Healthcare regulation is complex. It is often necessary and helpful to involve an expert. While using experts is wise, however, relying on them comes with peril. Expert reports must be carefully scrutinized.
A recent experience with two such experts illustrated some of the dangers of placing blind trust in anyone. Each concluded that there was a major problem requiring a refund. Yet I feel strongly that they were both wrong.
This article will focus on the first of the two experts, who provided advice about a surgical coding.
Colleagues had accused a surgeon of using a code indicating a more extensive surgery than the patient received. We asked the expert to review the cases. The expert concluded that the code selected was improper for 90 percent of the cases reviewed.
The report included a considerable amount of technical language. The executive summary was much easier to read and focused on the surgeon’s 90-percent “error rate.” The only logical conclusion that could be gleaned from the summary was that the surgeon was a bad egg, with a refund necessary and discharge from employment a reasonable consideration. But when I read the full report, I found a phrase that changed everything.
“While the procedure technically qualifies for the code billed,” the line began. Consider that carefully. If the code is “technically accurate,” why does the consultant believe that the code was wrong and a refund necessary? Even if there are other codes that would also be appropriate, the consultant acknowledged that the code selected was accurate. This purported “expert” was suggesting that the client refund tens or possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars for a “technically accurate” code. That conclusion is “technically” wrong.
My client was very lucky. Methodical review of the report was sufficient to detect the error. When you obtain a review from an expert, do you read the entire report carefully? Does your counsel? When you’ve got a complicated report, do you pore through it and make sure you understand every element of the expert’s conclusion? Do you require your experts to carefully detail their thinking in a way that you understand?
If you don’t, and you defer to your expert because of their specialized knowledge, you may find yourself needlessly refunding money or believing a false assurance that your organization is without risk.
Hire experts. Listen to them. But don’t assume that they are always right. Experts, including lawyers (and including me!) make mistakes. Make us prove our arguments. When an expert tells you that a refund is necessary, make sure that they have explained why your claim was indefensible.
When your bill is completely indefensible, you likely have an overpayment and a duty to refund on your hands. If, however, there are some arguments that support your claim, you may still choose to do a refund – but you have the ability to make that choice.
With little fanfare, last week the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced another Review Choice Demonstration Project. Joining the ongoing Review Choice Demonstration
Last week I wrote about the ongoing issue of Medicare Advantage (MA) denials related to appropriate transfer to a skilled nursing facility (SNF) and the
Please log in to your account to comment on this article.
Dr. Ronald Hirsch provides tried-and-true strategies and insight into outpatient in hospital bed stays including determining the applicable definition, who uses it, and when and how to bill for this circumstance, solidified with concrete case examples and expert insight.
Practical solutions for CDM departments to protect your hospital’s revenue.
This webcast teaches hospitals how to comply with CMS price transparency rules and compare their rates with peer hospitals. It covers creating a compliant machine-readable file, comparing negotiated rates, and improving pricing decisions.
The No Surprises Act (NSA) presents a challenge for hospitals and providers who must provide Good Faith Estimates (GFEs) for all schedulable services for self-pay and uninsured patients. Compliance is necessary, but few hospitals have been able to fully comply with the requirements despite being a year into the NSA. This webcast provides an overview of the NSA/GFE policy, its impact, and a step-by-step process to adhere to the requirements and avoid non-compliance penalties.
This expert-guided webcast will showcase tips for providers to ensure appropriate capture of the work performed for a visit. Comprehensive examples will be given that demonstrate documentation gaps and how to educate providers on the documentation necessary to appropriately assign a level of service. You will gain clarification on answers regarding emergency department and urgent care coding circumstances as well as a review of how/when it is appropriate to code for E&M in radiology and more.
Set yourself up for financial and compliance success with expert guidance that breaks down the impactful changes including MS-DRG methodology, surgical hierarchy updates, and many new technology add-on payments (NTAPs). Identify areas of potential challenge ahead of time and master solutions for all 2024 Proposed IPPS changes.
Do you struggle with selecting and appending the correct modifier for your medical claims? Join our must-attend webinar, “Mastering Modifier Usage: Preventing Denials and Ensuring Compliance” to reduce claim denials and improve your reimbursement rates.
Kay Piper reviews the guidance and updates coders and CDISs on important information in the AHA’s fourth quarter 2023 ICD-10-CM/PCS Quarterly Coding Clinic in an easy to access on-demand webcast.
Copyright © 2022 RACmonitor. Powered by MedLearn Media.
