FW:


Hello!

Can someone please enlighten me about "resolved-in-ED" issues.

I have a coder asking me to look at a case where a patient comes in to ED SOB with dyspnea, pursed lip breathing....Blood sugar in 517 and insulin gtt is started in ED and patients second assessment in ED is with "no further stated SOB". NO resources were used for the Acute resp failure ONCE PT WAS ADMITTED, -no Solumedrol, no O2 etc. However, the Adult ICU Admission orders state "Acute Resp Failure".
LET ME THROW ANOTHER KINK IN THIS...The H&P clearly documents "ACUTE RESP FAILURE RESOLVED ONCE INSULIN DRIP STARTED". WHICH WAS STARTED IN ED!
I am not clear on issues where you have a diagnosis that was basically resolved in ED. There were few to no Clinical indicators other than I already stated plus resp 24, pH 7.51, Pco2 26, p02 27

Can anyone tell me what they think? I think the issue with this case is that the H&P. I DON'T THINK YOU CAN USE THE ACUTE RESP FAILURE AS THE MCC. The Payer wants to use DRG 638. The original coder used 189 but I don't think the resp failure bought the bed as it was resolved by the time of admission.

Help! I agree with DRG 638...but I say NO MCC for acute resp failure!

Juli Bovard RN CDS

Rapid City Regional Hospital

Juli Bovard RN CDS
Clinical Documentation Specialist
Clinical Effectiveness/Clinical Quality
Rapid City Regional Hospital
719-4390 (work)
786-2677 (cell)
"No Limit to Better......"
[CCDS_pin_1inch]

"The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and the lightning bug."- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens


Comments

  • edited May 2016
    Juli,

    What services were directed toward the Acute Respiratory Failure in the ED? Just insulin gtt? Were there clinical indicators for respiratory failure present in the ED? If patient received treatment in ED for Acute Respiratory Failure then I would think it would meet criteria for a secondary diagnosis. If a patient for a CVA with syncope and had fallen sustaining a laceration that was repaired in ED and the only documentation of the laceration and repair were in the ED documentation, as a coder you would still pick this up when assigning codes.

    Dorie Douthit, RHIT,CCS

  • I'm speaking from my gut here.

    I think the presenting dx would be the failure if that's why they came to the ED. However, the admitting dx is what they were admitted for which would be the DM. if the resp issues did not direct any care during the inpatient visit, I wouldn't use it as an MCC.

    I have absolutely NOTHING to back this up though :)

    Katy Good, RN, BSN, CCDS, CCS
    Clinical Documentation Program Coordinator
    AHIMA Approved ICD-10CM/PCS Trainer
    Flagstaff Medical Center
    Kathryn.Good@nahealth.com
    Cell: 928.814.9404

  • edited May 2016
    Question: with insurance, are inpatient charges are combined with emergency department charges and are covered under one payment? Would that mean that the ED charges then get sent up through the inpatient stay, thus meaning anything that happens in the ED becomes part of the inpatient stay for billing purposes (only if pt became inpatient from that ER episode). Am I off here? What resources for Acute Respiratory Failure were used in the ER? Did the person get O2? Any nebs or inhalers? Steroids? Etc.

    I am interested in what others have to say about this..

    Mark



    Mark N. Dominesey, RN, BSN, MBA, CCDS, CDIP
    Clinical Documentation Excellence
    Sr. Clinical Documentation Improvement Specialist
    Sibley Memorial Hospital

    Information Technology
    5255 Loughboro Rd NW
    Washington DC, 20016-2695

    W: 202.660.6782
    F: 202.537.4477
    mdominesey@sibley.org
    [cid:image002.gif@01CD4EFB.AD3F7F70]
    http://www.sibley.org

  • edited May 2016
    I had another thought. When we query we often times use ED documentation to generate queries, so if Acute Respiratory Failure treated in ED, I would think it would be reportable as secondary diagnosis.

    Dorie Douthit, RHIT,CCS

  • I agree with Dori - a condition that is treated in the ED is most
    definitely reportable, so long as it meets the UHDDS definition. From
    a 'coding' standpoint, we most definitely code conditions that are
    treated by the ED staff and resolved prior to arrival on the floor/unit.



    Patients may be in the ED for hours, allowing the MD staff time to
    treat successfully conditions that are 'resolved' upon arrival to the
    floor.



