EisnerAmper Blog

An EisnerAmper Health Care Services Blog

Beware of Cloned Medical Records

 Permanent link


July 18, 2014

By Nancy Clark, CPC, CPB, CPMA, CPC-I

Clark_NancyMore health care providers utilize electronic health records (EHR) than ever before.  In part, this is due to government incentives.  As the transition from paper medical records to EHR continues, payers and auditors are noticing a problem with these records: cloning.  According to Medicare,“documentation is considered cloned when each entry in the medical record for a beneficiary is worded exactly like or similar to the previous entries. Cloning also occurs when medical documentation is exactly the same from beneficiary to beneficiary. It would not be expected that every patient had the exact same problem, symptoms, and required the exact same treatment.”

An intention of EHR implementation is to simplify medical record documentation; however, caution must be taken not to over utilize the “cut and paste” or “carry forward” features.  Questions are raised when documentation for complaints of allergies and severe chest pains have the exact same physical exam documented.  While some aspects of an exam would be performed for both complaints, it is unlikely that the exam would be identical.  Therefore, care must be taken to substantiate a significant, separate office visit.

Some providers rely on the “free text” entries to summarize their assessment.  If the template associated with this visit is not modified, the resulting documentation may indicate that the “patient presents with abdominal pain.” Later in the same documentation, the review of organ systems may indicate that gastroenterological (GI) system is “negative,” meaning the patient has no abdominal complaints.  This practice is seen frequently, and results from the provider not removing default entries in the standard template.  From an auditor’s perspective, this decreases the authenticity of the documentation.

Additionally, Medicare has stated that it will not reimburse services when it is deemed that the documentation is cloned.  The Medicare Claims Processing Manual, Chapter 12, section 30.6.1A  states “Cloned documentation does not meet medical necessity requirements for coverage of services rendered due to the lack of specific, individual information. All documentation in the medical record must be specific to the patient and her/his situation at the time of the encounter. Cloning of documentation is considered a misrepresentation of the medical necessity requirement for coverage of services. Identification of this type of documentation will lead to denial of services for lack of medical necessity and recoupment of all overpayments made.”

So, what is a provider to do?  In an American Academy of Professional Coders’ article by Rhonda Tews,  it is suggested that providers develop not one but several separate templates. Each template would be based on a level of medical decision making—low, moderate, or high—and also identify a new or established patient to the practice.  The corresponding documentation of the visit would vary according to the severity of the complaint. At the very least, this is a start for more specific documentation.  Additionally, templates can be created for frequent complaints, such as respiratory issues (cough, cold, flu), abdominal pain, musculoskeletal complaints, and other common reasons to seek medical attention.  Templates should be created as reminders to physicians to ensure complete documentation, not to supply the context of the medical record.

It should be noted that EHRs have many valuable features, including improved efficiency, coordination of care, patient access to medical records and ease of transferring records between physicians. The latter could save lives when patients are seen by physicians outside of their primary medical office, such as in an emergent care episode out-of-state.  As long as care is taken to tailor the record to the specific patient encounter, EHRs will continue to be a valuable tool in health care.

Primary Care Doctors: 6% of Compensation Based On Quality Metrics in 2013

 Permanent link

July 10, 2014 

By Michael J. McLafferty, CPA, MBA, FACHE, FACMPE, FHFMA

McLafferty_MikePart of the drive to a value-based health care delivery system will be gearing physician compensation to value-based metrics such as quality and customer service, according to the Medical Group Management Association.

"This is going to be a gradual shift. … It will be a trend that we will see evolve," said Todd Evenson, VP of data solutions and consulting services at the Englewood, CO-based organization.  "We're on the cusp of this information being available."

MGMA has been conducting an annual physician compensation survey for three decades. Beginning in 2012, the MGMA began collecting data on physicians who reported having a portion of their compensation linked to a pair of value-based metrics: quality and customer satisfaction. Primary Care doctors had 3% of their compensation based on quality metrics in 2012.

The data collected in 2012 and 2013 show modest levels of linkage between compensation and the value-based metrics, but there is the start of an upward trend, Evenson says. "We are just at the beginning. You have to be able to measure quality. We're even on the front end of that process."

Pay Attention to Medicare Revalidation Letters

 Permanent link

July 2 2014

Clark_NancyBy Nancy Clark, CPC, CPB, CPMA, CPC-I

Section 6401(a) of the Affordable Care Act (on Page 685) established a requirement for all enrolled providers and suppliers to revalidate their Medicare enrollment information under new enrollment screening criteria. This revalidation effort applies to those providers and suppliers that were enrolled in Medicare prior to March 25, 2011.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) require a provider, supplier, or organization to verify the accuracy of its enrollment information every five years.  At times, “off-cycle” revalidations may be required.  These unexpected revalidations may be caused by health care fraud issues, national initiatives, complaints, or reasons that would cause CMS to question the compliance of the provider or supplier.  Random reviews are also a possibility.

Failure to submit the appropriate required enrollment forms may result in the deactivation of Medicare billing privileges.  Providers should submit the appropriate CMS-855 form in conjunction with any other requested information.  Additional document requests include a CMS-588 Electronic Funds Transfer Authorization Agreement form and a copy of IRS CP-575, or other appropriate certification of the business’ employer identification number (EIN).

