Should Treatment of Acute MI be Inpatient? Outpatient? The Codes, the Rules, and the Money

Treating a heart attack as outpatient may sound ludicrous, but for some hospitals it may be the right choice.

The two-midnight rule threw the hospital utilization review community into turmoil when it was implemented on Oct. 1, 2013. In brief, that rule mandates that the decision of whether to enact inpatient admission or outpatient care should be based solely on the expected length of stay, with few exceptions. This posed a dilemma for many hospitals whose care of patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) had evolved into a well-oiled, protocol-driven machine.

These hospitals had lowered door-to-balloon time for percutaneous coronary intervention well below the 90-minute gold standard and had on staff experienced interventional cardiologists whose successful reperfusion rate was second to none. These patients were then resting comfortable in a hospital bed within a few hours of presentation to the emergency department, and in many cases, they were able to be discharged the next day. That means that if the two-midnight rule was followed to the letter, patients presenting to the emergency department with an ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who had no comorbid conditions or any evidence of heart failure or arrhythmia were going directly to the cardiac catheterization lab and were expected to be successfully reperfused, treated as outpatients and not admitted as inpatients.

But of course, that was met with skepticism. Did the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) really expect patients having heart attacks to be treated as outpatients and not admitted to the hospital? We did not get close to a real answer to that question until Jan. 1, 2016, when CMS added to the two-midnight rule a new exception, allowing physicians to determine on a case-by-case basis whether a high-risk patient with an expectation of less than two midnights should be admitted as inpatient. Most interpreted this to mean that patients with a STEMI would fit this exception.

Then CMS added what they thought was a bit more clarity in the 2018 Outpatient Prospective Payment Final Rule by adding CPT® code 92941 to the inpatient-only list for 2018. This code, as cited by CMS, represents “percutaneous transluminal revascularization of acute total/subtotal occlusion during acute myocardial infarction, coronary artery or coronary artery bypass graft, any combination of intracoronary stent, atherectomy and angioplasty, including aspiration thrombectomy when performed, single vessel.” It seemed that settled it; patients with acute MI should all be admitted as inpatients, and in fact, if treated as outpatients and undergoing intervention, the payment should be denied.

But is that correct? Dr. Eddie Hu, the president of the American College of Physician Advisors and system executive director of physician advisor services at UNC Healthcare System, pointed out to me that the CMS definition of 92941 published in the Federal Register is incomplete. CPT 92941 represents placement of a non-drug-eluting stent during acute MI, whereas C9606 is the HCPCS code used by hospital coders that represents placement of a drug-eluting stent during acute MI. That means that most STEMIs, which are treated with drug-eluting stents, would be coded by the hospital as C9606 and are not going to be inpatient-only in 2018.

So if STEMI treated with a drug-eluting stent is not inpatient-only, what status should be chosen? Do we apply the two-midnight expectation or the case-by-case exception? Since the care received by the patient is the same, the decision may actually boil down to a question of finances. From the patient perspective, the status does not matter. The patient with a STEMI who is placed in outpatient and stays one midnight gets the same excellent care that the STEMI patient who is admitted as an inpatient. They have the same physician, would get the same stent, and go to the same room with the same nurse for recovery. In fact, because CMS regulations limit the Part B copayment, the patient’s out-of-pocket costs would be the same.

For the physician, payment for the intervention is independent of the patient’s admission status, except for the fact that the physician must use the place of service on their professional services claim that matches the hospital’s claim, be it inpatient or outpatient. But the cardiologist may also bill for the visit prior to the decision to perform the intervention. In other words, the cardiologist was not called to perform an intervention; he or she was consulted to determine if intervention was warranted, and if so, to arrange for that intervention. That evaluation is billable and will require the physician to choose the appropriate code and apply a modifier. If the patient is an inpatient, the physician would use the initial hospital codes 99221-99223, whereas if outpatient, they would use a code from the 99201-99215 range, which has a lower relative value than those of the inpatient codes. Reimbursement to the physician then would be affected by the admission status.

So what about payment to the hospital? At face value, it would seem that the inpatient admission would pay more. But there are several factors to consider. Since Dr. Hu brought this to my attention, I will use hospitals from his health system and pricing available from the 2017 CMS Inpatient Pricer and Addendum B as an illustration. Since these patients have no comorbid conditions (those with comorbidities such as heart failure, chronic kidney disease, or diabetes would be expected to stay over two midnights and should be admitted as inpatients), if admitted as inpatients, those who received a drug-eluting stent would fall into Diagnosis-Related Group 247. If treated as outpatient, it would fall into C-APC 5194, which is classified as a level 4 endovascular procedure.

For UNC Memorial Hospital, the academic medical center in Chapel Hill, N.C., DRG 247 pays $19,395 and C-APC 5194 pays $14,463, so inpatient admission makes sense, financially speaking. But for Rex Hospital, DRG 247 pays $12,469 and C-APC 5194 pays $14,410. Rex Hospital is being financially harmed by admitting their acute myocardial infarction patients as inpatients.

Why does UNC Memorial Hospital get almost $7,000 more for treating the same inpatient as Rex Hospital? As a teaching hospital, it receives more than $3,000 for indirect medical education. It also receives more than $2,000 for uncompensated and undercompensated care, and almost $1,600 as pass-through and miscellaneous payments. Rex Hospital, on the other hand, although a large hospital, has no formal teaching programs and does not have many patients whose care is uncompensated, so they have no add-ons to their base DRG payment.

What about a location with a higher cost of living, which CMS factors into their payment structure? Let’s look at northern California, where a 2,000-square foot, four-bedroom, two-bathroom house near Apple’s headquarters recently went on the market for $1.8 million and sold for $2.4 million. California Pacific Medical Center-Davies Campus Hospital in San Francisco would be paid $20,279 for DRG 247 and $21,117 for C-APC 5194 – so outpatient acute MI pays better here. But UCSF Medical Center at Parnassas Heights gets $29,727 for DRG 247 (including a whopping $5,800 as an indirect medical education payment) and $21,117 for C-APC 5194. Clearly, UCSF wants their STEMIs admitted as inpatient, but California Pacific would be leaving money on the table by admitting their acute MI patients.

It is clear that the answer here is anything but clear. For some hospitals, the reimbursement is higher for inpatient admission, but for other hospitals, outpatient care has a higher reimbursement. It should also be noted that if a hospital is able to treat an acute MI patient as an outpatient and discharge them, and that patient returns to the hospital within 30 days and requires inpatient admission, the admission would not be a readmission, because there was never a first admission. For hospitals that are being penalized for excess readmissions, it is hard to argue with treating patients as outpatients when they have MI if the hospital gets more money for treating the heart attack and it avoids a possible readmission for the next 30 days.

It should be noted that both admitting an acute MI patient as inpatient and treating them as an outpatient would be compliant with Medicare regulations and the two-midnight rule. And because there is no right or wrong way to status these patients, I will not make any recommendations other than suggest you convene compliance, finance, and utilization review together in the same room and decide what is right for your hospital.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Ronald Hirsch, MD, FACP, ACPA-C, CHCQM, CHRI

Ronald Hirsch, MD, is vice president of the Regulations and Education Group at R1 Physician Advisory Services. Dr. Hirsch’s career in medicine includes many clinical leadership roles at healthcare organizations ranging from acute-care hospitals and home health agencies to long-term care facilities and group medical practices. In addition to serving as a medical director of case management and medical necessity reviewer throughout his career, Dr. Hirsch has delivered numerous peer lectures on case management best practices and is a published author on the topic. He is a member of the Advisory Board of the American College of Physician Advisors, and the National Association of Healthcare Revenue Integrity, a member of the American Case Management Association, and a Fellow of the American College of Physicians. Dr. Hirsch is a member of the RACmonitor editorial board and is regular panelist on Monitor Mondays. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views, policies, or opinions of R1 RCM, Inc. or R1 Physician Advisory Services (R1 PAS).