    P. Evans, RHIA, CCDS



    Paul Evans, RHIA, CCS, CCS-P, CCDS



    Supervisor, Clinical Documentation Integrity, Quality Department

    California Pacific Medical Center

    2351 Clay #243

    San Francisco, CA 94115

    Cell: 415.637.9002

    Fax: 415.600.1325

    Ofc: 415.600.3739

    evanspx@sutterhealth.org

  • My other discomfort with this situation is whether this actually was "acute resp failure". I realize it may not matter from a coding perspective but it always makes me uncomfortable when I see documentation of a dx that I often push but do not agree with in this circumstance. Was the patient put on Bipap or at least high flow or a mask? What was actually done for the "failure" even in the ED?

    Good response Paul, it's good to hear from a coder on this!

    Katy Good, RN, BSN, CCDS, CCS
    Clinical Documentation Program Coordinator
    AHIMA Approved ICD-10CM/PCS Trainer
    Flagstaff Medical Center
    Kathryn.Good@nahealth.com
    Cell: 928.814.9404

  • Reference: CODING CLINIC 1991, 2Q



    Following dietary indiscretion, a patient with compensated congestive
    heart failure developed paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea, orthopnea, and
    pedal edema leading to increased respiratory distress. In the emergency
    room the patient was found to be in cardiogenic pulmonary edema and
    respiratory failure and was subsequently intubated in the emergency
    room. The patient was admitted and treated for congestive failure. No
    myocardial infarction was found.

    Principal diagnosis:

    428.0 Congestive heart failure

    Additional diagnosis:

    518.81 Respiratory failure



    In this example, the congestive heart failure had become acute and
    required immediate hospital care. The associated development of
    respiratory failure in this case is an additional complicating factor,
    but is not the condition that occasioned the admission and should not be
    designated as the principal diagnos





    Paul Evans, RHIA, CCS, CCS-P, CCDS



    Supervisor, Clinical Documentation Integrity, Quality Department

    California Pacific Medical Center

    2351 Clay #243

    San Francisco, CA 94115

    Cell: 415.637.9002

    Fax: 415.600.1325

    Ofc: 415.600.3739

    evanspx@sutterhealth.org

  • No, other than Lasix and 02 there was no BIPAP no Solumedrol. The pt came in with spo2 room air 91% and was placed on 2lnc with spo2 94%. The ED doctor circles "acute resp failure" on the flow sheet, documents in on the eCHART AND then hand writes the diagnosis again on the ICU ADMISSION ORDERS.....and I agree with you Katy!
    Juli

  • Thanks!

    Katy Good, RN, BSN, CCDS, CCS
    Clinical Documentation Program Coordinator
    AHIMA Approved ICD-10CM/PCS Trainer
    Flagstaff Medical Center
    Kathryn.Good@nahealth.com
    Cell: 928.814.9404

  • I agree the indicators for 518.81, Acute Respiratory Failure, are 'not
    that strong'. So, there is that as a part of the conundrum -
    Personally, I would issue a query to 'confirm' the acute respiratory
    failure' noted in the ED.



    I am not comfortable coding 518.81 if no respiratory interventions
    documented .....not logical.



    Paul Evans, RHIA, CCS, CCS-P, CCDS



    Supervisor, Clinical Documentation Integrity, Quality Department

    California Pacific Medical Center

    2351 Clay #243

    San Francisco, CA 94115

    Cell: 415.637.9002

    Fax: 415.600.1325

    Ofc: 415.600.3739

    evanspx@sutterhealth.org

  • edited May 2016
    I agree with Paul. If you generated a query for "confirmation" and gave your clinical indicators that clearly do not meet criteria for Respiratory Failure then maybe you could get clarification of ruled out.

    Dorie Douthit, RHIT,CCS

  • So, how would you pose that as a query? List the indicators and resources and say "Doctor, are you sure??? LOL" We have thought of this but it is documented over and over and we all know docs don't like to be questioned!

  • Yuck. I don't like it. I realize that its in the documentation and its not the coders job to decide if it actually was present but I hate these cases. Does it meet criteria for a secondary dx then? I mean, I guess they got Lasix?

    We recently had a case that I wanted to pull my hair out about. The patient had PNA and the MD documents on day 1 "Hypoxia (acute respiratory failure per coder)"!!! I don't know what the MD was thinking writing this at all. There was no query placed on the chart but CDI's attend rounds and maybe the CDI asked if the patient had resp failure? This then gets copied/pasted throughout the admission. By "coder" of course she means CDI though. This was not caught concurrently and made it to coding where I was then contacted asking if it should be coded. The patient also never really had Resp failure (in my opinion).

