While code editing software is a useful tool to ensure provider compliance with correct coding, a fully automated code editing software application will not wholly evaluate all clinical patient scenarios. Consequently, the plan uses clinical validation by a team of experienced nursing and coding experts to further identify claims for potential billing errors. Clinical validation allows for consideration of exceptions to correct coding principles and may identify circumstances where additional reimbursement is warranted. For example, clinicians review all claims billed with modifiers -25 and -59 for clinical scenarios which justify payment above and beyond the basic service performed.

Moreover, the plan may have policies that differ from correct coding principles. Accordingly, exceptions to general correct coding principles may be required to ensure adherence to health plan policies and to facilitate accurate claims reimbursement.

Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes are a component of the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS). The HCPCS system was designed to standardize coding to ensure accurate claims payment and consists of two levels of standardized coding. CPT codes belong to the Level I subset and consist of the terminology used to describe medical terms and procedures performed by health care professionals. CPT codes are published by the American Medical Association (AMA). CPT codes are updated (added, revised and deleted) on an annual basis.

These codes represent classifications of diseases and related health problems. They are used by healthcare providers to classify diseases and other health problems.

These codes indicate the type of procedure performed on patients and where the service was performed. These codes are billed by institutional providers. HCPCS codes may be required on the claim in addition to the revenue code.

The claims auditing software contains a comprehensive set of rules addressing coding inaccuracies, such as: unbundling, frequency limitations, fragmentation, up-coding, duplication, invalid codes, mutually exclusive procedures, and other coding inconsistencies. Each rule is linked to a generally accepted coding principle. Guidance surrounding the most likely clinical scenario is applied. This information is provided by clinical consultants, health plan medical directors, research, etc.

The software applies edits that are based on the following sources.

Code editing is the final stage in the claims adjudication process. Once a claim has completed all previous adjudication phases (such as benefits and member/provider eligibility review), the claim is ready for analysis.

As a claim progresses through the code editing cycle, each service line on the claim is processed through the code editing rules engine and evaluated for correct coding. As part of this evaluation, the prospective claim is analyzed against other codes billed on the same claim as well as previously paid claims found in the member/provider history.

Depending upon the code edit applied, the software will make the following recommendations:

The below principles do not represent an all-inclusive list of the available code editing principles, but rather an area sampling of edits which are applied to physician and/or outpatient facility claims.

CMS National Correct Coding Initiative (NCCI) - refer to the CMS website at www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coding/NationalCorrectCodInitEd/index.html.

CMS developed NCCI to promote national correct coding methodologies and to control improper coding leading to inappropriate payment. CMS has designated certain combinations of codes that should never be billed together, which are known as PTP or Column one/Column two edits. The column one procedure code is the most comprehensive code and reimbursement for the column two code is subsumed into the payment for the comprehensive code. The column two code is considered an integral component of the column one code.

The CMS NCCI edits consist of PTP edits for physicians and hospitals. Practitioner PTP edits are applied to claims submitted by physicians, non-physician practitioners and ambulatory surgical centers (ASC). Hospital PTP edits apply to hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, home health agencies, outpatient physical therapy and speech-language pathology providers, and comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facilities. While PTP code pairs should not typically be billed together, there are circumstances when an NCCI-associated modifier may be appended to the column two code to identify a significant and separately identifiable or distinct service. When these modifiers are billed, clinical validation will be performed.

The purpose of the NCCI MUE program is to prevent improper payment when services are reported with incorrect units of service. MUEs reflect the maximum units of service that a provider would bill under most circumstances for a single member, on a single date of service. These edits are based on CPT/HCPCS code descriptions, anatomic specifications, the nature of the service/procedure, the nature of the analyte, equipment prescribing information, and clinical judgment.

Many specialty medical organizations and health advisory committees have developed rules around how codes should be used in their area of expertise. These rules are published and are available for use by the public domain. Procedure code definitions and relative value units are considered when developing these code sets. Rules are specifically designed for professional and outpatient facility claims editing.

These are combinations of procedure codes that may differ in technique or approach but result in the same outcome. The procedures may be impossible to perform anatomically. Procedure codes may also be considered mutually exclusive when an initial or subsequent service is billed on the same date of service. The procedure with the highest RVU is considered the reimbursable code.

These are procedure code combinations in which the less comprehensive procedure is considered clinically integral to the successful completion of the primary procedure and should not be billed separately.

CMS publishes rules surrounding payment of an E/M service during the global surgical period of a procedure. The global surgery data is taken from the CMS Medicare Fee Schedule Database (MFSDB).

Procedures are assigned a 0-, 10- or 90-day global surgical period. Procedures assigned a 90-day global surgery period are designated as major procedures. Procedures assigned a 0- or 10-day global surgical period are designated as minor procedures.

E&M services for a major procedure (90-day global period) that are reported one-day preoperatively, on the same date of service or during the 90-day post-operative period are not recommended for separate reimbursement.

E&M services that are reported with minor surgical procedures on the same date of service or during the 10-day global surgical period are not recommended for separate reimbursement.

E/M services for established patients that are reported with surgical procedures that have a 0-day global surgical period are not recommended for reimbursement on the same day of surgery because there is an inherent evaluation and management service included in all surgical procedures.

Global periods for maternity services are classified as MMM in the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS). E&M services billed during the antepartum period (270 days), on the same date of service or during the postpartum period (45 days) are not recommended for separate reimbursement if the procedure code includes antepartum and postpartum care.

This rule identifies outpatient diagnostic services that are provided to a member within three days prior to and including the date of an inpatient admission. When these services are billed by the same admitting facility or an entity wholly owned or operated by the admitting facility, they are considered to be bundled into the inpatient admission, and therefore, are not separately reimbursable.

This rule analyzes billing of two or more procedure codes when a single more comprehensive code should have been billed to accurately represent all of the services performed.

The CPT and HCPCS manuals define the number of times a single code can be reported. There are also codes that are allowed a limited number of times on a single date of service, over a given period of time or during a member's lifetime. State fee schedules also delineate the number of times a procedure can be billed over a given period of time or during a member's lifetime. A frequency edit will be applied by code auditing software when the procedure code is billed in excess of these guidelines.

Code editing will evaluate prospective claims to determine if there is a previously paid claim for the same member and provider in history that is a duplicate to the prospective claim. The software will also look across different providers to determine if another provider was paid for the same procedure, for the same member on the same date of service. Finally, the software will analyze multiple services within the same range of services performed on the same day. For example a nurse practitioner and physician billing for office visits for the same member on the same date of service.

CMS establishes guidelines that identify whether some medical items, services, treatments, diagnostic services or technologies can be paid under the health plan. These rules evaluate diagnosis to procedure code combinations.

This rule identifies anesthesia services that have been billed with a surgical procedure code instead of an anesthesia procedure code.

Identifies revenue codes billed with incorrect CPT codes.

Evaluates claims billed as an assistant surgeon that normally do not require the attendance of an assistant surgeon per CMS and American College of Surgeons (ACS) guidelines. Modifiers are reviewed as part of the claims analysis.

CMS and ACS guidelines define whether or not an assistant, co-surgeon or team surgeon is reimbursable and the percentage of the surgeon's fee that can be paid to the assistant, co-surgeon or team surgeon.

Identifies claims with an add-on CPT code billed without the primary service CPT code. Additionally, if the primary service code is denied, then the add-on code is also denied. This rule also looks for circumstances in which the primary code was billed in a quantity greater than one when an add-on code should have been used to describe the additional services rendered.

This rule looks for claims where modifier -50 has already been billed, but the same procedure code is submitted on a different service line on the same date of service without the modifier -50. This rule is highly customized as many health plans allow this type of billing.

These rules recommend that single service lines or multiple service lines are denied and replaced with a more appropriate code. For example, the provider bills several lab tests separately that are included as part of a more comprehensive code. This rule will deny the individual lab test codes and add a service line with the appropriate comprehensive code. This rule uses a crosswalk to determine the appropriate code to add.

This rule analyzes service lines to determine if a modifier should have been reported but was omitted. For example, professional providers would not typically bill the global (technical and professional) component of a service when performed in a facility setting. The technical component is typically performed by the facility and not the physician. In some instances, the original service line will be denied and a new service line added with the appropriate modifier. This does not change the original billing, as the original service line remains on the claim.

This edit identifies readmissions within a specified time interval that may be clinically related to a previous admission. For example, a subsequent admission may be plausibly related to the care rendered during or immediately following a prior hospital admission in the case of readmission for a surgical wound infection or lack of post-admission follow up. Admissions to non-acute care facilities (such as skilled nursing facilities) are not considered readmissions and not considered for reimbursement. CMS determines the readmission time interval as 30 days; however, this rule is highly customizable by state rules and provider contracts.

These rules are not based on clinical content and serve to validate code sets and other data billed on the claim. These types of rules do not interact with historically paid claims or other service lines on the prospective claim. Examples include, but are not limited to:

Clinical validation is intended to identify coding scenarios that historically result in a higher incidence of improper payments. An example of clinical validation services is the review of modifiers -25 and -59. Code pairs within the CMS NCCI edit tables with a modifier indicator of "1" allow for a modifier to be used in appropriate circumstances to allow payment for both codes. Furthermore, public domain specialty organization edits may also be considered for override when they are billed with these modifiers. When these modifiers are billed, the provider's billing should support a separately identifiable service (from the primary service billed, modifier -25) or a different session, site or organ system, surgery, incision/excision, lesion or separate injury (modifier -59). MA's clinical validation team uses the information on the prospective claim and claims history to determine whether or not it is likely that a modifier was used correctly based on the unique clinical scenario for a member on a given date of service.

CMS supports this type of prepayment review. The clinical validation team uses nationally published guidelines from CPT and CMS to determine if a modifier was used correctly.

NCCI states the primary purpose of modifier -59 is to indicate that procedures or non-editing/medical services that are not usually reported together are appropriate under the circumstances. The CPT manual defines modifier -59 as distinct procedural service: Under certain circumstances, it may be necessary to indicate that a procedure or service was distinct or independent from other nonservices performed on the same day. Modifier -59 is used to identify procedures/services, other than editing/medical services, that are not normally reported together, but are appropriate under the circumstances. Documentation must support a different session, different procedure or surgery, different site or organ system, separate incision/excision, separate lesion, or separate injury (or area of injury in extensive injuries) not ordinarily encountered or performed on the same day by the same individual.

Some providers are routinely assigning modifier -59 when billing a combination of codes that will result in a denial due to unbundling. We commonly find misuse of modifier -59 related to the portion of the definition that allows its use to describe different procedure or surgery. NCCI guidelines state that providers should not use modifier -59 solely because two different procedures/surgeries are performed or because the CPT codes are different procedures. Modifier -59 should only be used if the two procedures/surgeries are performed at separate anatomic sites, at separate patient encounters or by different practitioners on the same date of service. NCCI defines different anatomic sites to include different organs or different lesions in the same organ. However, it does not include treatment of contiguous structures of the same organ.

The plan uses the following guidelines to determine if modifier -59 was used correctly:

Both CPT and CMS, in the NCCI policy manual, specify that by using a modifier -25 the provider is indicating that a significant, separately identifiable E&M service was provided by the same physician on the same day of the procedure or other service. Additional CPT guidelines state that the E&M service must be significant and separate from other services provided or above and beyond the usual pre-, intra- and postoperative care associated with the procedure that was performed.

The NCCI policy manual states that if a procedure has a global period of 000 or 010 days, it is defined as a minor surgical procedure (Osteopathic manipulative therapy and chiropractic manipulative therapy have global periods of 000). The decision to perform a minor surgical procedure is included in the value of the minor surgical procedure and should not be reported separately as an E&M service. However, a significant and separately identifiable E&M service unrelated to the decision to perform the minor surgical procedure is separately reportable with modifier -25. The E&M service and minor surgical procedure do not require different diagnoses. If a minor surgical procedure is performed on a new patient, the same rules for reporting E&M services apply. The fact that the patient is "new" to the provider is not sufficient alone to justify reporting an E&M service on the same date of service as a minor surgical procedure. NCCI does contain some edits based on these principles, but the Medicare carriers and A/B Medicare administrative contractor (MAC) processing practitioner service claims have separate edits.

The plan uses the following guidelines to determine whether -25 was used appropriately. If any one of the following conditions is met, the clinical nurse reviewer will recommend reimbursement for the E&M service.

Claims appeals resulting from claim editing are handled per the provider claims appeals process outlined in this manual. When submitting claims appeals, submit medical records, invoices and all related information to assist with the appeals review.

If you disagree with a code edit or edit and request claim reconsideration, you must submit medical documentation (medical records) related to the reconsideration. If medical documentation is not received, the original code edit or edit will be upheld.

The Code Editing Assistant is a Web-based code editing reference tool designed to mirror how the code editing product(s) evaluate code and code combinations during the editing of claims. The tool is available for providers who are registered on our secure provider portal. You can access the tool in the Claims Module by clicking Claim Editing Tool in our secure provider portal.

This tool offers many benefits:

The tool will review what was entered, and will determine if the code or code combinations are correct based on the age, sex, location, modifier (if applicable), or other code(s) entered.

The Code Editing Assistant is intended for use as a "what if" or hypothetical reference tool. It is meant to apply coding logic only. The tool does not take into consideration historical claims information which may be used to determine if an edit is appropriate.The Code Editing Assistant can be accessed from the provider web portal.

This tool is used to apply coding logic ONLY. It will not take into account individual fee schedule reimbursement, authorization requirements or other coverage considerations. Whether a code is reimbursable or covered is separate and outside of the intended use of this tool.

Clinical payment policy edits are developed to increase claims processing effectiveness, to decrease the administrative burden of prior authorization, to better ensure payment of only correctly coded and medically necessary claims, and to provide transparency to providers. The purpose of these policies is to provide a guide to medical necessity, which is a component of the guidelines used to assist in making coverage decisions and administering benefits. These policies may be documented as a medical policy or pharmacy policy.

Clinical payment policies are implemented through prepayment claims edits applied within our claims adjudication system. Once adopted by the health plan, these policies are posted on the health plan's provider portal.

Clinical medical policies can be identified by an alpha-numeric sequence such as CP.MP.XX in the reference number of the policy. Clinical pharmacy policies can be identified by an alpha-numeric sequence such as CP.PHAR.XX in the reference number of the policy.

The majority of clinical payment policy edits are applied when a procedure code (CPT/HCPCS) is billed with a diagnosis (es) that does not support medical necessity as defined by the policy. When this occurs, the following explanation (ex) code is applied to the service line billed with the disallowed procedure. This ex code can be viewed on the provider's explanation of payment.

Examples

Some clinical payment policy edits may also occur as the result of a single code denial for a service that is not supported by medical necessity. When this occurs, the following explanation (ex) code is applied to the service line billed with the disallowed procedure. This ex code can be viewed on the provider's explanation of payment.

Clinical payment policy denials may be appealed on the basis of medical necessity. Providers who disagree with a claim denial based on a clinical payment policy, and who believe that the service rendered was medically necessary and clinically appropriate, may submit a written reconsideration request for the claim denial using the provider claim reconsideration/appeal/dispute or other appropriate process as defined in the health plan's provider manual. The appeal may include this type of information: