Skip to content

Posts tagged ‘face to face encounters. medicare denials’

God Bless Tech Support

Click Here for New Inservice designed to help you avoid F2F denials. 

I carefully considered the requests I received from those you who wanted to know if I had the time and ability to provide an inservice on the Face-to-Face document.  The problem is that the expense for travel as well as the practicality of travelling to multiple states presents a daunting challenge.  Obviously, you would pay the travel expenses but who would sit here and write appeals if I were away?

So, like you, I had to embrace the technology available to me and find some way to provide you with the required information at an affordable price in a manner that did not take me away from doing the work at hand.  I went through two online vendors last week and finally settled on one called SkyPrep.  Now, to be certain, these guys aren’t bad at all but like all computer vendors, they have issues.

The biggest issue is that they take weekends off.  So, all weekend long, I converted PowerPoint presentations and uploaded them various different formats for your viewing pleasure.  None of them had any audio included.  So, I spoke louder.  You may notice that as you watch the presentation.

Sometime around Saturday afternoon, I decided I was too far in to back out now in terms of time.  I continued to record, increase my volume, slowly upload, convert files and sort files like a trooper.  By Sunday morning, I was like a pointman in the marines determined to lead this adventure to a victorious ending or at least one where there were no casualties.  By two o’clock Monday morning, I realized I was defeated.

So, I came to the office this morning and the nice people had returned from their weekends off and informed that the FoxFire browswer was not supported.  That would have been relevant information, don’t you think?

But at last, I have a presentation for you that costs what it would cost you to pay for my services for one appeal.  The beauty of this, though, is that hopefully, you can prevent future denials.

I am hopeful that other organizations who are taking this battle to Washington have great success in permanently relaxing the regulations regarding the Face-to-Face encounter.  Meanwhile, take advantage of my experience in appealing these denials and learn what it is Medicare is looking for.  More importantly, check out the actual denials.  They are the real McCoy.  It’s one thing to read the instructions but still another to see how they are implemented.   Also, see for yourself denials that should have never happened and learn why so you can be victorious in your appeals.  I assure you there is no way I can do every appeal that needs to be done!

I hope you take the hour to watch the presentation and gain from our experience.  I was having fun putting it together for a little while and then SkyPrep took the weekend off and ruined my in turn.

Let me know what you think.

Face to Face Documentation Guidance

I have received several denials on face to face documents because the signature was not dated.  Would somebody please tell Palmetto GBA to lighten up a minute and read the regulations?   I would do it myself but I am busy trying to get y’all paid.

The Benefit Integrity Manual Section 3.3.2.4 reads as follows:

For medical review purposes, if the relevant regulation, NCD, LCD and other CMS manuals are silent on whether the signature must be dated, the MACs, CERT and ZPICs shall ensure that the documentation contains enough information for the reviewer to determine the date on which the service was performed/ ordered.

If you read carefully the actual face-to-face guidance, it is, in fact, silent on the whether the signature must be dated.  Here is what I cut and pasted from the Benefit manual. 

The documentation must include the date when the physician or allowed NPP saw the patient, and a brief narrative composed by the certifying physician who describes how the patient’s clinical condition as seen during that encounter supports the patient’s homebound status and need for skilled services.

The certifying physician must document the encounter either on the certification, which the physician signs and dates, or a signed addendum to the certification. It may be written or typed.

It is acceptable for the certifying physician to dictate the documentation content to one of the physician’s support personnel to type. It is also acceptable for the documentation to be generated from a physician’s electronic health record.

It is unacceptable for the physician to verbally communicate the encounter to the HHA, where the HHA would then document the encounter as part of the certification for the physician to sign.

Not only is the regulation silent about dating the signature on the face-to-face document, it references the signed and dated certification which for most agencies is the 485.  I am unable to infer that the regulations imply that the signature on the face-to-face document must be dated because it is illogical for the guidance to reference one mandated date and not the other. 

Does anyone disagree with me?  If the face-to-face document is sent after the 485, it would be difficult to prove that it was received prior to billing if it was not dated.  That is not my problem.  My problem lies in trying to figure out why Palmetto is playing so dirty with providers and working around their attitude to get my clients paid.

Let’s move on, shall we?  If they can play dirty, so can I.  Louisiana is home to swamps and New Orleans.  I know dirty.

The following are some examples of what Palmetto GBA considers to be inadequate documentation.

  • Diagnosis alone, such as osteoarthritis
  • Recent procedures alone, such as total knee replacement
  • Recent injuries alone, such as hip fracture
  • Statement, ‘taxing effort to leave home’ without specific clinical findings to indicate what makes the beneficiary homebound
  • ‘Gait abnormality’ without specific clinical findings
  • ‘Weakness’ without specific clinical findings

In the first three bullets, note the word, ‘alone’.  I wholeheartedly concur with them.  But, what if the diagnosis is accompanied by the procedure and the injury.  Suddenly, they are not alone.

The Medicare Benefit Manual defines homebound status for us as such:

An individual does not have to be bedridden to be considered confined to the home. However, the condition of these patients should be such that there exists a normal inability to leave home and, consequently, leaving home would require a considerable and taxing effort.

I am fairly certain many of you have read that before.  If the definition suits Medicare, why is Palmetto above accepting it.  I understand that I can cut and paste those words anywhere.  If I saw a face-to-face with a single diagnosis of hypertension and the Medicare language for homebound, I would think twice about the validity of the document but that’s not what is happening.

