When Inpatient Claims Are Impacted by Outpatient Services

When Inpatient Claims Are Impacted by Outpatient Services

This week, let’s focus on coding guidelines associated with reporting diagnoses occurring during an outpatient visit subject to the Medicare Three-Day Payment Window Rule. Remember, the inpatient hospital claim must include all the diagnosis and procedure codes that meet the Three-Day Payment Window requirements.

Therefore, emergency department (ED) services, observation services, or outpatient procedures and their applicable diagnoses may be reportable on the inpatient claim. It is the inpatient coder who determines which of these “outpatient” diagnoses will be reported on the inpatient claim, based on their understanding of coding guidelines. Considerations for the inpatient coder include:

  • Assignment of present on admission (POA) indicators;
  • Determining if a condition resolved during outpatient care; and
  • Accurately assigning the MS-DRG.

ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting for the 2025 fiscal year (FY) state that “Present on admission is defined as present at the time the order for inpatient admission occurs – conditions that develop during an outpatient encounter, including emergency department, observation, or outpatient surgery, are considered as present on admission (p. 116).”

Where confusion may arise is regarding the reporting of Hospital-Acquired Conditions (HACs). A condition documented during the outpatient visit that precedes the inpatient admission is hospital-acquired, but will be reported with a present on admission (POA) indicator of Y (yes).

For example, if a patient receives a urinary indwelling catheter in the ED and is later diagnosed with a catheter-associated urinary tract infection, the associated complication code would be reported with POA = Y. Even though the catheter was placed during the same hospital visit, it was placed before the admission order.

Therefore, this case would not result in the reporting of a HAC. Where this can be a little tricky is when POA can impact the reporting of Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) and other Medicare quality measures. If a patient requires inpatient admission due to acute respiratory failure that occurred during an outpatient procedure, acute respiratory failure is present on admission.

There are different guidelines for reporting outpatient and inpatient diagnosis codes. For example, a principal diagnosis is not reported in the outpatient setting. What isn’t crystal clear, in my opinion, is whether coders should use outpatient guidelines to report diagnoses documented during outpatient care, prior to the order for inpatient care, or if inpatient guidelines apply to the entire visit.

The introduction to the Coding Guidelines explains that Section III is for the reporting of additional diagnoses in the non-outpatient setting. The Three-Day Payment Window impacts how these outpatient services are paid for by Medicare, but should it also impact what diagnoses are reported, and how they are reported? The outpatient services are not erased, because they are reported on the inpatient claim, even though they may be obscured within the health record if only the admission date and not the encounter date is visible. Under Section IV of the Coding Guidelines, it states, “though the conventions and general guidelines apply to all settings, coding guidelines for outpatient and provider reporting of diagnoses will vary in a number of instances from those for inpatient diagnoses, recognizing that:

  • The Uniform Hospital Discharge Data Set (UHDDS) definition of principal diagnosis does not apply to hospital-based outpatient services and provider-based office visits.
  • Coding guidelines for inconclusive diagnoses (probable, suspected, ruled out, etc.) were developed for inpatient reporting and do not apply to outpatients (p. 110).”

Does that mean that unless a diagnosis that occurs during an outpatient visit can be reported as the principal diagnosis, follow general coding guidelines? Have we been doing it wrong all this time for these claims that are impacted by the Medicare Three-Day Payment Window? The Coding Guidelines do not distinguish diagnoses that are reportable to Medicare Part B from those reportable to Medicare Part A (which is the primary way Medicare distinguishes outpatient services, those payable under the Outpatient Prospective Payment System, or Medicare Part B, from those payable under the Inpatient Prospective Payment System, or IPPS/Medicare Part A). It just so happens that only an inpatient claim will be submitted, but the Medicare Three-Day Payment Window requires the reporting of the diagnoses and procedures that occurred during the outpatient visit on the inpatient claim. So, I ask again, does that mean that diagnoses occurring during the outpatient visit are reported using inpatient guidelines?

