Monday, November 9, 2015

Preparing For 2016




Preparing for 2016
New for 2016

ICD-10 Transition Moves Forward

On October 1, 2015 health systems across the country transitioned to the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision – ICD-10. This change will enable providers to capture more details about the health status of their patients to improve patient care and public health surveillance. 

CMS has been carefully monitoring the transition and is pleased to report that claims are processing normally. Generally speaking, Medicare claims take several days to be processed and, once processed, Medicare must– by law – wait two weeks before issuing a payment.
Keep in mind that CMS has not monitored specificity, correct grouping or other potential flags.

2017 PQRS Payment Adjustments Based on 2015 Reporting

  • There is no PQRS incentive in 2015 and beyond. Also, the additional incentive for Maintenance of Certification is no longer available.
  • The 2017 automatic downward adjustment for not successfully reporting PQRS in 2015 is -2.0%. This penalty amount applies to all eligible professionals (EPs).

CMS proposes to make changes to the PQRS measure set to add measures where gaps exist, as well as to eliminate measures that are topped out, duplicative, or are being replaced with a more robust measure.  If all measure proposals are finalized, there will be 300 measures in the PQRS measure set for 2016. 

2016 HEDIS
New HEDIS technical specifications include six new measures, retirement of one measure and one HEDIS guideline, and changes to three existing measures and two guidelines.
2016 OIG’s 2016 Work Plan

The U.S Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) Work Plan for fiscal year (FY) 2016 sums up new and ongoing activities that OIG plans to pursue during the fiscal year and beyond. 

2016 Quality Measures 

Performance measurement — if done right — can be a core activity to move the health care system to higher value for the American public, while rewarding health professionals and health care institutions for doing the right thing for their patients. Yet, policy makers, private and public, have a duty to the public, patients, and providers to get it right — to measure and report accurately and meaningfully. 

New CPT Codes for 2016

Every year on January 1st, the CPT is updated with new, revised and deleted codes. Your staff will need to be ready to implement these changes when coding records as well as updating the superbill. A number of new radiology and radiation oncology codes are anticipated for 2016. A total of 40 new codes will impact radiology. 

CMS show increasing support for value-based care

The shift from fee-for-service to fee-for-value necessitates that providers optimize their operations and align costs with clinical outcomes.

Let’s improve Coding & Reimbursement Now 

Since 1983 we have been helping physicians to operate practices as a business, over 500 Medicare and Medicaid audits have given us the knowledge to develop the AccuChecker Product Line including Claims Scrubbers and for the 10 years we have been involved in HMOs Risk Management and have developed the MCAR Reports – Managed Care Reports. 

For more details, call us, and see how AccuChecker  can assist you. 

FOR MORE INFORMATION
HPP Management Group, Corp.
5201 Blue Lagoon, Suite 800
Miami, FL 33126
Phone: (305) 227-2383 or 1877-938-9311

Email: psilben@hppcorp.com


 

Wednesday, November 4, 2015

Transitioning Medicare from fee-for-service (FFS) payments to value-based reimbursement



Transitioning Medicare from fee-for-service (FFS) payments to value-based reimbursement

The shift from fee-for-service to fee-for-value necessitates that hospitals and physicians optimize their operations and align costs with clinical outcomes. Especially challenging is controlling the medical/surgical expense and increasing patient throughput without sacrificing quality of care. But you’ll need to look beyond the price of supplies to maintain margins and stay competitive.
In the current fee-for-service model of reimbursing providers for health care, physicians and organizations have incentives to 'do" more. The more tests you order, patients you see, procedures you do, the more money you will make,  their payments are now based on the value of care they deliver (value-based care).
CMS made a bold announcement in January 2015: It plans to ramp up its timeline for transitioning Medicare from fee-for-service (FFS) payments to value-based reimbursement. For the first time, CMS is being incredibly specific about its timeline and methodology. It plans to take the following two actions:
•30 percent of payments will be tied to alternative payment ACO or bundled payment arrangements by the end of 2016. Payments related to these models will increase to 50 percent by the end of 2018.
•85 percent of all traditional Medicare payments will be tied to quality or value by 2016 and 90 percent by 2018 through programs such as Hospital Value Based Purchasing and Hospital Readmissions Reduction.
At about the same time, on the commercial front, a group of payers, patients, providers, and purchasers formed a value-based coalition with similarly aggressive goals. The coalition, which includes Aetna, Blue Cross, Health Care Services Corporation, Ascension Health, and Trinity Health, stated that 75 percent of their respective businesses would be operating under value-based payments by 2020.

Are you ready ?

Payers — primarily Medicare — are putting their money where their mouth is and starting to recognize and reward work that’s been proven to improve the quality of care and help keep long-term costs down.  Patients are gaining greater access to care. And providers now have more ways to get paid for the care they provide, with increased flexibility in how they’re providing that care. 

Transition

Making this transformation is not a single step but an overarching strategy. Knowing the plan proposed by CMS, the time is NOW to prepare, organize and decide how to convert to value-based reimbursement.
 

HPP AccuChecker is helping providers improve their understanding of what outcomes to measure and how to collect, analyze, and report outcomes data.  Health outcomes is data driven by: 

·         PQRS
·         HEDIS
·         National Quality Measures
·         Meaningful Use
·         Core Measures 

Financial outcome is determined on how the Risk is determined and how is controlled. 

85 percent of all traditional Medicare payments will be tied to quality or value by 2016 and 90 percent by 2018 

Avoid the penalties and/or reductions.
 

Call us for details.

 

 

FOR MORE INFORMATION
HPP Management Group, Corp.
5201 Blue Lagoon, Suite 800
Miami, FL 33126
Phone: (305) 227-2383

Email: psilben@hppcorp.com


 

Blog Articles by Category


Blogger - Master File

Articles by Category





Category
Link
PQRS - Physician Quality Reporting System
Seminars
Articles of Interest
Sales - Marketing
Quality Measures - NQM
HEDIS
HEDIS
PCMH - Patient Centered Medical Home
Consulting Services
Medical Billing
ACO
Quality Measures
Article of Interest - FYI
AccuChecker Seminar
AccuChecker
HEDIS
ACK Bulletin
BREAKING NEWS
Upcoming Seminars
PQRS
Risk Management
Points of Interest
Medical BIlling
Medicare and Medicaid Audits
ICD-10
Claim and Adjudication Seminar
Meaningful Use ( MU )
HPP - Accuchecker




Blogger:   Paul G. Silverio-Benet
Phones:  305-227-2383   or 1-877-938-9311

Email:    psilben@hppcorp.com   or   psilben@gmail.com






Health Outcomes: Success or Failure




Health Outcomes: Success or Failure
In today’s healthcare, improved health outcomes and cost reduction are the critical metrics provider organizations (ACO) must demonstrate to payors ( CMS and others ), physicians and patients alike. Don’t run into the common snags others do when it comes to data integration. HPP AccuChecker your one source to guide you in today’s healthcare.

·         Understand cost and risk
·         Clinical Documentation
·         Value-Based  Care / Model
·         ACO
·         PCMH 

With the collection of data:       HEDIS / PQRS / National Quality Measures / ICD-10

The framework for today’s healthcare is being developed.  Providers are urged to look at the big picture and grasp the concept of value-based model. Healthcare is moving away from the traditional Fee-For-Service.  

Can a provider succeed in today’ health outcomes? The team at HPP AccuChecker, can assist you. Guide you through the various metrics and provide you with a positive outcome. 

Call us for more details and ask for Felicia.

 

FOR MORE INFORMATION
HPP Management Group, Corp.
5201 Blue Lagoon, Suite 800
Miami, FL 33126
Phone: (305) 227-2383

Email: psilben@hppcorp.com

Thursday, October 22, 2015

Focusing on outcomes and the value of service provided




Article of Interest

 
Source:  Radiology Business
Article Date :  10/13/2015
Author : Julie Ritzer Ross 

The Data-driven Practice: How Quality Metrics and Data Are Driving Radiology

Turnaround time, step aside: A new generation of quality metrics is paving the way toward value-based radiology 

Healthcare reform continues to impact nearly every—if not all—aspect of radiology practice. One of the most significant changes is a transition from a volume-based, fee-for-service model contingent on RVU production to one that is based on the delivery of value-added, quality care. Such factors are indeed leading to the formation of intricate, wide-reaching quality agendas and infrastructures under whose terms myriad quality measures are tracked and quality targets are carefully chosen and prioritized, with data used to assess progress.  

