reference point.  The Marshfield Clinic Audit Tool was developed because of the vague language and difficulty in interpreting rules in Medicare's E/M Services Guide.  High complexity medical decision making can be met based on diagnoses and data elements.   As I have said before, make sure your workup is consistent with standard of care and medical necessity should never be an issue.

    WHERE CAN I GET A COPY OF THE POINT SYSTEM?


    Many examples of the Marshfield Clinic point system are available on the internet.  Page two of this Codeapedia reference provides a detailed description of the point system.  This point system  is the basis for the bedside E/M reference card provided by The Happy Hospitalist pictured above and  linked here again for easy reference.

    MANY LEVEL 2s ARE PROBABLY LEVEL 3s


    Practitioners who know how to accurately document their work are probably providing high complexity medical decision making in greater than 95% of their hospital admissions when they understand the elements of the risk table and are educated about the elements of the Marshfield Clinic Audit Tool point system.  Remember, a level 2 hospital admission has the same history and and examination requirements as a level 3 hospital admission.  All patients who are sick enough to be admitted or observed in a hospital setting should meet medical necessity for the highest level of history and examination.  Medical necessity should never be questioned in these patients

    In reality, many physicians and other NPPs are scared to bill too many level 3 admit notes for fear of getting audited.  No fear should exist if documentation supports level 3  work already being provided.  If all providers would document work they are already providing and billed appropriately, level 3 hospital admission distribution would rise dramatically and physician outliers, who are coding correctly, would disappear.  Practitioners  worried about getting audited as an outlier should continue to document work they are already providing and to bill correctly, regardless of their status as an outlier.  Being an outlier is not fraudulent when documentation supports correct coding decisions.   It's quite possible that most physicians who aren't billing mostly level 3 hospital admissions are the outliers because they either don't document work they are already providing, are not providing work that is medically necessary or are intentionally under billing for fear of an audit.

    RVU COMPARISON


    Most E/M services are given a relative value unit (RVU) value by CMS.  I have previously discussed RVUs.  The most updated table of RVU values can be found here.  The difference in relative value units assigned to a level 2 vs. a level 3 H&P hospital admission are significant.  For practitioners who's compensation may be determined by productivity, coding accurately for work already being provided can boost payments significantly.  What are the RVU values for a level 2 and level 3 hospital admission?  For Medicare patients in 2016, one RVU is worth $35.8043.

         LEVEL 2
    • Observation (99219)  -  work RVU 2.60; total RVU 3.80
    • Inpatient (99222)  -  work RVU2.61; total RVU 3.87
         LEVEL 3
    • Observation (99220)  -  work RVU 3.56; total RVU 5.20
    • Inpatient (99223)  -  work RVU 3.86; total RVU 5.70
    A level 3 hospital H&P admission is valued 50% higher than a level 2 hospital H&P admission based on total RVU and nearly 48% higher based on work RVU.  This difference is significant.

    DISTRIBUTION OF LEVEL 2 vs. LEVEL 3 HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS


    What is the distribution of level 2  and level 3 hospital admissions?  This can vary depending on specialty.  SHM/MGMA data from 2012 suggested  CPT® codes 99222 and 99223 were utilized 29% and 66% of the time respectively with CPT® 99221 used just 2% of the time. Other Medicare distribution data is available at the CPT® 99222 and CPT® 99223 articles linked near the top of this lecture.  These distribution numbers confirm similarity with SHM/MGMA data.

    PAYMENT COMPARISON


    Payments will vary based on geographical location.  Providers in New York would generally get paid more than providers in Kansas.  For example, in some localities, a level 2 hospital admission pays around $130 and a level 3 hospital admission pays around $190, a nearly 50% increase.  Failure to document work already being provided can be expensive.  Using distribution data, here are a few brief calculations assuming a hospitalist provides 600 Medicare admissions in a year.   Using SHM/MGMA data (66% level 3 and 29% level 2),  payment for these admissions would be (396 x $190) + (174 x $130) = $75, 240.  This does not include the 5% utilization of 99221 admissions.

    What if providers had 95% level 3 admissions and 5% level 1 admissions?  That would provide 570 level three admissions worth $190 each.  Level 3 admissions would collect $108,300.  This is about $33,000 more than the SHM/MGMA distribution would suggest, or a 44% increase in payments.  This does not take into account alternative payer mix contributions. Remember, level 2 hospital admission documentation is different from level 3 documentation only in the medical decision making.  Knowing how to document work already being provided is valuable in any practice.

    RAC AUDITORS


    Medicare may be targeting inappropriate payments to providers for hospital admissions.  A practitioner's best defense against fraud accusations is to document thoroughly for work provided and to practice standard of care.  Despite being an outlier,  accurate stand alone documentation of medically necessary care should always support any coding distribution that results.   I have thoroughly reviewed Medicare's Evaluation and Management Services Guide and can confirm that fear of an audit is not an element that should be used to guide coding decisions.