Related Stories

Leave a Reply

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

Featured Webcasts

The Inpatient Admission Order: Master the Who, When, and How

The Inpatient Admission Order: Master the Who, When, and How

During this webcast Dr. Ronald Hirsch delves into the inpatient admission order process including when to get it, when it becomes effective, its impact on billing and payment, who can write it, how to cancel it, the effects on the beneficiary, and more. You’ll leave with a clear understanding of inpatient orders and guidelines for handling improper orders that you can implement immediately.

June 20, 2024
Navigating AI in Healthcare Revenue Cycle: Maximizing Efficiency, Minimizing Risks

Navigating AI in Healthcare Revenue Cycle: Maximizing Efficiency, Minimizing Risks

Michelle Wieczorek explores challenges, strategies, and best practices to AI implementation and ongoing monitoring in the middle revenue cycle through real-world use cases. She addresses critical issues such as the validation of AI algorithms, the importance of human validation in machine learning, and the delineation of responsibilities between buyers and vendors.

May 21, 2024
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
Comprehensive Inpatient Clinical Documentation Integrity: From Foundations to Advanced Strategies

Comprehensive Inpatient Clinical Documentation Integrity: From Foundations to Advanced Strategies

Optimize your inpatient clinical documentation and gain comprehensive knowledge from foundational practices to advanced technologies, ensuring improved patient care and organizational and financial success. This webcast bundle provides a holistic approach to CDI, empowering you to implement best practices from the ground up and leverage advanced strategies for superior results. Participants will gain actionable insights to improve documentation quality, patient care, compliance, and financial outcomes.

June 26, 2024
Advanced Inpatient Clinical Documentation Integrity: Harnessing Technology, Analytics, and Compliance

Advanced Inpatient Clinical Documentation Integrity: Harnessing Technology, Analytics, and Compliance

Join expert Angela Comfort, MBA, RHIA, CDIP, CCS, CCS-P., as she helps you navigate advanced inpatient CDI technologies, regulatory changes, and system interoperability. Angela will provide actionable strategies for integrating AI and predictive analytics into CDI practices, ensuring seamless system interoperability, and maintaining compliance with evolving regulations. Attendees will learn to select and implement advanced EHR systems and CDI software, leverage data analytics to enhance documentation accuracy, and stay audit-ready with the latest compliance updates. Real-world case studies and practical tools will empower you to drive continuous improvement in CDI, improve patient outcomes, and enhance organizational efficiency. Don’t miss this opportunity to advance your CDI practices and stay ahead in this dynamic field.

July 11, 2024
Foundations of Inpatient Clinical Documentation Integrity: Enhancing Accuracy and Compliance

Foundations of Inpatient Clinical Documentation Integrity: Enhancing Accuracy and Compliance

Join expert Angela Comfort, MBA, RHIA, CDIP, CCS, CCS-P, for an insightful webcast on improving inpatient clinical documentation integrity (CDI). Inaccurate documentation can lead to misdiagnosis, improper treatment, and compromised patient safety. High workloads, lack of standardized practices, and outdated EHR systems contribute to these issues, affecting care quality and financial outcomes. Angela will offer practical strategies and tools to enhance accuracy, consistency, and timeliness in documentation. Attendees will learn to use standardized templates, checklists, and advanced EHR systems, while staying compliant with regulations. Improve patient care, ensure accurate billing, and reduce audit risks with actionable insights from this essential webcast.

June 26, 2024
Mastering E/M Coding: Navigating the Evolving Landscape

Mastering E/M Coding: Navigating the Evolving Landscape

Join industry expert, Kathy Pride, RHIT, CPC, CPMA, CCS-P, for an in-depth exploration of Evaluation and Management (E/M) coding, tailored for healthcare professionals navigating recent guideline changes. Dive into advanced topics beyond mere code selection, including shared visits, criteria for selecting E/M levels, and documentation best practices. Gain clarity on complex guideline terminology and ensure compliance with regulatory standards. This comprehensive session is essential for coders, auditors, educators, and practitioners seeking to enhance their proficiency in E/M coding and maximize revenue capture.

June 19, 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 →

Honor Memorial Day with Savings! Get 20% off all items using code MEMORIAL24 at checkout. Shop today and save! Offer valid until May 31. Exclusions apply.

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.