What about when we consider the following: “diagnoses that relate to an earlier episode which have no bearing on the current hospital stay are to be excluded (p. 109),” which is part of the guidelines for reporting additional diagnoses? It specifically references a “current” hospital stay, not an inpatient stay.

I know this may seem like semantics, but it is an important distinction. It is very important to be precise when addressing utilization review (UR) topics, the most important of which is determining if hospital services meet medical necessity for billing as an inpatient claim. The Medicare Two-Midnight Rule that establishes the criteria for inpatient medical necessity requires that either the physician expects the patient to receive two or more midnights of hospital services, or the patient crosses two midnights while receiving hospital services. The outpatient visit, whether medical or surgical, is part of the current hospital stay. It will be billed on the same hospital claim and within the dates of service on that claim. Should the emphasis be on an earlier episode of care, which does not technically apply to this scenario (since they are the same episode of care), or should coders focus on no bearing? I don’t find “bearing” to be a very precise term. Does that mean it has no impact? If so, wouldn’t that be a clinical decision, determining if a diagnosis documented in the outpatient setting impacts their inpatient care? Overall disease burden is a factor in determining if inpatient care is medically necessary, because it can complicate the treatment plan and expected response to treatment.

This article has probably taken an unexpected turn for you. It did for me, too. I had planned to focus more on examples of diagnoses that are only reported in the ED or surgical notes, but the more I thought about this topic, the more I realized I need better guidance before I can make any clear recommendations. I urge those who update the Coding Guidelines to consider consulting with clinical revenue cycle experts to modify the official language to better reflect how hospital services are provided and billed.

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Cheryl Ericson, RN, MS, CCDS, CDIP

Cheryl is the Senior Director of Clinical Policy and Education, Brundage Group. She is an experienced revenue cycle expert and is known internationally for her work as a CDI professional. Cheryl has helped establish industry guidance through contributions to ACDIS white papers and several AHIMA Practice Briefs in the areas of CDI, Denials, Quality, Querying and HIM Technology.

Related Stories

Leave a Reply

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

Featured Webcasts

Sepsis Sequencing in Focus: From Documentation to Defensible Coding

Sepsis sequencing continues to challenge even experienced coding and CDI professionals, with evolving guidelines, documentation gaps, and payer scrutiny driving denials and data inconsistencies. In this webcast, Payal Sinha, MBA, RHIA, CCDS, CDIP, CCS, CCS-P, CCDS-O, CRC, CRCR, provides clear guideline-based strategies to accurately code sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock, assign POA indicators, clarify the relationship between infection and organ dysfunction, and align documentation across teams. Attendees will gain practical tools to strengthen audit defensibility, improve first-pass accuracy, support appeal success, reduce denials, and ensure accurate quality reporting, empowering organizations to achieve consistent, compliant sepsis coding outcomes.

March 26, 2026
I022426_SQUARE

Fracture Care Coding: Reduce Denials Through Accurate Coding, Sequencing, and Modifier Use

Expert presenters Kathy Pride, RHIT, CPC, CCS-P, CPMA, and Brandi Russell, RHIA, CCS, COC, CPMA, break down complex fracture care coding rules, walk through correct modifier application (-25, -57, 54, 55), and clarify sequencing for initial and subsequent encounters. Attendees will gain the practical knowledge needed to submit clean claims, ensure compliance, and stay one step ahead of payer audits in 2026.

February 24, 2026
Mastering Principal Diagnosis: Coding Precision, Medical Necessity, and Quality Impact

Mastering Principal Diagnosis: Coding Precision, Medical Necessity, and Quality Impact

Accurately determining the principal diagnosis is critical for compliant billing, appropriate reimbursement, and valid quality reporting — yet it remains one of the most subjective and error-prone areas in inpatient coding. In this expert-led session, Cheryl Ericson, RN, MS, CCDS, CDIP, demystifies the complexities of principal diagnosis assignment, bridging the gap between coding rules and clinical reality. Learn how to strengthen your organization’s coding accuracy, reduce denials, and ensure your documentation supports true medical necessity.