Currently, CMS is actively targeting providers who are not registered in the Medicare Provider Enrollment, Chain, and Ownership System (PECOS), in order to facilitate inputting the provider’s data.  They are also pursuing providers who do not currently receive electronic funds transfer (EFT) payments, and those who have not updated their enrollment in the last five years.
In order to comply with ongoing Medicare regulations, providers should report any significant changes to their Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) on a timely basis.  These changes include a change in ownership, practice location, billing service or correspondence address.

Providers are encouraged to review all correspondence from CMS on a timely basis.  Keep in mind, though, that a revalidation should not be submitted prior to receipt of a request from Medicare.  For more information on Medicare Revalidation please click here

Medicare Conditions of Participation – Contractual Arrangements

 Permanent link

July 1, 2014 

By:  Michael J. McLafferty, CPA, MBA, FACHE, FHFMA, FACMPE

Compliance officers have to worry about the Medicare conditions of participation, which have standards for the use of outside providers and other types of vendors, while minding the anti-kickback and Stark regulations. Some common contractual arrangements include physician relationships, management/administrative services, radiology, pharmacy, holter monitoring, billing and collections, enteral nutrition and wound care.

Compliance officers have more to think about if they are contracting with entities that are regulated. If the organization is regulated, the burden is on the hospitals, hospices and skilled nursing facilities to ensure their contractors are in compliance with laws and regulations. That includes having licensed and credentialed staff that aren’t excluded from Medicare and other federal health programs.

If operational managers resist compliance reviews of relationships with other outside resources, develop a checklist for them. Explain that if the department enters into a relationship with an external provider, the manager has to review the contract against the checklist and sign off on it. If there are no issues identified, the compliance officer can skip a direct review.

One of the “threshold issues” for hospitals, hospices and skilled nursing facilities is whether they are complying with provisions in the Medicare conditions of participation that address contractual relationships. For hospitals, the conditions of participation for contracted services state that “The governing body must be responsible for services furnished in the hospital whether or not they are furnished under contracts. The governing body must ensure that a contractor of services (including one for shared services and joint ventures) furnishes services that permit the hospital to comply with all applicable conditions of participation and standards for the contracted services. (1) The governing body must ensure that the services performed under a contract are provided in a safe and effective manner. (2) The hospital must maintain a list of all contracted services, including the scope and nature of the services provided” (42 CFR § 482.12(e)).

Sunshine Act Update – Database for Compliance

 Permanent link

June 20, 2014

McLafferty_MikeBy Michael J. McLafferty, CPA, MBA, FACHE, FACMPE, FHFMA

Pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturer payments to physicians and teaching hospitals are on the verge of being publicly available under the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, which could change the dynamics of fraud enforcement, the management of conflicts of interest and the public perception of physicians and hospitals.

The CMS database with the payment information — including ownership and investment interests — will be open for business on Sept. 30, 2014. The unparalleled transparency will create an opportunity for hospitals to identify payments that were left off conflict-of-interest forms, resolve discrepancies and formulate responses to questions about the impact on medical decision making of physician arrangements with manufacturers.

The Physician Payments Sunshine Act (Sec. 6002 of the Affordable Care Act) requires manufacturers of drugs, devices and biologics to report to CMS certain payments and other “transfers of value” (e.g., travel, grants) to physicians and teaching hospitals. Ownership and investment interests held by physicians or family members are reportable, as is interest income. As a result, manufacturers must report payments that physicians receive from a device company when, for example, they develop part of a device. CMS is required to make the payment information available in a public, searchable online database.

HITECH Act Reports to Congress

 Permanent link

McLafferty_MikeBy Michael J. McLafferty, CPA, MBA, FACHE, FACMPE, FHFMA

The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services ("the Secretary") to prepare and submit annual reports on breach notifications and compliance with the Privacy and Security Rules promulgated under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). The HITECH Act also requires that each report be made available to the public on the web site of the Department.

Implement Operational Efficiencies During ICD-10 Delay

 Permanent link

June 6, 2104

Clark_NancyBy Nancy Clark, CPC, CPB, CPMA, CPC-I

The Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014, or the sustainable growth rate “patch” bill, which was passed in April, effectively delayed ICD-10 implementation until at least October 2015.  However, that is no reason to delay the beneficial operating efficiencies that are related to the ICD-10 implementation.

One goal of ICD-10 implementation has been to improve documentation to better support the increased specificity of the ICD-10 diagnosis codes.   Medical record documentation is frequently targeted by auditors because it may not support the billed procedure code.   Increasing standards now will better serve providers by reducing their overall audit risk.  In addition, with health care moving towards quality of services instead of quantity of services, more complete documentation will serve to increase substantiation of performance measures.  These measures, such as the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), can provide additional revenue for the practice and also mitigate financial penalties in future years.

According to the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), documentation which better reflects the episodes of care will greatly assist in coordination of care. The quality of care provided during transitions of care, such as when a patient is referred to a specialist, admitted to a hospital, or transferred to a rehabilitation center, will be more complete, even if the patient is unable to recall specific events during his care.  MGMA also notes that with an increasing number of patients now requesting access to their medical records, it is essential to ensure the documentation’s accuracy.

Perhaps the improvement that will ultimately convince physicians to comply with documentation requirements is the increased billing accuracy.  It is generally acknowledged that many potentially billable services are not submitted to insurance companies for reimbursement because they are not documented, and therefore cannot be identified by the billing staff.

Continue to work on operational efficiencies during this ICD-10 implementation delay, and practices will reap benefits both during and after this extended period.

EisnerAmper is an independent member of PKF North America.
PKF North America is an independent member of PKF International.