    Ugh...

    Katy Good, RN, BSN, CCDS, CCS
    Clinical Documentation Program Coordinator
    AHIMA Approved ICD-10CM/PCS Trainer
    Flagstaff Medical Center
    Kathryn.Good@nahealth.com
    Cell: 928.814.9404

  • edited May 2016
    Was it addressed in the discharge summary?...if not then maybe approach query as d/c summary does not reflect diagnosis of Acute Respiratory Failure can you clarify Acute Respiratory failure ruled in, ruled out, resolved, other more appropriate diagnosis, unable to determine

    Dorie Douthit, RHIT,CCS

  • NO of course not....that is the another of our issues with so many docs/hospitalists seeing the patients....diagnosis magically drop off and are never mentioned in the dc summary.....but, no it wasn't, that would have helped!


  • edited May 2016
    We have that issue with Sepsis...once it resolves it magically disappears and we end up having to go back and ask them to addend d/c summary and address. Oh, the joys of physician documentation. Job security. :) Good luck!

    Dorie

  • Suggested Language for Uncertain Conditions Not Consistently Documented:
    (ARF, Sepsis, Encephalopathy)





    'Condition (X) was noted on admission per the H&P, but no further
    documentation is provided.



    On admission the patient's (insert pertinent findings, lab values) were
    __, orders for ____fluids/antibiotics/oxygen on ___date(s). Can you
    clarify if the patient was being treated for ________?



    Please indicate if ____________was present, has been successfully
    treated and is resolved versus was ruled out.











    Paul Evans, RHIA, CCS, CCS-P, CCDS



    Supervisor, Clinical Documentation Integrity, Quality Department

    California Pacific Medical Center

    2351 Clay #243

    San Francisco, CA 94115

    Cell: 415.637.9002

    Fax: 415.600.1325

    Ofc: 415.600.3739

    evanspx@sutterhealth.org

  • Paul
    Thanks for the query idea, but for our institution we would never be allowed to use this query. We were advised from HCPRO and our Consultant group that queries should not pose a question with the answer in the question-and/or be able to be answered with a "yes or no" response. Our queries give the Clinical Indicators, Resources used and asked for clarification and then give a multitude of choices-dependent upon the diagnosis in question-and always include "other" or "unable to determine" in the query choices! This way we are not LEADING in any way. Hope this helps!

    Juli Bovard RN CDS
    Rapid City Regional Hospital

  • We have a query like Paul's. I know it is controversial and we generally are SUPER careful about our queries. However, the thing is with a query like this, the dx is already in the record, just like POA. So although I have gone back and forward on it, I do continue to use it if absolutely needed. We often use it in cases where a dx (often sepsis) is documented initially and then gets dropped off because it resolves and there are other issues that occur that take over the progress notes. Then sepsis doesn't end up in the D/C summery. It should be the Pdx but the coders are (understandably) uncomfortable because its not in the D/C summery.
    The query basically states the dx as stated in the documentation and any clinical indicators. It then asks if this dx was relevant, treated, monitored during this admission or not.

    I'm still not 100% sure about it but....

    Katy Good, RN, BSN, CCDS, CCS
    Clinical Documentation Program Coordinator
    AHIMA Approved ICD-10CM/PCS Trainer
    Flagstaff Medical Center
    Kathryn.Good@nahealth.com
    Cell: 928.814.9404

  • Juli: All of our queries offer the full range of choices cited by you, I am simply stating SOME of the language of the indicators I use to 'confirm' an important condition that is not consistently stated...we use the choices you listed on EVERY query.


    Also, this is a bit different situation in that the record has already clearly stated something such as "ARF' or Sepsis....so, this is not leading given the language is already clearly documented in the record. I would be asking the Attending to make the final call.

    Thanks.

    Paul


  • Generic Query for Confirmation:



    Paul Evans, RHIA, CCS, CCS-P, CCDS

    ************************************************************************
    ************************************************************************
    *******************************************************





    Dear Physician/PA/NP:
    ____________________________________________________________________ or
    other responsible provider:

    For accurate coding and severity-of-illness compilation, this query is
    directed to you. When responding to this query, please exercise your
    independent professional judgment. The fact that a question is asked
    does not imply that any particular answer is desired or expected.





    On_________ documentation in the
    __________________________________section of the medical record states:





















    If in agreement, please document your concurrence with this diagnosis;
    otherwise, please document a clarified diagnosis. If appropriate,
    please include the severity, type or nature and any suspected
    etiologies.

    .





    CDI Specialist/Coder: _________________________________
    Date:_____________ Time: _______________





    PHYSICIAN/PA/NP Response:



    Clarification of findings:
    ________________________________________________________________________
    ________________________________________________________________________
    ________________________________________________________________________
    ________________________________________________________________________
    ______



    No significance Cannot be
    determined



    Physician/PA/NP Printed
    Name:___________________________________________________________________
    ___



    Physician/PA/NP Signature:
    _____________________________________________Date:
    __________Time:_______



    Addressographor patientsticker







    Paul Evans, RHIA, CCS, CCS-P, CCDS



    Supervisor, Clinical Documentation Integrity, Quality Department

    California Pacific Medical Center

    2351 Clay #243

    San Francisco, CA 94115

    Cell: 415.637.9002

    Fax: 415.600.1325

    Ofc: 415.600.3739

    evanspx@sutterhealth.org





    Paul Evans, RHIA, CCS, CCS-P, CCDS



    Supervisor, Clinical Documentation Integrity, Quality Department

    California Pacific Medical Center

    2351 Clay #243

    San Francisco, CA 94115

    Cell: 415.637.9002

    Fax: 415.600.1325

    Ofc: 415.600.3739

    evanspx@sutterhealth.org

  • edited May 2016
    Important to note that the Coding Clinic cited in the email below has
    been superceded by Coding Clinic 2005 1st Qtr. Respiratory failure can
    be used as principal dx with acute non-respiratory conditions depending
    on the circumstances of admission.
    Respiratory failure w/ nonrespiratory conditions - guidelines
    Coding Clinic, Second Quarter 1991 Page: 3 to 5 Effective with
    discharges: April 1, 1991
    Related Information

    Sequencing of Respiratory Failure in Association with Nonrespiratory
    Conditions

    Note from 3M:
    This advice has been superceded by that issued in First Quarter 2005,
    page 3.
    The Central Office has continued to receive numerous requests regarding
    the sequencing of respiratory failure. The following instruction has
    been developed by the Cooperating Parties to provide clarification. Some
    of the principles outlined below are consistent with previously
    published advice, and some contain revised information. Please review
    carefully these principles along with the accompanying examples.

    Code 518.81, Acute respiratory failure, may be assigned as a principal
    diagnosis when it is the condition established after study to be chiefly
    responsible for occasioning the admission to the hospital, and the
    selection is supported by the Alphabetic Index and Tabular List.
    However, chapter-specific coding guidelines (obstetrics, poisoning, HIV,
    newborn) that provide sequencing direction take precedence. Respiratory
    failure may be listed as a secondary diagnosis if it occurs after
    admission.

    When a patient is admitted with respiratory failure and another acute
    condition, (e.g., myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident), the
    principal diagnosis will not be the same in every situation. Selection
    of the principal diagnosis will be dependent on the circumstances of
    admission. If both the respiratory failure and the other acute condition
    are responsible for occasioning the admission to the hospital, the
    guideline regarding two or more diagnoses that equally meet the
    definition for principal diagnosis (Section II, C,) may be applied in
    these situations.

    The advice above supercedes guideline #1 and guideline #2, previously
    published in Coding Clinic, Second Quarter 1991, page 3.

    Having said that, I agree that respiratory failure would not be the
    principal dx given the info in original email.
    Sharon Salinas, CCS
    Barlow Respiratory Hospital
    213-250-4200 Extension 3336

  • edited May 2016
    Awesome Paul! Thanks.

    Dorie

  • Paul

    Good morning! I agree with you...It is the "gray" area again we all know is out there concerning this career field and Query issues! When I started our program 3 years ago we had only 2 queries, one generic and one for POA. We now have 18 Standard Diagnosis queries (CHF, Sepsis ect), 2 generic (POA, Blank)......We are always struggling for verbiage on queries where we don't have the template! It would be so much easier if things were set in stone and not so "gray"! :)

    Juli

  • Katy
    Agreed...and we also have the "discharge diagnosis" issues. We have "Hospitalists" here and so often, a patient can ostensibly be here for 5 days and NEVER see the same doctor twice. It is a constant issue with the documentation to then get the provider to carry forward the previous doctors diagnosis-and eventually diagnosis' often just fade out of the chart. The original reason for admission OFTEN has resolved by dc and other diagnosis are being carried forward. The discharge summary then does not state the reason they were even admitted! WE CONSTANTLY educate, but it is even getting worse now with a hybrid chart. Suggestions? Does anyone else run into this?

    Juli Bovard RN CDS

  • edited May 2016
    I will definitely be using this...THANKS! Paul


    Judi Bates RN, BSN, CCDS
    Our Lady of Lourdes Medical Center
    CDI Specialist
    856-757-3161
    Beeper 66x2906

  • We have hospitalists too. Our biggest issue is with patients that are initially being treated by the intensivists in the ICU. They may have a protracted course but then eventually are transferred to the floor/Hospitalists. The initial reason for admission may have resolved a week earlier and has not been the primary issue for a long time, so often it doesn't end up in the hospitalists note. Then, when the hospitalist writes the d/c summery, they don't refer back to the H&P.
    My only solution has been to query for it, and I really don't know of a better way to handle it. We have provided info/tips on what should be in a D/C summery but we still come across this issue fairly regularly....

    Katy Good, RN, BSN, CCDS, CCS
    Clinical Documentation Program Coordinator
    AHIMA Approved ICD-10CM/PCS Trainer
    Flagstaff Medical Center
    Kathryn.Good@nahealth.com
    Cell: 928.814.9404

  • edited May 2016
    This is an issue we run into quite a bit on long stays.
    In the case where a diagnosis was left off the discharge summary (especially if principal, MCC, or CC) we ask the physician to go back and address the diagnosis as an addendum to the discharge summary.

    Usual query: Medical record reflects diagnosis of ____________. Can you addend d/c summary to reflect diagnosis __________ ruled in, ruled out, resolved, improving, unable to determine.

    Dorie

  • edited May 2016
    Thanks for nice wording Paul. We have "set in stone" queries by corporate here as well, but like your wording for our general query a lot! :) I'm just curious all, do most of your coders only code from the DS? If not conflicting, or suspect (needing query or clarification), I coded the entire record even if not in DS.
    Cindy

  • edited May 2016
    Cindy,

    I too code the whole record, but have had the "privilege" of defending many RACS since taking on new roll and CC/MCC documented and discussed in the d/c summary make you less open to RAC denials.

    Dorie

  • edited May 2016
    Me too Dorie! They are extremely challenging at best. Seems RAC took up a large part of my last contract coding mgr. job. I was actually on contract at current facility when CDI opened here and they recruited me for a few months to come off the road and work for them. So very happy I did, I love the marriage between clinical and regulatory. My counterpart is an RN and we have a great working relationship and help each other often. BTW, did you work at UTMB Galveston a few years ago?
    Cindy

  • edited May 2016
    No UTMB Galveston...I am a Georgia peach. :) But we too have a coder/RN team. It is a fantastic combo. Neither one of us have done CDI before but both are loving learning CDI.

    Dorie

  • edited May 2016
    Hi there neighbor, I'm a FL gal! I contracted at UTMB with a Georgia peach named Dorie, so was wondering if you. I'm bad with last names over the years. :)
    Cindy

  • Also, coders are legitimately uncomfortable coding a Pdx that is not included in the D/C summery. Obviously, in an ideal world all significant dx would be included in the D/C summery.

    Katy Good, RN, BSN, CCDS, CCS
    Clinical Documentation Program Coordinator
    AHIMA Approved ICD-10CM/PCS Trainer
    Flagstaff Medical Center
    Kathryn.Good@nahealth.com
    Cell: 928.814.9404

  • edited May 2016
    Katy,

    From your mouth to the physician's ears. :)

    Dorie

  • edited May 2016
    Hear, hear for an ideal world!
    Cindy


  • I think this thread speaks to an all too often problem faced in the
    coding, CDI, and compliance world: major conditions are apparently
    present and valid, but not carried through into the summary. This
    creates monumental problems for the coder as one can argue the
    conditions may have been ruled out. I have been a consultant, coder,
    CDI supervisor for 20+ years, and I have coded as a consultant in
    literally hundreds of hospitals, and this is an issue at most of the
    places I have worked. =20

    =20

    We constantly restate to our staff the importance of the D/C summary,
    citing the pertinent JCAHO requirements to document all 'significant'
    conditions as well as our supporting Medical Staff-By-Laws with the same
    statement. =20

    =20

    I am not the coding manager at this site, but the CDI mgr, so I can't
    directly answer the question put forth - 'do your coders coding a
    condition if not in the summary' - but, I think the answer is it
    depends, unfortunately.=20

    =20

    When I do code, I always 'vet or check' the typical signs, symptoms,
    treatment of any 'major' condition affecting the DRG - I do this because
    I have come to believe I need to code 'defensively'.

