Home Health PPS Rate Update for CY 2013

Changes to OASIS Field M1024

On July 6, 2012, CMS announced proposed changes to the Medicare home health program for 2013 that, as they noted in a press release, “would foster greater efficiency, flexibility, payment accuracy and improved quality.” 

We wish that were the case. 

As many of you know already, by law CMS has to update the payment rate every year. While many of the primary focuses of the proposed changes are expected, and in fact will do some good, there are a few major items that are receiving very little attention and should be of concern to home healthcare agencies and their patients and families. Specifically, we are very concerned about proposed changes restricting the use of OASIS field M1024. While on the surface the rule would appear to simplify coding of this section, if implemented there is going to be a significant case mix (CM) decrease, with unintended results affecting patient care. 

The proposed rule addresses what CMS sees as an overuse of diagnoses assigned to M1024. Basically, M1024 is an additional optional area of the OASIS form where codes are put in to help with payment calculation. Its use should only be used on a limited basis, but because of poor direction and management from CMS in the past, plus ongoing issues with EMRs, home healthcare agencies (HHAs) have been inconsistent on how they have used this field over the years.

 

CMS also states in the proposed rule that many HHAs are not complying with the guidelines of “Attachment D” which was published in December 2008. It is true that adoption of Attachment D by the home healthcare industry has been spotty. But CMS is also not acknowledging its lack of proper implementation of Attachment D. First of all, they published these guidelines 11 months after the PPS changes went into effect which these guidelines covered.  When they were first published, they were full of errors and the examples that they had within the document did not even follow their own guidelines. They later revised these guidelines but, as industry experts will tell you, they still continue to provide confusing and conflicting guidance. In 2010, HHA switched to OASIS-C, however, Attachment D still uses the language of OASIS-B (i.e. M0246). 

 

How does CMS expect an industry to follow the guidelines when they are riddled with errors, offer conflicting guidance and are out-of-date?

Other ongoing issues have also contributed to the use of M1024 that CMS fails to address in this rule. Many EMR systems, for example, are not setup properly and require every V code to have a corresponding code in M1024.  In the past, CMS has told agencies that this is “okay” as they are limited by their EMR system, instead of demanding that the EMR system fix the problem.

Lastly, if there is a coding error, and it is the difference between a clinician and a coding specialist, CMS has stated in the past that they would rather have incorrect coding from a clinician rather than proper coding from a trained professional. Yes, you read that correctly. [See Quarterly CMS Q&A question 44.1 from category 4 located here on page 29 ]

With this proposed rule, CMS is taking an extremely narrow worldview and wants to limit the CM diagnosis categories to fractures only. One example where an agency is at significant risk is in the case of a status post-mastectomy patient who is not receiving additional treatment for cancer. Typically, an aftercare code would be used in M1020/M1022 and the Breast Neoplasm code would go in M1024. This would add CM points and non-routine supply points to the episode. Based off the proposal, these patients would receive less reimbursement. This may be an oversight of CMS or it could be intentional to lower the overall CM average.

Bottom line, this rule will affect reimbursement for a significant population of patients within the industry and there has been no discussion of it. Instead of legislating, let’s take a step back and offer a sensible solution that fixes the problem, not make it worse. We call on CMS to…

• Fully implement what “Attachment D” was meant for and not restrict diagnoses codes limited to M1024 other than what is the intention of Attachment D.
• Form a committee of homecare industry experts to fix Attachment D. Mandate that only CM codes are placed in M1024 and not allow EMRs to allow otherwise. Have MACs audit for accuracy.
• Acknowledge the use of certified coders in homecare. Give them the ability to correct inaccurate coding by clinicians. Allow them to make the change, with specific documentation on what was corrected and why. 

Read the entire rule published in the Federal Register on July 13, 2012 here.CMS will accept comments on the proposed rule until Sep. 4, 2012. We are already working on ours.