Widespread Probe Review Results – FI – Review of CMGs A0803 or A0804, TOB 11X
Alabama Medical Review Part A has recently completed the prepay probe review of CMGs A0803 or A0804. TOB 11X. The claims were randomly selected across the provider community billing this service that met the parameters of the edit. The review results are as follows:
| Providers Reviewed | 41 |
| Claims Reviewed | 93 |
| Claims Approved | 11 |
| Claims Denied | 82 |
| Charges Reviewed | $1,288,757.23 |
| Charges Approved | $160,206.82 |
| Charges Denied | $1,128,550.41 |
| Error Rate | 88% |
| * error rate is based on the charges denied divided by the charges reviewed | |
The medical review decisions were based on the LCD for Inpatient Rehabilitation (L15198).
This determination (LCD) addresses Medicare
coverage for inpatient rehabilitation services provided in freestanding
and “excluded” [as defined in 42 CFR, Section 412.25] rehabilitation
units (IRF). For the purposes of this LCD, a distinction exists between
the ‘percent’ rule and medical necessity. The ‘percent’ rule
is an accounting standard by which IRFs are classified whereas the medical
necessity is a standard which applies to all IRF admissions. The medical
necessity for the provision of rehabilitative services in an inpatient
setting is the primary focus. We note a distinction between medical necessity
for individual therapy services, which may be reasonable and necessary
in a particular case, and the medical necessity of providing those services
in an inpatient rehabilitation setting (medical reasonableness or appropriateness).
This LCD describes the relevant factors that differentiate Medicare coverage
for rehabilitation in an IRF from coverage for rehabilitation in other
settings, such as acute care hospitals, skilled nursing facilities (SNFs),
home health care, and outpatient settings.
Notations in italics are quotations taken from the Medicare Benefit Policy
Manual (PUB 100-2), Chapter 1 Section 110, formerly the Hospital Manual,
Section 211. Numerical notations in parenthesis are the specific citings
from Chapter 1. This LCD is not intended to replace or re-quote the entire
language in the Medicare Benefit Policy Manual (PUB 100-2), Chapter 1
Section 110, but to highlight portions of this Section that warrant further
interpretation, guidance, and education for coverage. The fact that all
language from this Section is not included does not diminish its composite
authority.
Indications
Physicians generally agree on the circumstances that justify a medical
or surgical patient's hospitalization. In addition, in some cases an
admission to a rehabilitation hospital or to the rehabilitation service
of a short-term hospital can be justified on essentially the same medical
or surgical grounds. In other cases, however, a patient's medical or
surgical needs alone may not warrant inpatient hospital care, but hospitalization
may nevertheless be necessary because of the patient's need for rehabilitative
services.
Patients needing rehabilitative services require a hospital level of
care, if they need a relatively intense rehabilitation program that requires
a multidisciplinary coordinated team approach to upgrade their ability
to function. There are two basic requirements that must be met for inpatient
hospital stays for rehabilitation care to be covered:
- The services must be reasonable and necessary (in terms of efficacy, duration, frequency, and amount) for the treatment of the patient's condition; and
- It must be reasonable and necessary to furnish the care on an inpatient hospital basis, rather than in a less intensive facility such as a SNF, or on an outpatient basis.
In order to meet the above requirements the following basic components
must be met:
Close medical supervision by a Physician with specialized Training
or Experience in Rehabilitation (110.4.1)
A patient's condition must require the 24-hour availability of
a physician with special training or experience in the field of rehabilitation.
This need should be verifiable by entries in the patient's medical
record that reflect frequent and direct, and medically necessary physician
involvement in the patient's care; i.e., at least every two to three
days during the patient's stay. This degree of physician involvement
which is greater than is normally rendered to a patient in a SNF is
an indicator of a patient's need for services generally available only
in a hospital.
Twenty-four hour Rehabilitation Nursing (110.4.2)
The patient requires the 24-hour availability of a registered nurse
with specialized training or experience in rehabilitation.
Intense Level of Services (110.4.3)
The general threshold for establishing the need for inpatient hospital
rehabilitation services is that the patient must require and receive
at least three hours a day of physical and/or occupational therapy.
(The furnishing of services no less than five days a week satisfies
the requirement for "daily" services.) While most patients
requiring an inpatient stay for rehabilitation need and receive at
least three hours a day of physical and/or occupational therapy, there
can be exceptions because individual patient's needs vary. In some
instances, patients who require inpatient hospital rehabilitation services
may need, on a priority basis, other skilled rehabilitative modalities
such as speech-language pathology services, or prosthetic-orthotic
services and their stage of recovery makes the concurrent receipt of
intensive physical therapy or occupational therapy services inappropriate.
In such cases, the 3-hour a day requirement can be met by a combination
of these other therapeutic services instead of or in addition to physical
therapy and/or occupational therapy.
Multi-disciplinary Team Approach (110.4.4)
A multidisciplinary team usually includes a physician, rehabilitation
nurse, social worker and/or psychologist, and those therapists involved
in the patient's care. At a minimum, a team must include a physician,
rehabilitation nurse, and one therapist.