    =20

    As our CDI concurrently reviews our sample of cases, we use the
    attached form to remind the 'current' attending to speak to the apparent
    ATN, Sepsis, PNA, severe malnutrition, etc, that is stated on
    date___________, but not repeated. Ideally, this would be repeated in
    the summary - if not, I am of the opinion a positive response to this
    query would justify coding of the condition in question given it asked
    for CONFIRMATION specifically for condition 'X".

    =20

    However, I am certain the RAC will make counter arguments - =20

    =20

    Paul

    =20

    =20

    =20

    Paul Evans, RHIA, CCS, CCS-P, CCDS

    =20

    Supervisor, Clinical Documentation Integrity, Quality Department

    California Pacific Medical Center

    2351 Clay #243

    San Francisco, CA 94115

    Cell: 415.637.9002

    Fax: 415.600.1325

    Ofc: 415.600.3739

    evanspx@sutterhealth.org

  • Hi, Juli - Yes, agree 100%. We, too, have some standard query forms
    for common diagnoses, and we also have some generic forms as well, for
    common situations.



    Verbiage selection is always difficult as an 'effective' query can't be
    'leading' - it is difficult to achieve balance in that regard. The
    issue of the 'disappearing 'diagnosis is problematic 'everywhere' - or
    so it seems to me.



    Regarding the 'gray' areas of coding, I think certain issues will always
    remain due to the complexity of the CDI and Coding professions.



    But, one of my concerns is with the RAC as my opinion is that the RAC
    too often either does not know how to apply the coding and compliance
    rules, or they are very, very Draconian during their reviews. It is
    noteworthy that 43% of the RAC findings are successfully appealed - in
    my mind; this means they were only accurate for 57% of these compliance
    reviews. I have been a Compliance Auditor, and my company was paid
    nicely to perform validation reviews and the results were vetted - my
    accuracy rate was expected to be 98%.



    Paul



    Paul Evans, RHIA, CCS, CCS-P, CCDS



    Supervisor, Clinical Documentation Integrity, Quality Department

    California Pacific Medical Center

    2351 Clay #243

    San Francisco, CA 94115

    Cell: 415.637.9002

    Fax: 415.600.1325

    Ofc: 415.600.3739

    evanspx@sutterhealth.org

  • Paul

    AMEN! :)

    juli


  • Good morning.....while I KNOW the statement in my head, can anyone tell me where to find the "paragraph" that basically says "Medicare finds nothing wrong with the implementation of CDI programs or hiring CDI to increase specificity in charting"? I thought it was in the AHIMA brief, but cannot locate it anywhere in my information. (Those words in quotations aren't the exact wording-but something to that effect). Thanks in advance for your help

    Juli Bovard RC CCDS
    Rapid City Regional Hospital

    Juli Bovard RN CCDS
    Certified Clinical Documentation Specialist
    Clinical Effectiveness/Clinical Quality
    Rapid City Regional Hospital
    719-4390 (work)
    786-2677 (cell)
    "No Limit to Better......"
    [CCDS_pin_1inch]

    "The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and the lightning bug."- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens

  • edited May 2016
    * "We highly encourage physicians and hospitals to work together to use the most specific codes that describe their patients' conditions. Such an effort will not only result in more accurate payment by Medicare but will provide better information on the incidence of this disease in the Medicare patient population."

    Source: Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 162, Wed. Aug. 22, 2007,
    Rules and Regulations, pp. 47180-47181.

    Hope this helps, Joyce

  • This might be what you are looking for Juli:

    "As we stated in the FY 2008 IPPS final rule with comment period, we do not believe there is anything inappropriate, unethical or otherwise wrong with hospitals taking full advantage of coding opportunities to maximize Medicare payment as long as the coding is fully and properly supported by documentation in the medical record."
    Federal Register/Vol.73, No. 161/Tues. Aug. 19, 2008/Rules & Regulations, pgs.48448

    Sharon

    Sharon Cooper, RN-BC, CCS, CCDS, CDIP
    AHIMA-Approved ICD-10-CM/PCS Trainer

    Owensboro Medical Health System
    Manager Clinical Documentation & Appeals
    P.O. Box 20007
    Owensboro, KY 42304-0007
    (270) 688-1277 Office
    (270) 316-9088 Cell
    (270) 688-2737 Fax
    sharon.cooper@omhs.org

    TEAM = Together Everyone Accomplishes More!

  • Thanks!

Sign In or Register to comment.