Course | Intermediate | Denials Management
This course explains how improving management of the claims denial process can have a positive effect on a hospital's bottom line. It presents best practices that will help to capture a significantly higher proportion of claims and increase...
Course | Intermediate | Denials Management
This course defines claims denial management and explains the impact of claims denials on hospitals. It highlights the benefits to hospitals of managing claims denials effectively and describes how claims denials can be managed both before ...
Course | Intermediate | Denials Management
This course addresses follow-up procedures for unresolved health plan and liability payer, also known as third-party payers, accounts and common account resolution procedures and activities specific to lien issues.
Course | Intermediate | Denials Management
This course addresses the different types of health plan rejections and typical reasons for claim rejections. It will review typical billing errors and how to avoid them. It covers the reasons for health plan denials and how to address and ...
Course | Advanced | Denials Management
This course introduces the idea that lasting performance improvement in the revenue cycle can only be achieved after changing the work culture. The course also describes the ambulatory payment classification (APC) system introduced by the C...
Blog | Denials Management

Navigating Bad Payer Behavior in Emergency Services Billing

Blog | Denials Management

Navigating Bad Payer Behavior in Emergency Services Billing

Weaver Hickerson and Tyler Williams propose three strategies to mitigate risk of denials in the emergency department in the wake of changes in insurer policy.

As health plans and government payers announce more stringent requirements for emergency department (ED) claims, both payer medical necessity audits and coding denials are on the rise in emergency medicine. Several factors are contributing to these trends. In order to mitigate the risk of nonpayment by insurers, healthcare organizations should be aware of these cuts, ensure correct and comprehensive coding of ED claims, and report inappropriate nonpayment activity.

Payment Cuts in Emergency Medicine

Awareness and proactive management are essential to retain revenue and curb financial loss in the ED, one of health care’s most difficult care settings. Patients are being diverted to other care settings not only to prevent ED overcrowding but also to save insurers money. 

So far in 2018, Anthem, Humana and Medicaid have all announced discretionary ED policies that limit conditions covered and reduce payments. In fact, Anthem’s policy landed one Kentucky resident a $12,596 bill for emergency services at Frankfort Regional Medical Center after her visit for a suspected ruptured appendix was deemed nonemergent by her health plan. 

Meanwhile, patient deductibles are on the rise. And since ED claims are usually the first to be submitted to health plans, associated charges fall within the patient’s deductible amount and are often not covered. This makes patients the primary payer for many emergency care encounters. Patients who once may have left the emergency department with a $50 or $100 copay are now walking out with a bill for $5,000 or more. 

In this challenging environment, hospital revenue cycle leaders need to be proactive if they want to be paid properly for the services provided in their EDs. 

Correct and Comprehensive Coding of ED Claims

Providers should be working to educate coders and ensure correct coding before submitting ED claims. This is especially true for ICD-10 and Evaluation and Management (E&M) code assignment. 

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has specific payment policies for evaluation and management (E&M) leveling of emergency services. CMS states that when an emergency services provider bills an E&M level 4 or level 5 service with a diagnosis indicating a lower level of complexity or severity, the provider may be paid at the lower, level 3, E&M rate. In addition, these claims are adjudicated using a coding algorithm that determines pay based on the ED claim category and the diagnosis code on the claim. If the code classification indicates a lower level of complexity or severity, the claim is paid at an E&M level 3 contracted rate. 

Some insurers are proposing a 25 to 50 percent decrease in E&M reimbursement if Modifier 25 is applied. Modifier 25 is used to designate a significant, separately identifiable E&M service by the same physician on the same day of the procedure or other service. These insurers assert that they are essentially paying twice for the practice expense and the work value of the relative value units (RVUs). 

In the case of Modifier 25, leaving it off is not advisable because it’s part of CPT rules—omission is a compliance issue.  The coding team must understand when to use Modifier 25 as the emergency payment landscape continues to evolve.   

The key to avoiding denials for ED services is to provide accurate and detailed documentation and coding. With ICD-9, providers generally knew which codes each health plan or government payer would accept. In ICD-10, coder focus shifts to knowing specific codes that should never be billed in order to avoid ED claims rejections and denials.

Here are four best practices in emergency services documentation and coding:

  • Cite a high-quality differential diagnosis that justifies the medical decision making and the patient’s severity
  • Be specific with the final impression and avoid unspecified ICD-10 codes whenever possible
  • Support emergency physicians by expanding clinical documentation improvement programs into the ED care setting
  • Hire certified coders and billers skilled in emergency services and knowledgeable about insurer-specific rules and requirements

Report Bad Behavior

Training at all levels of coding is the key to proactively addressing payment issues, along with responding quickly to denials and lower payments. Data that demonstrates systematic practices of unfair payment will help with advocacy efforts.  

Taking these changes into account, it’s advisable to challenge or appeal every unfair denial to the Emergency Department Practice Management Association (EDPMA) Quality, Coding, and Documentation Committee and the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) Coding and Nomenclature Advisory Committee

A concerted effort among providers is the best way to address and correct bad payer behavior in the ED. Other proven strategies include monitoring clinical documentation and coding compliance, hiring knowledgeable staff, and taking a proactive approach to denial prevention for the emergency services your organization provides. 

Tyler Williams is the president of Payor Logic, Inc., Dayton, Ohio.

Weaver Hickerson is CEO of LightSpeed Technology Group, Chapel Hill, N.C. 

About the Authors

Weaver Hickerson
Tyler Williams


Related Articles | Denials Management

Article | Patient Access

Delivering scalable, patient-focused revenue cycle management services

A revenue cycle management company talks about the importance of experience, versatility, and customer service when responding to current and emerging revenue cycle challenges.

How To | Denials Management

Coding denials: Creating an effective appeal strategy

Distinguishing coding denials from clinical validation denials is an ongoing challenge, and a good place to review processes.

News | Revenue Cycle

HFMA conference in New Orleans focuses on achieving a consumer-centric revenue cycle

HFMA conference in New Orleans focuses on achieving a consumer-focused revenue cycle.

News | Health Plan Payment and Reimbursement

Prior-authorization cost and time burdens increase for providers, report finds

Provider burdens from health plans’ use of prior authorization continue to mount amid calls to make the process fully automated.