I just finished with an appeal for a patient who was admitted post discharge from the hospital for pneumonia, sepsis, COPD and CHF.  The physician wrote that it was a taxing effort for this 85 year old to leave the home.  Well, I guess so.  Evidently, Palmetto GBA needs more information to arrive at the same conclusion.

Would a reviewer who could not understand why a patient with Sepsis, pneumonia, COPD and CHF would be short of breath, could they possibly distinguish between the eight different types of gait abnormalities related to neurologic conditions alone.   See 5th bullet.  (hemiplegic, spastic diplegic, neuropathic, myopathic, Parkinsonian, choreiform, ataxic (cerebellar) and sensory.)

Weakness – last bullet – is a good reason to stay home.  I don’t see the issue here.  Obviously, there should be something wrong with the patient that causes weakness but what specific clinical findings go with weakness?  “Patient was unable to complete ten reps with 20 pound bar?”

If I wrote a face to face, I would put something like:

Ms. Jane Deaux was seen by me on September 16, 2013 on the last day of her hospitalization for sepsis, pneumonia, COPD and CHF.  She spent 9 days in the ICU in a condition that is generally considered to be incompatible with life.   Without any regard to the rising cost of health care, the old woman refused to die.

She continues to complain about being short of breath and tired and refuses to accept that this is part of the aging process.    She has also called the office complaining of falls.  Reluctantly, I ordered physical therapy even though it is an expensive treatment modality for someone who might very well end up dying in less than a year.

She is confined to the home because she cannot breath very well when ambulating and getting to her car requires her to walk a short distance.  This ‘shortness of breath’ is caused by the inability oxygen to cross the alveolar membranes in the lung tissue resulting in a very low partial pressure of oxygen in her arterial blood.  The low PO2 manifests itself in a bluish cyanotic pallor which causes the patient to be self conscious as it draws unwanted attention from strangers.  Because carbon dioxide is not blown off in normal respiratory effort, her pH decreases causing her to become acidotic which leads to extreme electrolyte imbalances resulting in cardiac dysrhythmias expressed outwardly by symptoms of lightheadedness, falling, loss of consciousness, broken bones on impact and death.  As such I certify that it requires a considerable and taxing effort for this patient to leave the home.

I dare you.  I double dare you.  Find a doc and let him use this as a template.  Have the physician edit to fit the patient and see if it gets paid.  Just sayin…

Face to Face–Your Results

A few weeks ago, you were invited to take a quiz on the home health requirement for face – to – face encounter documentation.  If you haven’t already done so, please go take the quiz now.

The results were interesting to say the least.  You know when a face to face encounter must be done and you are very clear about your (non) role in the creation of the document.  Where you fell off was in the questions regarding who signs the face-to-face document.  If your overall score was not what you hoped, rest assured that your colleagues are right there with you.

Here are some of the more interesting responses.

Less than 50 percent of you knew that if a patient died prior to the 30th day and a good faith effort was made for the patient to have a face-to-face encounter, you may still bill.  This is not a suggestion regarding how to get around those pesky MD’s who refuse to sign, by the way.

image

The question that was particularly disturbing was a true/false question inquiring if it was true that the same physician who signed the 485 must also sign the face-to-face encounter document.  If you answered that question correctly, you are among a 35 percent minority.  A full 65 percent of you answered it incorrectly. (Green is good, pink is bad – I did not choose the color scheme.)

image

Similarly, less than half of you knew that if the hospital documentation was used as the face-t0-face encounter it had to be labeled as such and the date of the encounter had to be included.  When you consider many of the discharge summaries, they often apply to the entire hospital stay.  A visit date must be identified and declared as THE day the encounter occurred.  image

Rest assured, other than these very three common reasons for denial, y’all knew your stuff very well. 

So what do these results mean? If I was paid by your agency to come in and teach y’all about the face to face encounter and after I left, you continued to get denied, would you consider me to be an effective teacher?

The truth is that Palmetto GBA is responsible for educating you on the face-to-face to requirements.  This is part of their contract with CMS. 

Here’s the part that keeps up at night.  If all of you were to learn exactly what a perfect face to face documents looks like and then you all taught ten people who in turn taught ten people, by the end of next week literally billions of people would know everything there is to know about the face to face document. 

And not one patient would receive better care because the physician forgot to label the hospital documents as the face-to-face document. 

Just sayin…  Palmetto GBA, take it for what it is worth but I respectfully suggest you might have a little more work to do in the realm of face-to-face document denials. 

The Face to Face Document

I really get Medicare’s emphasis on Fraud and Abuse but I have to wonder if maybe they didn’t think this face to face thing through prior to implementing it.  If you think you know all there is to know about the face to face document then I invite you to take our little quiz

If you have any face to documents that met all requirements and were still denied, please email me.  I would like a sanitized copy if you don’t mind.

Some Good News for a Change

All of you HealthcareFirst users out there who have Business Intelligence have probably noticed a remarkable improvement in the Episode Master Edits.  I have been helping them for a while now trying to refine, update, improve and add new edits.

Only a small portion are up but look for more.  If you see any errors, please let HealthcareFirst know or you can let me know and I will forward them on.  If you have any great ideas for new edits, let me know.  As Picasso said, Talent borrows, Genius steals which is actually an Oscar Wilde quote serving to prove that Picasso was a genius.  Make me look as good as Picasso and I will help HealthcareFirst give you the tools to get paid and hold on to your money.  How’s that?