“There’s no getting around the need for quality infrastructure and metrics to prove value,” says Steven Miles, MD, FACR, president and chief quality officer of Halifax Health, Daytona Beach, Fla., which provides a continuum of healthcare services through a network that encompasses two hospitals, four cancer treatment centers, the area’s largest hospice organization, psychiatric services and a preferred provider organization. Halifax Health also is one of six independent radiology practices that make up the core of Preferred Radiology Alliance (PRA), Daytona Beach, Fla., a managed services organization (MSO) that spans 124 physicians, 21 hospitals and 15 outpatient imaging centers.  

In the new healthcare paradigm, Miles asserts, “nobody is going to be paying per click. Data that illustrate value are going to be just as important as the bill.”


Lasting, cultural change
For Radiology Associates of Canton (RAC), Canton, Ohio, the shift Miles describes has occurred under a co-management agreement for the radiology service line. Forged four years ago with Canton-based Aultman Hospital, to which RAC has long provided subspecialized imaging services and 24/7 on-site night coverage, the agreement calls for a governance model wherein all departmental decisions are made jointly by RAC’s radiologists and the hospital administration, and for the approval of capital purchases by both entities. More importantly, it mandates a quality infrastructure wherein clinicians are paid on a performance basis and a patient-centered radiology program that harnesses radiology clinical coordinators to expedite care and decrease length of stay (LOS) for certain patients.

“The co-management agreement came about largely because of pressures brought on by the volume-driven marketplace,” states RAC President Syed Zaidi, MD. Zaidi, who also serves as CEO of a consulting and management entity that assists hospitals and other radiology practices in developing similar partnerships, notes that before the agreement was solidified, RAC was grappling with unrelenting reimbursement cuts, internal disagreements about focusing on increasing volume as opposed to offering consultative services to its clinician and wavering hospital relationships despite a high level of volume-driven service. A consulting firm had been brought in by the hospital to evaluate whether RAC—whose contract was up for renewal the following year—could be displaced in favor of improved radiologic services.

“We proposed co-management, and the hospital administration bought into it because they liked the philosophy behind it, which is to create a framework that supports lasting cultural change adopted by both clinicians and administrators,” Zaidi notes. “Aligned incentives connected to quality and efficiency improvement initiatives drive that change.”

Within the new quality- and value-oriented model stipulated in the agreement, pay-for-performance is based on metrics to which fair-market value is tied and that were chosen with the intent to measure individual and collective progress, trends and RAC radiologist effectiveness. “Some of the metrics—like inpatient and emergency department turnaround time—are convenient and easily measurable,” Zaidi says

 RAC was fortunate in that a precedent for co-management had already been set at Aultman with the deployment of such a model for employed cardiologists and independent oncologists. “However, we go beyond that because the whole purpose here is to measure meaningful data and build a better platform for improving the caliber of imaging services and [foster] engagement with referring physicians,” he notes.
 

January 26, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) made a historic announcement. The Medicare program, which in 2012 provided insurance for more than 49 million older Americans, has historically functioned as a fee-for-service (FFS) payor, reimbursing providers for the volume of services they render. In 2014, Medicare made US$362 billion in fee-for-service payments. But as part of an effort to bring government spending on healthcare under control, Medicare is moving to a new paradigm—focusing on outcomes and the value of service provided, rather than volume. Instead of simply reimbursing providers according to set formulas, the agency has been experimenting with alternative payment models, such as accountable care organizations, bundled payment arrangements, and medical homes.

HHS announced that Medicare will boost the percentage of its payments devoted to alternative payment models from 20 percent in 2014 to 30 percent in 2016 and to 50 percent in 2018.
The announcement also calls for the proportion of all FFS payments to be tied to quality or value in general to rise to 85 percent in 2016, and to 90 percent in 2018. In addition, HHS aims to develop and test new payment models for specialty care and expand the alternate payment mechanisms well beyond Medicare by working closely with different key stakeholders, including state-run Medicaid programs, private insurers, employers, patients, and the broader provider community. HHS also indicated that it will invest $800 million through 2018 to support nearly 150,000 physicians participating in the programs with tools and skills to enable this transformation.
Understanding  and preparing for the various payment models require time and preparation, our Healthcare Consultants are prepared to assist providers to understand the concept and meet the required goals and/or outcomes.

FOR MORE INFORMATION
HPP Management Group, Corp.
5201 Blue Lagoon, Suite 800
Miami, FL 33126
Phone: (305) 227-2383
Email: pesilverio@hppcorp.com


 

Wednesday, September 23, 2015

Medicare Penalties Could be Costing You Hundreds of Dollars a Month




Medicare Penalties Could be Costing You Hundreds of Dollars a Month

Individual eligible professionals (EPs) and group practices who do not satisfactorily report data on quality measures for covered professional services will be subject to a negative payment adjustment under the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS).

In 2015, if an individual EP or group practice does not satisfactorily report or satisfactorily participate while submitting data on PQRS quality measures, a 2% negative payment adjustment will apply in 2017.

The adjustment (98% of the fee schedule amount that would otherwise apply to such services) applies to covered professional services furnished by an individual EP or group practice during 2017. 

HEDIS Health Plans will enforce minimum contract performance requirements through progressive penalties with providers that continue to show a pattern of poor performance over consecutive years.

Other Areas that Penalties will cost you big: 

·         Meaningful Use
·         Core Measures
·         Quality Measures

AccuChecker OnLine CLASSIC is an Internet database subscription service with procedures, diagnoses (ICD-9 and ICD-10) Medicare fee schedules using RBRVS tables and coding techniques. AccuChecker OnLine is updated periodically. 

AccuChecker OnLine CLASSIC is easy to use, a quick online demonstration and in minutes you can start using the system. It is just that simple! 

Hundreds of daily users can vouch for AccuChecker OnLine CLASSIC flexibility and ease of operation. The information found in AccuChecker OnLine CLASSIC is used to make reimbursement decisions in thousands of healthcare claims every year and what is most amazing - the cost of AccuChecker OnLine CLASSIC is less than $1.00 per day. 

 

FOR MORE INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:
HPP Management Group, Corp.
Developers of the AccuChecker Product Line
Phone: (305) 227-2383 or 1-877-938-9311


Website: http://www.accuchecker.com

Friday, May 8, 2015

Why CMS should get out of measuring health quality




Article of Interest

Article Title:                      Why CMS should get out of measuring health quality
Written by:                        Rocky Bilhartz, MD
Publication Date:             April 28, 2015
Source:                               KevinMD.com 

 

This is important to you. Trust me. 

If you’re young at heart, it matters because it’s your tax dollars this April. If you’re wiser in years, it directly affects your health and the system you’ve been pumping money into for decades. This is the same medical system that you thought would take care of you later in life. Again, this is about your money and your health, so read on. 

Government-funded health insurance in the United States is administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). And, you need to know that CMS is on a mission. They are going to change how health care gets delivered unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot. 

I call CMS’s mission a blindfolded one, only because they seem to have no clue where they are taking us. Their mission is to have 85 percent of payments made to medical providers linked to clinical quality measures within the next two years. Incentives will be weighted almost entirely toward quality of care (as determined by CMS) instead of volume of care. I’m not certain if you currently have any problems getting in to see your doctor in a timely manner, but just wait until there is less incentive for you to be worked in at all. Especially, if you are really sick. In fact, if you are too sick, you just might damage your doctor’s “quality” numbers, which will further create problems with your access to care. 

But, wait a second. Paying for “quality” medical care instead of volume seems to be a no-brainer idea, right? Everyone wants quality, so you can get plenty of folks to go along with that concept. In fact, we already have. And, it’s the main reason the entire U.S. health care system is now treading in quicksand. 

It’s like the captain who thought his Titanic could cut through the ice. And, yes, we are sinking now. 

Sure, we can move a few chairs around on the deck. We can tweak a few meaningless things. But, there is no longer an actual solution that involves staying onboard. The boat is going down. The time has come for an exit strategy. Abandon the ship. 

Doctors are giving up. Some are committing suicide. And, that’s not a laughing matter. 

But, CMS measuring quality in health care? That’s as laughable as it gets. 

In fact, in actual practice, I believe it may be the single most ridiculous idea that I’ve ever seen implemented in medicine. 

CMS can’t measure quality. They’ve been trying. And, they’ve clearly established that they are terrible at it. The game is in the ninth inning, and CMS is losing by a landslide. Frankly, the ten-run rule should have been enacted a long time ago.

Sure, you can count how many times I wash my hands during the day and give me a score. But, you can’t measure variables you can’t even grasp. And, that’s the art of medicine. 

I saw a patient from Southeast Asia today. He works at a local donut shop. Doesn’t speak any English. He’s younger than me but has had 17 dying spells in the last month. He has a device implanted in his chest (called a defibrillator) that delivers life-saving shocks whenever he has a potentially fatal heart rhythm. He’s been getting shocks every other day for several weeks now. Each shock feels like getting kicked in the chest by a horse.

