Browse by Topic
More than 40,000 members value HFMA's thought leadership and practical strategies. HFMA is where you need to be.
Get acquainted with the
healthcare finance industry's leading professional association. Find out why our
members rely on HFMA as their go-to source for insight and
Members have many
options for helping them advance their careers. Conferences, seminars,
eLearning, certification, and more -- our education and events will keep you
Connect the dots on today's big issues, explore collaborations, get career-boosting tips, and network with colleagues nationwide at the leading finance conference. Save $100 off the full conference rate when you register by May 8.
Real-time presentations with nationally recognized experts, networking opportunities, and industry solutions—no travel required!
Get the latest, practical education in key areas of healthcare finance over 1, 2, or 3 days. Choose Essentials Programs or Master Sessions in DC or Seattle. Register early and save $100.
If you're a subscriber to any of our three newsletters, you have access to online education. Learn more or subscribe.
Get the perspectives of leading healthcare finance professionals on today's hottest issues.
Information about leading vendors helps your buying decisions.
Forum members can network during live webinars or access a library of past webinars on topics such as bundled payment, charity care, and ICD-10.
An ever-expanding collection of spreadsheets, policies, job
descriptions, checklists, and more that you can adopt and adapt.
Forum members can submit vexing questions to a panel of experts
using our Ask the Expert service.
Your source for employment solutions.
Find new employment opportunities or
reach out to qualified candidates.
Distinguish yourself as a
leader among your peers and advance your career by earning certification in our
healthcare finance programs.
Get an objective third-party evaluation of products and services used in the healthcare finance workplace.
MAP App is a web-based application that helps organizations improve revenue cycle performance based on industry-standard metrics called MAP Keys.
Find suppliers and products in this comprehensive vendor directory for healthcare finance professionals.
Guidance for understanding and communicating about the price of health care.
Guidelines on how to make it easier for consumers to get information about healthcare prices.
Improve your revenue cycle performance through standard metrics, peer comparison, and successful practices.
by Paul L. Weygandt
At approximately the same time, CMS implemented the most significant revision of the inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS) since the inception of the diagnosis-related groups (DRG) system in 1983. The "final rule," published in the Federal Register on August 22, 2007, cited the March 2005 Medicare Payment Advisory Commission report, which included a principal recommendation that the revised DRG system take into account severity of illness. Medicare-severity DRGs (MS-DRGs) were implemented on October 1, 2007 and, thus, are now an integral part of the overall value-based purchasing initiative.
All value-based purchasing initiatives and pilots recognize that different patients present with different levels of clinical acuity. The MS-DRG system provides the infrastructure necessary to quantify severity adjustment for each individual. Each MS-DRG is assigned one and only one relative weight, which not only translates into hospital payment, but also is being used as a proxy for severity. The same will be true for other payers as they convert to the MS-DRG methodology.
As MS-DRGs were introduced, CMS directly addressed issues of revenue maximization.
"We do not believe there is anything inappropriate, unethical or otherwise wrong with hospitals taking full advantage of coding opportunities to maximize [emphasis added] Medicare payment that is supported by documentation in the medical record ... We encourage hospitals to engage in complete and accurate coding." (Federal Register, vol.72, no. 162, August 22, 2007, pgs. 47180 - 47181.)
Hospitals are expected to maximize revenue by using all coding opportunities available under the applicable rules. The limitation, however, to this apparently open-ended invitation is addressed in the subsequent clause: "that is supported by documentation in the medical record."
This phrase relates to a fundamental requirement for coders-and a potential fraud risk. Coders can only code diagnoses documented in the clinical record by treating physicians and those working under their direct legal supervision, such as nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and resident physicians. Because of their role in determining final DRG assignment, the American Health Information Management Association (the professional association for coders), has provided specific ethical guidelines to protect their members from allegations of manipulation of the medical record to achieve increased reimbursement.
Coders, as a result, are limited to coding those diagnoses clearly documented in the clinical record, even if such coding fails to capture the actual acuity of the case. Of course, coders recognize that physicians frequently use nonstandard terminology to describe clinical conditions or fail, at times, to describe them at all.
Here is a simple example of a coding dilemma that significantly affects hospital revenue: A patient is admitted to the intensive care unit with a diagnosis of "urosepsis." The patient has all the clinical criteria for the diagnosis of sepsis secondary to a urinary tract infection. Without further clarification, the coder is required to code the case to DRG 690 (kidney and urinary tract infection) with a relative weight of 0.7581. Yet, had the physician stated what he or she actually meant by the term urosepsis (sepsis secondary to a urinary tract infection), the case would be coded to DRG 872 with a higher relative weight of 1.1209.
For a "typical" hospital with a blended rate of $6,000, the revenue impact of these two scenarios would be as follows:
Net Revenue Impact: $6,384
Where coders feel constrained by limitations imposed by their rules-based environment, physicians face the challenge of not even knowing the rules in the first place. Furthermore, it is highly impractical for them to learn the rules-not to mention the conventions and relevant guidelines-which have been developed over decades of experience with the DRG system.
For years, many practicing physicians have had the attitude that such considerations were strictly a hospital problem, with the result that hospitals have not received full payment for services provided. Now the stakes have changed, and the challenge of accurate, compliant documentation has become the physician's problem as well. According to CMS, "[t]he new MS-DRG system provides the necessary 'severity' data for physician profiling & Pay-for-Performance."
While physicians are increasingly recognizing that compliant MS-DRG terminology is key to their professional survival, the clinical language they use is not consistent, differing by medical discipline, region of the country, the decade in which they trained, or even the mentor under which they studied.
The adoption of MS-DRGs has complicated revenue cycle management due to the marked increase in the complexity of the coding and reimbursement system. CMS now recognizes three levels of severity:
By introducing the additional level of severity based on the presence of a major comorbidity, CMS significantly expanded the opportunity for hospitals and physicians alike to identify high-acuity cases with increased costs as well as increased clinical risk.
At the same time CMS expanded the potential to capture high-severity cases, it also eliminated over 400 diagnoses that used to count as minor comorbidities but no longer contribute to severity or reimbursement in any way. Many of the diagnoses eliminated were among the most commonly recognized, including congestive heart failure (CHF) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Physicians, unaware of the transition, continue to use old terminology.
Let's explore another example: A Medicare patient presents to your hospital with an abdominal problem that developed over four to five days. At time of presentation to the emergency department (ED), he has gotten much worse and requires surgery. This elderly man also has had a diagnosis of CHF for several years, managed on oral medication. When the surgeon evaluates the patient in the ED, he notes that the CHF is "decompensated," and requests a consultation by the hospitalist. The hospitalist provides a consultation, documents that the CHF is decompensated, and orders new medications. The surgeon performs the appropriate bowel surgery.
There are three possible DRGs in this scenario:
Observe the potential revenue impact of appropriate DRG assignment, again for a hospital with a typical blended rate of $6,000:
Net Revenue Impact: $21,266
The challenge here is that many hospitals would accept reimbursement of $9,734 because it would, in fact, reflect accurate coding of the documentation provided; CHF, even characterized as "decompensated," is no longer recognized as a comorbidity. Clinically, however, the patient had acute heart failure, requiring a consultation and medications. Had the physician more accurately described the clinical situation as acute heart failure and also specified the type of heart failure (systolic, diastolic or mixed), hospital compensation based on correct coding would have been $31,000.
Given that physicians do not understand and simply do not have the time to learn all the coding rules, it becomes the responsibility of hospital management to provide a solution. Accordingly, many hospitals are incorporating processes to assist physicians in providing the most accurate, compliant, and specific documentation of diagnoses and procedures using standardized terminology as accepted by Medicare and other payers.
The typical approach involves adding a resource to the patient care team: a clinical documentation improvement specialist, typically a nurse with extensive medical/surgical experience and additional training in compliant documentation. Working with all members of the patient care team, analyzing the clinical record, and using standardized approaches, these specialists help physicians to provide concurrent, complete, and accurate documentation.
With current national economic challenges, many hospitals are entering cycles of downsizing. Others are recognizing the link between revenue maximization and documentation improvement programs. By enhancing the accuracy of the clinical record, improved clinical documentation results in a substantial ROI, providing much needed revenue to maintain staffing levels necessary for quality patient care.
To successfully improve clinical documentation, however, it is essential to identify the value of a documentation program to physicians, who have often resisted doing the extra work involved only to benefit the hospital's bottom line. In the past, the benefit to physicians could only be loosely articulated in terms of the improved services the hospital could afford to provide. Now, CMS has provided us with a very powerful force to drive the development of a viable partnership with physicians.
Congress has committed to value-based purchasing as a key mechanism for transforming CMS from a passive payer for quantity of services provided to an active purchaser of quality. As CMS introduces related pilots and initiatives, such as "bundled payment" or "episode of care payment," these will be built on the same fundamental concept-that purchasing quality demands severity adjustment. Other insurers are following suit; many have already adopted MS-DRGs as a reimbursement mechanism and severity-measurement tool.
Clearly, capturing the highest allowable DRG relative weight, based on complete documentation within the medical record, should be a short-term as well as a long-term goal for any revenue cycle executive, in that DRG payment and value-based purchasing require the same precision.
Toward this aim, financial leaders should consider the following steps:
Paul Weygandt, MD, JD, MPH, MBA, is vice president physician services at J.A. Thomas & Associates located in Smyrna, Ga. (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Russ Graney, founder and CEO for Aidin, and John Laursen, head of business development for Aidin, share insights on how to improve care transitions between acute and post-acute care settings and incentivize high-quality patient outcomes.
Scott Elston, strategic accounts manager, GE Healthcare Services, describes how substantial cost reduction in health care requires rethinking business strategy and asset use.
Robert Williams, MD, director, Deloitte Consulting LLP, and Arielle Freiberger, product strategist, ConvergeHEALTH by Deloitte, explain how sophisticated retrospective, real-time, and predictive data analytics can inform decision making to reduce costs and improve care.
Stuart Hanson, director of business development (healthcare solutions) at Citi Retail Services, discusses how improving the payment experience can benefit consumers and healthcare providers.
Scott Schmidt, vice president, Cerner RevWorks, LLC, shares insights on best practices for maximizing a revenue cycle management partnership.
HFMA's print, email, online, and mobile opportunities provide you maximum reach and impact. We will work with you to build a plan that meets your needs. Contact a sales rep.
HFMA offers online, email, and print opportunities to help you recruit the most talented healthcare finance professionals. Place your classified ads today.
Drive down costs while improving quality in a reform environment.
Stay informed about new directions in healthcare finance. Share tools and strategies for improving performance. Be an active participant in your profession. Together, we’ll reshape the business and practice of healthcare. Join us.
©2015 Copyright Healthcare Financial Management Association
HFMA.org is best viewed using IE9 or the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, and Safari.
Join HFMA today and enjoy: