Coding and Billing for Risk Adjustment

Risk adjustment has been used to entice payers and providers to accept patients with multiple chronic conditions along with those patients who are relatively healthy.

Is coding and billing for risk adjustment really any different than what we have been doing all along? It is different in that the codes we assign project how much it will cost us to provide care in the upcoming year, rather than coding for services that have already been provided. 

As part of the value-based purchasing agenda put forth by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”), risk adjustment has been used to entice payers and providers to accept patients with multiple chronic conditions along with those patients who are relatively healthy. The process helps to assure that all parties are adequately reimbursed for the services that might be required by sicker patients.

We have been repeatedly told that with ICD-10 we have the ability to provide greater specificity in acuity reflection through coding. However, since not every code is assigned to a Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC), the documentation should demonstrate the specificity of the condition, as well as the services provided to address this condition. An example of this could be diabetes with complications versus diabetes without complications. The limited number of HCCs are affected by the specificity of the codes assigned, thus, if the patient had diabetic complications we would want to include that specificity in the documentation. The problem is that in many cases coders are held captive by the available documentation, or lack thereof. The lack of quality or specificity in the documentation is what is not new but is an ongoing problem.

Data has become the elephant in the room. We accept that information is being collected and used to perpetuate programs such as value-based purchasing but are not clear how this is achieved nor what part we play in the megadata world in which we live. We are told repeatedly that the codes assigned are aggregated to improve healthcare to the general populace. How does this happen? The co-operating parties are the following:

  • American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA)
  • American Hospital Association (AHA)
  • Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)
  • National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS)

These entities use data submitted on claims to identify trends as well as make recommend changes, therefore we constantly strive to assure that the data is correct. Additionally, the data submitted on the claims is used to assign the provider a risk score, or Risk Adjustment Factor (RAF), by the payer. The RAF determines the payment to the physician to provide services in the upcoming year.  Codes qualifying as HCCs must be documented in a face-to-face visit. Diagnoses documented only in the problem list are not considered to be eligible for inclusion on the claim unless the physician has addressed the problem in some manner. Regardless of whether you use the MEAT (Monitor, Evaluated, Assess, Treat) criteria or another method to assure that the documentation supports the diagnosis, accuracy is important. CMS and other auditing groups also uses this data to identify trends among physician groups. These trends can include the RAF score submitted by physician A as compared to peers in the same group, same geographical area, and/or same specialty to decide whose documentation should receive a deeper investigation.

More than just diagnoses are considered when CMS conducts Risk Adjusted Data Validation (RADV) audits, including such items as checking that the record is for the correct enrollee and the correct calendar year, with a documented date of service for the face-to-face visit. If handwritten, can the documentation be read easily. Was the service provided by a valid provider type with documented credentials or documented physician specialty, and is it signed by the provider? All of this is in addition to the documented diagnosis which supports a valid HCC.

A recent report from the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) indicated that 28 percent of Medicare Advantage (MA) encounters presented with at least one “potential error.” The report goes on to say that CMS fixed many of the errors, thus the overall error rate is about five percent. Some of the remaining data errors were indicated to have the potential to raise concerns about services documented in the data.  The errors were noted to include claims that lacked a beneficiary last name or a valid identifier for the billing provider. When one considers that the encounter data is used by CMS to calculate MA plans’ risk scores, this could have a significant effect on the provider RAF and payment. For the MA plan this can affect their reimbursement from the government. These types of errors are where billing plays an important role. Are all required fields completed?

Have you, as a coder, ever been asked to review a physician’s documentation to add diagnoses that may qualify as an HCC but have yet to be submitted on a claim? This appears to be happening with increasing frequency. 

You may think, “Well, isn’t that what documentation improvement in the outpatient setting is all about?” The answer would be yes and no. Documentation improvement is about clarifying inconsistent or unclear documentation to obtain the best reflection of the patient’s acuity and resource utilization in the documentation, whereas the practice of reviewing chronic conditions to add the appropriate ICD-10 diagnosis code may occur in the absence of clarifying physician documentation. 

We also know that there is an increasing focus from the auditing groups on assuring that codes qualifying as HCCs are adequately documented. If you are adding diagnosis codes based on a chronic diagnosis previously submitted I encourage you to assure that not only is the documentation present to support this addition but those codes already submitted are supported.

Some organizations have been known to send notices to the physician that certain diagnoses have yet to be added to the documentation for a given year. While this may sound like the physician is being queried for documentation clarification, the forms I have seen are usually much more direct than would be allowed in a typical physician query. A more acceptable way to gather this information might be to ask the physician to review the problem list and either confirm or delete diagnoses by including the documentation during the next encounter. We do want the physician to get credit, in terms of having an accurate risk score or RAF (Risk Adjusted Factor) for all services provided, but do not want to encourage the addition of diagnoses that have not been addressed during the face-to-face encounter. 

It is the need for accurate documentation and coding that has led to the increasing movement to outpatient documentation improvement programs through the recognition that the need for accurate data has moved beyond the hospital into to the outpatient arena. Early review of documentation allows for time to clarify documentation to obtain the highest appropriate RAF.

It is my opinion that as the focus on value-based purchasing and quality indicators expands in both inpatients and the outpatients we will continue to see a growth in clinical documentation improvement (CDI).

Comment on this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Related Stories

Leave a Reply

Please log in to your account to comment on this article.

Featured Webcasts

2025 Coding Clinic Webcast Series

2024 ICD-10-CM/PCS Coding Clinic Update Webcast Series

Uncover critical guidance. HIM coding expert, Kay Piper, RHIA, CDIP, CCS, provides an interactive review on important information in each of the AHA’s 2025 ICD-10-CM/PCS Quarterly Coding Clinics in easy-to-access on-demand webcasts, available shortly after each official publication.

April 14, 2025

Trending News

Featured Webcasts

Audit-Proof Your Wound Care Procedures: Expert Insights on Compliance and Risk Mitigation

Audit-Proof Your Wound Care Procedures: Expert Insights on Compliance and Risk Mitigation

Providers face increasing Medicare audits when using skin substitute grafts, leaving many unprepared for claim denials and financial liabilities. Join veteran healthcare attorney Andrew B. Wachler, Esq., in this essential webcast and master the Medicare audit process, learn best practices for compliant billing and documentation, and mitigate fraud and abuse risks. With actionable insights and a live Q&A session, you’ll gain the tools to defend your practice and ensure compliance in this rapidly evolving landscape.

April 17, 2025
Utilization Review Essentials: What Every Professional Needs to Know About Medicare

Utilization Review Essentials: What Every Professional Needs to Know About Medicare

Dr. Ronald Hirsch dives into the basics of Medicare for clinicians to be successful as utilization review professionals. He’ll break down what Medicare does and doesn’t pay for, what services it provides and how hospitals get paid for providing those services – including both inpatient and outpatient. Learn how claims are prepared and how much patients must pay for their care. By attending our webcast, you will gain a new understanding of these issues and be better equipped to talk to patients, to their medical staff, and to their administrative team.

March 20, 2025

Rethinking Observation Metrics: Standardizing Data for Better Outcomes

Hospitals face growing challenges in measuring observation metrics due to inconsistencies in classification, payer policies, and benchmarking practices. Join Tiffany Ferguson, LMSW, CMAC, ACM, and Anuja Mohla, DO, FACP, MBA, ACPA-C, CHCQM-PHYADV as they provide critical insights into refining observation metrics. This webcast will address key issues affecting observation data integrity and offer strategies for improving consistency in reporting. You will learn how to define meaningful metrics, clarify commonly misinterpreted terms, and apply best practices for benchmarking, and gain actionable strategies to enhance observation data reliability, mitigate financial risk, and drive better decision-making.

February 25, 2025
Navigating the 2025 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule: Key Changes and Strategies for Success

Navigating the 2025 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule: Key Changes and Strategies for Success

The 2025 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule brings significant changes to payment rates, coverage, and coding for physician services, impacting practices nationwide. Join Stanley Nachimson, MS., as he provides a comprehensive guide to understanding these updates, offering actionable insights on new Medicare-covered services, revised coding rules, and payment policies effective January 1. Learn how to adapt your practices to maintain compliance, maximize reimbursement, and plan for revenue in 2025. Whether you’re a physician, coder, or financial staff member, this session equips you with the tools to navigate Medicare’s evolving requirements confidently and efficiently.

January 21, 2025

Trending News

Prepare for the 2025 CMS IPPS Final Rule with ICD10monitor’s IPPSPalooza! Click HERE to learn more

Get 15% OFF on all educational webcasts at ICD10monitor with code JULYFOURTH24 until July 4, 2024—start learning today!

CYBER WEEK IS HERE! Don’t miss your chance to get 20% off now until Dec. 2 with code CYBER24