I’m the first doctor he’s seen in a year. As it turns out, I suspect he has a heart rhythm condition named after a couple brothers with the last name, Brugada. This seems to be the first time he’s ever been told of this possible condition. I run a few office tests and check the microchip within his implanted device. I piece together a confusing web of clinical data, communicating with him via hand gestures, drawings, and the patient’s friend acting as an interpreter.

I discuss his care with a specialist colleague. I order some blood work and then call the lab myself to negotiate a cash price because my patient has limited funding. I even provide him a “patient education” handout. It’s nothing like the wordy nonsense that CMS requires me to do to meet meaningful use of my electronic medical record. It’s actually something useful. I hand draw a map explaining to my patient how to get from the donut shop to the lab to have his blood drawn. 

So, how did I do regarding “quality” today? My own assessment is that I just did my job. But, what score might CMS give me? Well, so far, I’ve got a zero, because I haven’t had time to document any of it. In fact, CMS seems more interested in me documenting patient care than adding value to it. 

I probably should have gotten my patient to fill out a patient satisfaction survey. Maybe CMS has one in my patient’s native language. I can even see CMS funding a billion dollar grant that evaluates taping wires to my head to measure how many brain cells fired while formulating my treatment plan. 

How many times do I have to say it? You really think every patient fits in an understandable and simplistic algorithm for quality scoring? You can’t objectively measure the value that I provided on this case or any of the other two dozen patient encounters like it that I’ve already had today. But, CMS is in blind pursuit of some formula that can.

CMS has wasted billions of your tax dollars already, and they will waste billions more unless you stop them. And, here’s the summary of what they’ve come up with to date: have providers spend as much time as possible documenting patient care, because this provides fantastic value. Nonsense. The efficiency here is next to nothing. Patients get almost no value waiting for me to document what I’ve already done just so some billing department can process claims. 

I literally spent 55 minutes today evaluating my patient. And, if I want to be paid appropriately, I will spend another 25 minutes getting my electronic medical record to explain the things that I did. And, if I can’t find a checkbox in my system to explain it, I don’t get credit. This is absurd. 

If you are a physician who has ever gone on a medical mission trip, you’ll get what I’m saying. You see a patient. You diagnose the issue and implement a treatment strategy. Then, you turn around, looking for some computer to type on, or some phone to dictate a bloated billing message. Then, it occurs to you. You don’t have to do this. You just turn back around and provide care for the next patient. Because, you are a doctor, and imagine that, you just get to practice medicine for once. 

Think about it. You have a cut on your leg. And, I give you a medicine to make it better. But, the cut doesn’t get better. Did I give you the wrong medicine? Or, is it more complicated than that? Maybe it doesn’t heal because you keep picking at it. Maybe it’s not my fault at all. How do you measure all of that? How do you decide if what I did was an error or if what happened was just a known complication from time to time? Maybe, you’ll even get better despite this error or complication. Explain all of that with a formula. 

This is why we are on the Titanic. CMS is trying to measure things it doesn’t understand and can’t even define from up in an ivory tower. They just don’t get it. I’ve always strived to be my best. I spent 15 years of training beyond high school preparing myself to do just that. I want to provide quality. In fact, I live to provide real quality for all my patients. You can’t encapsulate the quality that I provide using a scoring system that’s built around the premise of hiring more people to check more of the right boxes for me. This bizarre model is actually hindering medicine by slowing me down and impairing much of the value that I can provide. 

It’s especially time to stop wasting our tax payer dollars on this kind of futility. Allow qualified people to train great people to be fantastic doctors. And, then, let them practice medicine. 

It’s like the story about the man on an island with a doctor, lawyer, politician, and insurance salesman. The man gets sick and ultimately realizes who he wants caring for him. 

It’s time we all decide. Because when the Titanic goes down, we’ll be fortunate if there’s still an island for us to swim too. And, if you want a doctor on that island to care for you when you’re sick, you better start listening to him now. If you want a person still motivated to work-in even the most sickly patient for a much-needed visit, then listen to what that physician is telling you now. He’s telling you how to fix the system. You fix it by getting CMS out of measuring the quality within it. 

Remember what Lao Tzu once said: “If you do not change your direction, you may end up where you are headed.” And, friends, we’re on the Titanic.