In other words, inpatient rehabilitation will be considered medically
reasonable and necessary as long as all of the following are met:
- There is a reasonable expectation of measurable improvement that will be of practical value to the patient within a predictable and reasonable period of time.
- As a general threshold, the patient must require, receive, and tolerate at least three hours a day of physical and/or occupational therapy at least five times per week. In some instances, patients may need on a priority basis other skilled rehabilitative modalities such as speech-language pathology services or prosthetic-orthotic services that may contribute to the “three hour rule”. There may be occasional situations where a patient’s active/acute medical co-morbidities (e.g. COPD exacerbation) may temporarily interrupt/decrease this “three hour” requirement. If such circumstances allow the patient to remain in the IRF setting, the interruption of services should not be prolonged, or documentation should reflect the need for continued inpatient rehabilitation.
- The patient’s plan of care is developed and managed by a coordinated multi-disciplinary team. Although CMS requires the frequency of team conferences to be “at least every two weeks”, more frequent (i.e. weekly) team conferences may be indicated, as in the case of a stay lasting less than two weeks, to effectively demonstrate that the requisite inter-disciplinary intensive rehabilitation is being provided and the patient is making measurable progress.
- The rehab should be provided in an IRF rather than a less intensive setting due to:
- required 24-hour a day access to a registered nurse (RN) with specialized training in rehabilitation; AND
- required frequent rehab physician assessment, or intervention due to potential risk of significant change in physical or medical status, and direction of the rehab team; AND
- required rehabilitation services at such an intensity, frequency and duration as to make it impractical for the patient to receive such rehabilitation services in a less intensive setting.
Medicare recognizes that determinations of whether hospital stays
for rehabilitation services are reasonable and necessary must be based
upon an assessment of each beneficiary's individual care needs. Therefore,
denials of services based on numerical utilization screens, diagnostic
screens, diagnosis or specific treatment norms, "the three hour
rule," or any other "rules of thumb," are not appropriate.
Limitations
The ‘Limitations’ section is intended to provide guidance
and raise awareness where aspects of coverage may be limited or denied.
This LCD will not implement automated denials.
- The required services are available in a less intensive setting (Outpatient or SNF) and the patient is medically appropriate for such a setting, such that the admission criteria in the 'Indications' section are not met.
- The physician did not order an intensive level of care as described in this determination.
- Only services performed by occupational therapists, physical therapists, speech language pathologist, prosthetists, and orthotists may contribute to the “three hour rule”.
- Although re-enforcement across disciplines (i.e. PT, OT, rehab nursing) is expected, there should be no duplication of services unless each reflects the uniqueness of their services provided by the respective discipline.
- Coordinated multi-disciplinary care was not provided. (e.g. lack of goals, lack of input across different disciplines)
- The Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility – Patient Assessment Instrument (IRF-PAI) fails to support the Rehabilitation Impairment Category (RIC) or failure of the medical record to substantiate the data reported in the IRF-PAI.
- Although all admissions must meet medical necessity, routine admissions for single joint replacements’ postoperative rehabilitation, debility, cardiac rehabilitation, and pulmonary rehabilitation would not be expected. However when such an admission meets the coverage criteria, careful attention to documentation as to why the patient requires intensive inpatient rehabilitation should be present.
The majority of denials were due to one of the following reasons:
- Lack of timely submission of requested documentation (Denial Reason 56900): Claims were denied due to a lack of record submission in a timely manner. According to The Medicare Program Integrity Manual, PUB 100-8, Chapter 3, § 3.4.1.2, if a coverage or coding determination cannot be made based upon the information on the claim, the Fiscal Intermediary (FI) may solicit additional documentation from the provider by issuing an Additional Documentation Request (ADR) and must notify the provider of the 30 day time-period to respond. If the ADR-requested information is not is received within 45 days after the date of the request, then the claim must be denied.
To eliminate 56900 denials, please review the following elements to ensure appropriate and timely record processing:
- Beginning January 1, 2007, Cahaba no longer sends letters to inform providers of Additional Development Requests (ADRs). Instead, providers will need to access the Fiscal Intermediary Standard System (FISS) to identify claims selected for ADR. Claims selected for ADR can be identified by accessing FISS Inquiry Option 12, and will appear in status location S B6001. Pages 07 and 08 of the claim will contain the date your documentation is due, and the elements of documentation requested.
- Print screen the ADR letter and attach the copy to the front of the requested medical documentation
- Send requested information to the address on the ADR letter
- Do NOT send certified mail or overnight mail
- Include ALL requested documentation outlined in the ADR
- Submit the above information via regular mail in a timeframe to ensure the FI receives the information by the 45th day after the date of the request.
- The documentation submitted did not support medical necessity for inpatient rehabilitation (Denial Reason 54155). The documentation submitted lacked medical justification for inpatient rehabilitation services.
As a result of this prepay probe review, Alabama Part A Medical Review will continue with a prepay targeted review of CMGs A0803 or A0804, TOB 11X. Also, providers identified through data analysis as driving this aberrancy may warrant provider-specific medical review.
Page last updated: May 21, 2008