Avoiding Noncompliant Billing of Drug Testing

In years past, the healthcare industry has seen audit outcomes resulting in multi-million dollar fines for noncompliant billing of drug testing procedures. In some instances, the findings were even more severe, with reports of exorbitant fines for fraudulent billing. On Oct. 19, 2015, news broke of the $256 million payment by Millennium Health to resolve allegations of unnecessary drug and genetic testing, coupled with a practice of illegal remuneration to physicians. Approximately 89 percent of that sum was attributable to False Claims Act allegations that were outlined in a complaint filed by the United States. The government had identified a pattern of excessive and unnecessary urine drug testing that occurred from Jan. 1, 2008, through May 20, 2015.

Per a U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) news release, “the False Claims Act allegations resolved were originally brought in lawsuits filed by whistleblowers under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act, which allow private parties to sue on behalf of the government and to share in any recovery. “

Regardless of the publicity that placed a spotlight on a lack of compliance among drug testing laboratories, physician practices, and hospitals, the bad behavior continues. 

In January of this year, news broke of UnitedHealthcare’s lawsuit against a Dallas-based laboratory network, Next Health, over alleged bribes and kickbacks to doctors for overpriced and unnecessary drug and genetic tests billed to the insurer between 2011 and 2016. 

In what has been touted as the “largest ever healthcare fraud enforcement action” by the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, 412 individuals, including 115 doctors, nurses, and other licensed medical professionals nationwide, recently were criminally charged by the DOJ. There was reference to a Palm Beach, Fla. rehabilitation facility that is alleged to have used trips to strip clubs, gift cards, and drugs to recruit addicts, and then billed over $58 million for false treatments and drug abuse monitoring tests.

Last month, news broke of Carolinas HealthCare’s agreement to pay $6.5 million to settle a lawsuit that began as a whistleblower case and subsequently saw participation of state and federal prosecutors. This lawsuit was filed by the laboratory director of operations at the Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, who alleged that the hospital system was over-billing the federal government for urine screening tests.

While the above examples represent extreme cases, the fact is that coding and billing of urine drug tests is complex. Coding and billing guidelines governing these tests have been in flux for several years, and it seems that for some providers, this has created compliance issues that has placed revenue at risk. 

According to court documents, from 2011 to 2015, Carolinas HealthCare performed urine drug tests categorized by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as being of “moderate complexity,” but it submitted claims indicating that the company had conducted “high-complexity” tests. Based on statements by Carolinas Healthcare, between 2013 and 2014 the hospital’s coding processes were reviewed by two separate consultants and the coding selections were confirmed.

This cost the healthcare system $6.5 million in fines. 

Essentially, drug abuse testing is broken down into two categories – the request is either for presumptive testing or for confirmatory analysis (previously referred to as either qualitative or quantitative analysis).

Presumptive testing is medically indicated when it is necessary to screen for the presence or absence of drugs or drug classes in a urine sample. The technology for presumptive testing ranges from use of test strips that are easily interpreted by direct optical observation (visual) to more complex immunoassay procedures that use random access analyzers. 

The challenge for many laboratories and other billing providers that relied on Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) coding guidelines for the various HCPCS codes issued between 2010 and 2016 was that they were easily misled by code definitions that referred to CLIA complexity levels. The confusion was generated by the lack of clarity as to whether the complexity level was the FDA categorization of the test system or the testing laboratory’s CLIA certificate of waiver, provider performed microscopy (PPM), or accreditation as a moderate complexity or high complexity. Consider the following codes:

  • G0431 Drug screen, qualitative; multiple drug classes by high complexity test method (for example, immunoassay, enzyme assay), per patient encounter
  • G0434 Drug screen, other than chromatographic; any number of drug classes, by CLIA waived test or moderate complexity test, per patient encounter

A hospital laboratory holding a high complexity certificate could interpret the HCPCS G0431 as being applicable to the immunoassay procedures performed on the random access chemistry analyzer present in just about any chemistry laboratory. The problem is that none of the presumptive methods are categorized by the FDA as being of high complexity. 

A key point for presumptive drug testing is that the reported value may be qualitative, semi-quantitative, or quantitative. The American Medical Association (AMA) specifically states that methods that cannot distinguish between structural isomers (such as morphine and hydromorphone or methamphetamine and phentermine) are considered presumptive. The list of drug classes as well as the methodology are to be considered when coding for presumptive procedures. All immunoassays – regardless of drug class — are considered presumptive, whether qualitative, semi-quantitative, or quantitative values are provided.

Accurate coding requires, at minimum, a basic understanding of the test methodology and the drugs or drug classes that are to be analyzed. Again, in 2017, the AMA and CMS revised coding for presumptive analysis. The new set of CPT codes are specific to presumptive testing and are based on the method (such as dipstick) used, whether by direct optical observation or an immunoassay performed on an instrumented analyzer. Hopefully this coding change will help alleviate coding challenges of the past.

Regardless of the number of drug classes or number of devices or procedures performed for the presumptive analysis, only one CPT may be billed per date of service. There is no ability to bypass the per-unit limitation by appending a modifier. 

Billing departments should remember that the QW modifier is reserved for use by a laboratory holding a certificate of waiver. This modifier communicates to the payors that the testing platform being used is a CLIA waived technology. A laboratory holding a moderate or high-complexity CLIA certificate will not append the QW modifier when billing.

When determining if high-complexity confirmation testing is necessary, it is suggested that providers consider whether the result from the presumptive test was expected. Confirmation of unexpected results from a presumptive test would be appropriate, for example when a patient that has been prescribed an opiate-based drug tests negative for opiates. The negative result would be unexpected and therefore confirmation of the negative result would be indicated. 

High-complexity definitive testing will provide a quantitated value that not only identifies the specific medication or illicit drug, but will typically provide the physician with the concentration or amount of drug that is present. Gas chromatography combined with mass spectrometry or liquid chromatography, as well as tandem mass spectrometry, is frequently used for confirmation testing.

Scheduling of sequential drug testing is typically based on risk stratification. While the laboratory is not responsible for documenting the risk level and tracking frequency of testing, it would be good laboratory practice to understand the clinical guidelines that aid in the medical decision-making of the treating physician or practitioner.

Testing must be based on clinicians’ documented medical necessity and reviewed by the clinician in the management of patient care. Coverage of the testing will vary, with a low-risk patient tested one to two times over a 12-month period while it may be appropriate to test a high-risk patient once per month. A patient with a moderate level of risk would be tested one to two times in a six-month period for a maximum of four times annually.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Robin Miller Zweifel, BS, MT (ASCP)

A proven leader in revenue cycle management, Robin has a background in proactive audit and documentation reviews for hospitals, independent laboratories, and physicians. Other areas of focus include documentation improvement and charge reconciliation for pharmacy and drug administration performed in Oncology and Specialty Infusion Centers. In 2016, Robin turned her focus toward coding and billing compliance of gene-based testing, including pharmacogenomic tests that may guide determination of effective treatment plans. And in 2021, she joined the Compliance team at BioReference Laboratories as director of coding and billing compliance.

Related Stories

Leave a Reply

Please log in to your account to comment on this article.

Featured Webcasts

Leveraging the CERT: A New Coding and Billing Risk Assessment Plan

Leveraging the CERT: A New Coding and Billing Risk Assessment Plan

Frank Cohen shows you how to leverage the Comprehensive Error Rate Testing Program (CERT) to create your own internal coding and billing risk assessment plan, including granular identification of risk areas and prioritizing audit tasks and functions resulting in decreased claim submission errors, reduced risk of audit-related damages, and a smoother, more efficient reimbursement process from Medicare.

April 9, 2024
2024 Observation Services Billing: How to Get It Right

2024 Observation Services Billing: How to Get It Right

Dr. Ronald Hirsch presents an essential “A to Z” review of Observation, including proper use for Medicare, Medicare Advantage, and commercial payers. He addresses the correct use of Observation in medical patients and surgical patients, and how to deal with the billing of unnecessary Observation services, professional fee billing, and more.

March 21, 2024
Top-10 Compliance Risk Areas for Hospitals & Physicians in 2024: Get Ahead of Federal Audit Targets

Top-10 Compliance Risk Areas for Hospitals & Physicians in 2024: Get Ahead of Federal Audit Targets

Explore the top-10 federal audit targets for 2024 in our webcast, “Top-10 Compliance Risk Areas for Hospitals & Physicians in 2024: Get Ahead of Federal Audit Targets,” featuring Certified Compliance Officer Michael G. Calahan, PA, MBA. Gain insights and best practices to proactively address risks, enhance compliance, and ensure financial well-being for your healthcare facility or practice. Join us for a comprehensive guide to successfully navigating the federal audit landscape.

February 22, 2024
Mastering Healthcare Refunds: Navigating Compliance with Confidence

Mastering Healthcare Refunds: Navigating Compliance with Confidence

Join healthcare attorney David Glaser, as he debunks refund myths, clarifies compliance essentials, and empowers healthcare professionals to safeguard facility finances. Uncover the secrets behind when to refund and why it matters. Don’t miss this crucial insight into strategic refund management.

February 29, 2024
2024 SDoH Update: Navigating Coding and Screening Assessment

2024 SDoH Update: Navigating Coding and Screening Assessment

Dive deep into the world of Social Determinants of Health (SDoH) coding with our comprehensive webcast. Explore the latest OPPS codes for 2024, understand SDoH assessments, and discover effective strategies for integrating coding seamlessly into healthcare practices. Gain invaluable insights and practical knowledge to navigate the complexities of SDoH coding confidently. Join us to unlock the potential of coding in promoting holistic patient care.

May 22, 2024
2024 ICD-10-CM/PCS Coding Clinic Update Webcast Series

2024 ICD-10-CM/PCS Coding Clinic Update Webcast Series

HIM coding expert, Kay Piper, RHIA, CDIP, CCS, reviews the guidance and updates coders and CDIs on important information in each of the AHA’s 2024 ICD-10-CM/PCS Quarterly Coding Clinics in easy-to-access on-demand webcasts, available shortly after each official publication.

April 15, 2024

Trending News

Happy National Doctor’s Day! Learn how to get a complimentary webcast on ‘Decoding Social Admissions’ as a token of our heartfelt appreciation! Click here to learn more →

Happy World Health Day! Our exclusive webcast, ‘2024 SDoH Update: Navigating Coding and Screening Assessment,’  is just $99 for a limited time! Use code WorldHealth24 at checkout.

SPRING INTO SAVINGS! Get 21% OFF during our exclusive two-day sale starting 3/21/2024. Use SPRING24 at checkout to claim this offer. Click here to learn more →