December 3, 2025

Proactive Denial Management: Data-Driven Strategies to Prevent Revenue Loss

Denials continue to delay reimbursement, increase administrative burden, and threaten financial stability across healthcare organizations. This essential webcast tackles the root causes—rising payer scrutiny, fragmented workflows, inconsistent documentation, and underused analytics—and offers proven, data-driven strategies to prevent and overturn denials. Attendees will gain practical tools to strengthen documentation and coding accuracy, engage clinicians effectively, and leverage predictive analytics and AI to identify risks before they impact revenue. Through real-world case examples and actionable guidance, this session empowers coding, CDI, and revenue cycle professionals to shift from reactive appeals to proactive denial prevention and revenue protection.

November 25, 2025

Trending News

Featured Webcasts

Mastering MDM for Accurate Professional Fee Coding

In this timely session, Stacey Shillito, CDIP, CPMA, CCS, CCS-P, CPEDC, COPC, breaks down the complexities of Medical Decision Making (MDM) documentation so providers can confidently capture the true complexity of their care. Attendees will learn practical, efficient strategies to ensure documentation aligns with current E/M guidelines, supports accurate coding, and reduces audit risk, all without adding to charting time.

March 31, 2026

The PEPPER Returns – Risk and Opportunity at Your Fingertips

Join Ronald Hirsch, MD, FACP, CHCQM for The PEPPER Returns – Risk and Opportunity at Your Fingertips, a practical webcast that demystifies the PEPPER and shows you how to turn complex claims data into actionable insights. Dr. Hirsch will explain how to interpret key measures, identify compliance risks, uncover missed revenue opportunities, and understand new updates in the PEPPER, all to help your organization stay ahead of audits and use this powerful data proactively.

March 19, 2026

Top 10 Audit Targets for 2026-2027 for Hospitals & Physicians: Protect Your Revenue

Stay ahead of the 2026-2027 audit surge with “Top 10 Audit Targets for 2026-2027 for Hospitals & Physicians: Protect Your Revenue,” a high-impact webcast led by Michael Calahan, PA, MBA. This concise session gives hospitals and physicians clear insight into the most likely federal audit targets, such as E/M services, split/shared and critical care, observation and admissions, device credits, and Two-Midnight Rule changes, and shows how to tighten documentation, coding, and internal processes to reduce denials, recoupments, and penalties. Attendees walk away with practical best practices to protect revenue, strengthen compliance, and better prepare their teams for inevitable audits.

January 29, 2026

AI in Claims Auditing: Turning Compliance Risks into Defensible Systems

As AI reshapes healthcare compliance, the risk of biased outputs and opaque decision-making grows. This webcast, led by Frank Cohen, delivers a practical Four-Pillar Governance Framework—Transparency, Accountability, Fairness, and Explainability—to help you govern AI-driven claim auditing with confidence. Learn how to identify and mitigate bias, implement robust human oversight, and document defensible AI review processes that regulators and auditors will accept. Discover concrete remedies, from rotation protocols to uncertainty scoring, and actionable steps to evaluate vendors before contracts are signed. In a regulatory landscape that moves faster than ever, gain the tools to stay compliant, defend your processes, and reduce liability while maintaining operational effectiveness.

January 13, 2026

Trending News

Prepare for the 2025 CMS IPPS Final Rule with ICD10monitor’s IPPSPalooza! Click HERE to learn more

Get 15% OFF on all educational webcasts at ICD10monitor with code JULYFOURTH24 until July 4, 2024—start learning today!

CYBER WEEK IS HERE! Don’t miss your chance to get 20% off now until Dec. 1 with code CYBER25

CYBER WEEK IS HERE! Don’t miss your chance to get 20% off now until Dec. 2 with code CYBER24