Part 2: How Coders Can Address Coding Mismatches | CDI Series
RHIA, CDIP, CCS, CCS‑P, CIRCC
Executive Director Of Education
AHIMA‑Approved ICD‑10‑CM/PCS Trainer and Ambassador
This is part two of a three part series in which we address how coders can better interact with Clinical Documentation Integrity (CDI) professionals. In this part, we discuss mismatches and how to best go about resolving them. In part three we will provide a case example of best practice interaction.
What is “mismatch”?
The term “mismatch” is most often used to describe a situation whereby the CDI professional has obtained a different DRG than the coder has at final coding. This can be due to many reasons. The most frequent reason is that the CDI professional and coder have different principal diagnoses selected. In other situations, a CC or MCC may not have been coded by either the CDI professional or by the coder. In still other situations, a procedure code coded by the coder may have changed the DRG that the CDI professional arrived at. The CDI professional may not have coded the procedure impacting the DRG. There are also other reasons for mismatches.
So what happens? Usually the CDI professional will perform a final review of their case after it is final coded by the coder. In some cases coders must look at each case to see the CDI’s principal diagnosis and DRG. If a mismatch is found, the CDI professional may email the coder regarding the mismatch. This happens when the CDI professional either does not agree, or does not understand how the coder arrived at their codes and DRG. This is when issues can occur for some. Understandably, the CDI professional thinks their DRG is correct and the coder thinks their DRG is correct. It is up to the coder to communicate effectively with the CDI professional as to why they arrived at a different code and DRG. Sometimes this is easy, such as when the CDI professional has not included a surgical procedure code that alters the DRG. In this case, the coder includes the procedure code in response to the CDI email, and the procedure description for which it was coded. That usually will end the mismatch discussion as there is a logical explanation. There are also times when the coder agrees with the CDI professional after reading the email and explanation. That would be an easy email to respond back with.
When the case involves a different principal diagnosis, then things can get a bit hairy. The coder must then make sure to effectively communicate why they arrived at the PDX code they did if they think their coding is accurate after seeing the mismatch email. And, they must communicate effectively without insinuating blame or putting others on the defensive. This is a delicate communication that must be supported by facts and documentation.
The coder should first think, “How would I want to receive information if I was on the other end of the email I am about to send? What would I want to see to convince me of why the coder assigned the codes that they did?” Just thinking this through will help communication. Also, pausing before sending to reread your email may catch some verbiage you may wish to change. Sometimes there is a competitive atmosphere between the two departments, however this should not be reflected in communications. They should be positive, factual, and complete. Here are some suggested steps to take:
- Understand where the CDI professional is coming from. If you see where the CDI professional may have missed a coding guideline, include it with the explanation of your principal or other diagnosis.
- Be prompt with your response as the claim may be held or reimbursement affected.
- Always be pleasant, even if the email sent to you is not. Do not take the email tone personally. The CDI professional is just wanting to know why your DRG is different.
- Start with “I coded the principal diagnosis (or other diagnosis or procedure) based on this _____. (name official coding guideline, AHA Coding Clinic, Index and then tabular listing.)
- Next include “The documentation for the basis of my code selection is ________. (Include the exact documentation (deidentified if possible) that was the basis of the code assignment. Copy the documentation exactly. Do not paraphrase.
- Do not include extraneous documentation that is not pertinent to the code assignment.
- Do not tell the CDI professional where to find the documentation and then not include it. It will save time and more emails by providing the documentation that is the basis of the code assignment Having to send and resend emails impacts productivity for both professionals.
- Do not get caught up in endless emails back and forth. Once you send your response with pertinent documentation, guidelines and reasoning, if the CDI professional still disagrees with your coding, refer the case to a coding manager who can address the situation at a higher level.
- If the response from the higher level manager or director is to code as the CDI has coded the case, put a notation in the case as to this directive. In some cases the coder will have to agree to disagree and follow the facility’s manager/director’s instructions.
- If a change involves a clinical determination, it may be wise to get a physician liaison to look at the case if it is possible for the coder and CDI to do that. Not all facilities have physician liaisons/advisors however.
In the final part of this series, we will present a case example to help you understand the above recommendations.
The information contained in this coding advice is valid at the time of posting. Viewers are encouraged to research subsequent official guidance in the areas associated with the topic as they can change rapidly.
This is Part 5 of a five part series on the new 2021 CPT codes. For the remaining areas we will just briefly summarize the section. Due to the intricate nature of these sections in CPT, it is recommended that the coder read the entire section notes associated with the new codes.
This is Part 4 of a five part series on the new 2021 CPT codes. In this series we will explore the CPT changes in the urinary, nervous, ocular and auditory systems. There are 2 new urinary/male reproductive system codes with no revisions or deletions; 3 new female reproductive codes with 2 deletions, 0 new with 4 deleted nervous system codes with 5 revisions; 5 new eye category III codes; and finally a 2 new auditory codes with one deletion.
This is Part 3 of a five part series on the new 2021 CPT codes. In this series we will explore the cardiovascular system CPT changes. There are 5 new cardiovascular CPT codes added with 0 deletions and 4 revisions.
This is Part 2 of a five part series on the new 2021 CPT codes. In this series we will explore the CPT changes for FY2021 and include some examples to help the coder understand the new codes. There are 0 new musculoskeletal CPT codes added with 0 deletions and 2 major revisions along with an extensive update to arthroscopic loose body removal requirements. For the respiratory system, there were 2 new codes, one code deletion and no revisions.
This is Part 1 of a five part series on the new 2021 CPT codes. In this series we will explore the CPT changes for FY2021 and include examples to help the coder understand the new codes. For 2021 in general, there were 199 new CPT codes added, 54 deleted and 69 revised.
In January, new CPT codes were released. There were 248 new CPT codes added, 71 deleted and 75 revised. Most of the surgery section changes were in the musculoskeletal and cardiovascular subsections. These included procedures such as skin grafting, breast biopsies, deep drug delivery systems, tricuspid valve repairs, aortic grafts and repair of iliac artery.
We have seen many updates and changes to COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) since the pandemic started. On January 1, 2021 we will see even more changes as outlined in this post. Also the CMS MS-DRG grouper will be updated to version 38.1 to accommodate the changes.
In the previous three parts of this four-part series, we discussed the new ICD-10-CM diagnosis code changes, ICD-10-PCS procedure code changes and FY2021 IPPS changes. In this last Part 4 of the series, we will review the NTAP procedure codes and reimbursement add-on payments for FY2021.
In the previous two parts of this four part series, we discussed the new ICD-10-CM diagnosis code changes and ICD-10-PC procedure code changes. In this session we will review the major IPPS changes for FY2021.
This is Part 2 of a 4 part series on the FY2021 ICD-10 Code and IPPS changes. In this part, the ICD-10-PCS procedure codes are presented. For FY2021 ICD-10-PCS there are 78,115 total codes (FY2020 total was 77,571); 556 new codes (734 new last year in FY2020)…
This is Part 1 of a 4 part series on the FY2021 changes to ICD-10 and the IPPS. In this part, we discuss some of the new ICD-10-CM diagnosis changes. Here is the breakdown: 72,616 total ICD-10-CM codes for FY2021; 490 new codes (2020 had 273 new codes); 58 deleted codes (2020 had 21 deleted codes); 47 revised codes (2020 had 30 revised codes)
Acute pulmonary edema is the rapid accumulation of fluid within the tissue and space around the air sacs of the lung (lung interstitium). When this fluid collects in the air sacs in the lungs it is difficult to breathe. Acute pulmonary edema occurs suddenly and is life threatening.
“Client S” is a small, not-for-profit, 40 bed micro-hospital in the Southeast. HIA performed a 65-record review this year for Client S and found an opportunity with 15 of them. 9 had an increased reimbursement with a total of $43,228 found.
The coma scale codes (R40.2-) can be used in conjunction with traumatic brain injury codes, acute cerebrovascular disease or sequelae of cerebrovascular disease codes. These codes are primarily for use by trauma registries, but they may be used in any setting where this information is collected. The coma scale may also be used to assess the status of the central nervous system for other non-trauma conditions, such as monitoring patients in the intensive care unit regardless of medical condition.
In the past, there had been an Excludes1 note at I46.- Cardiac arrest that excluded R57.0, Cardiac shock. HIA had also received a letter from AHA on a case in the past that had stated that only I46.- Cardiac arrest would be coded if both were documented. In addition, the Third Quarter Coding Clinic page 26 had a similar case that asked if both could be coded, and AHA had instructed that only I46.9, cardiac arrest, cause unspecified would be coded if both were documented and that the CDC would be looking at possible revision to the Excludes1 note.
A higher CMI corresponds to increased consumption of resources and increased cost of patient care, resulting in increased reimbursement to the facility from government and private payers, like CMS. We know that documentation directly impacts coding.
Lately we have seen several cases where the endarterectomy was assigned along with the coronary artery bypass (CABG) procedure when being performed on the same vessel to facilitate the CABG. A coronary artery endarterectomy is not always performed during a CABG procedure, so when it is performed it becomes confusing as to whether to code it separately or not.
Assign code Z20.828, “Contact with and (suspected) exposure to other viral communicable diseases” for all patients who are tested for COVID-19 and the results are negative, regardless of symptoms, no symptoms, exposure or not as we are in a pandemic.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced new procedure codes for treatments of COVID-19 – effective as of August 1, 2020. Among the new codes are Section X New Technology codes for the introduction or infusion of therapeutics including Remdesivir, Sarilumab, Tocilizumab, transfusion of convalescent plasma, as well as introduction of any other or new therapeutic substances for the treatment of COVID-19.
One common element in many value-based programs is risk adjustment using Hierarchical Condition Categories (HCCs) to create a Risk Adjustment Factor (RAF) score. This method ranks diagnoses into categories that represent conditions with similar cost patterns.
Why are so many AKI records being denied? It’s hard to give one answer for why so many AKI records are being denied lately, but most appear to be due to the multiple sets of criteria available for use in determining if a patient has AKI, as well as physician documentation. As stated in Part 3 of this series, there are three main criteria/classifications used to diagnose AKI.
In previous parts of this series we looked at the definitions of AKI/ARF, causes, coding and sequencing, and the common clinical indicators that patients present with that are diagnosed with this condition. In Part 4, we will look at the documentation that should be present to report the diagnosis without fear of denial, as well as when a query is needed to clarify the diagnosis.
If the facility does a COVID-19 test, and test is negative, do I need a diagnosis code. The answer is yes, you will report a Z-code. The Z-code depends on the record documentation and circumstances of testing. For any patient receiving a COVID-19 test, if negative, there MUST e a Z-code to describe why the test was taken. (Test negative for COVID-19 and MD does not override negative results).
The FY2021 IPPS Proposed Rule is out and here are some highlights from it regarding ICD-10 Code proposals. We will know if these changes are permanent after the public comment period is over on July 10, 2020 and CMS prepares the Final Rule, usually out by August 1.
As discussed in Part 1 of this series, AKI/ARF is a common diagnosis that coders see daily. In Part 2, we are going to focus on the different types/specificity of AKI/ARF. We’ll learn what they mean, as well as how to code the diagnosis.
This is part 1 in a series focused on coding of acute kidney injury (AKI) and/or acute renal failure (ARF). AKI/ARF is reported often, but is also one of the most common diagnosis found in denials.
With the proliferation of COVID-19 cases, we thought we would put together a quick reference listing of some of the common scenarios that coders have asked about. As with all coding, coders should follow Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting and the COVD-19 Frequently Asked Questions document by the AHA.
Effective March 1, Medicare will pay physicians for telehealth services at the same rate as in-person visits for all diagnoses, not just services related to COVID-19. This great for providers whose patients are reluctant to visit the office.
The biggest reasons why some hospital systems are moving to single path coding is to eliminate duplicative processes and to optimize productivity. In addition, costs are reduced when only one coder “touches” the record and completes both types of coding.