Part 5: Sepsis Series | Reasons for Denials and Prevention
Kim Carrier RHIT, CDIP, CCS, CCS-P
Director of Coding Quality Assurance
AHIMA Approved ICD-10-CM/PCS Trainer
Part 5 of this sepsis series is the final part. In this tip, we will look at some of the common reasons for sepsis denials and what coders can do to help with these.
Why are so many sepsis records denied?
It’s hard to say why there seem to be so many sepsis denials of late, but most likely this is due to the multiple sets of criteria for the diagnosis of sepsis, change in definition of sepsis, as well as physician documentation. Below are a few definitions to help explain what some of the denial examples are referring to:
- Sepsis 1 definition—Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) plus known or suspected infection
- Sepsis 2 definition—2 SIRS criteria plus known or suspected infection
- Sepsis 3 definition—a life-threatening organ dysfunction due to dysregulated host response to infection (2 points or more in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA] score)
- SOFA score—is a mortality prediction score that is based on the degree of dysfunction of six organ systems. This is used to track a person’s status during the stay in the ICU and helps to determine the extent of organ function or rate of failure
Insurance companies use different criteria (as above) since there is no specific one that is mandated to follow. This does make it difficult for coders and facilities. Coders, CDI and physicians should be aware of any specific coding and documentation guidelines that have been agreed upon in a contract with an insurance company or payer. Some of these will specify which sepsis definition needs to be followed for patients that they are providing coverage to. This is evident by some of the denial reasons that are below. Coding and/or Health Information Management (HIM) should be involved and aware of anything in a contract in regards to coding and documentation requirement of health care records. The language used in contracts for some payers on reporting the diagnosis of sepsis is very relevant to being able to appeal a denial.
Are sepsis denials the coders’ fault? Not usually! The majority of sepsis denials are clinical denials. Clinical denial audits are where the payer is questioning whether or not the physician’s diagnosis of sepsis is clinically supported.
Examples of denial reasons:
- “Lack of clinical indicators documented in the medical record”
- “All septic patients are infected however not all infected patients are septic. Without some evidence of impaired homeostasis beyond what the SIRS criteria alone define, sepsis should not be diagnosed”
- “The clinical indicators within the medical record can be explained by the localized infection and do not justify a diagnosis of sepsis”
- “Without some evidence of impaired homeostasis, sepsis should not be diagnosed. These include altered mental status from baseline, hyperglycemia, hypotension, oliguria, coagulopathy, thrombocytopenia, ileus, acute hepatic failure, elevated lactate and capillary mottling”
- “Documentation does not support the diagnosis of sepsis as defined by the “SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference” (sepsis 2).”
- “The patient was not described as toxic in appearance and objective clinical data did not support a diagnosis of sepsis. The treatment plan was appropriate to treat a localized infection and did not reflect the greater levels of monitoring and intervention required to treat sepsis.”
- “The diagnosis is acknowledged to be in the medical record from the physician but don’t think this was a valid diagnosis”
- “There was no positive blood culture, no hypotension, no ARDS, no capillary mottling, no liver failure, no oliguria, no thrombocytopenia and no ileus. Without some evidence of impaired homeostasis beyond that which the SIRS criteria define, sepsis should not be diagnosed.”
- “There were no physician documented signs or symptoms that would have been consistent with a sepsis diagnosis. While there was leukocytosis and fever, there were no other laboratory findings to support SOFA indicators, which assists to clarify and define the diagnosis of sepsis.”
- “The clinical evidence in the medical record did not support the assignment of sepsis. It was noted the physician documented sepsis in the discharge summary. Though the patient was noted to have white blood cell count of 17.6 and a temperature of 102.8F, these findings are to be expected with any infection. There was insufficient clinical evidence and supportive documentation in the record available for review to substantiate the coding of sepsis.”
- “While sepsis is documented in the medical record, there is no clinical evidence found to support SOFA criteria. “
- “Although we agree that the physician documented sepsis in the provided medical record, we do not agree that two or more SIRS criteria clinically support a diagnosis of sepsis.”
How can coders help prevent sepsis denials?
As you can see in the examples above, the majority of the denials are due to lacking documentation or clinical indicators in the medical record. Remember, even if coded based on the physician documentation, if there’s no clinical indicators present to support the diagnosis, there is a high chance of denials. When this occurs, it impacts the entire facility. Denials are expensive. Payment must be returned and/or not received. The facility must spend time to review the records that are denied and all this just adds up.
What can coders do to help prevent sepsis denials?
- Educate providers and CDI on what is needed in the documentation such as a good H&P to capture the severity of illness and also the presenting signs and symptoms; a detailed summary of the findings during the workup; and a DS that describes the hospital course and treatment necessary.
- The clinical signs and symptoms and other indicators should be linked to the diagnosis of sepsis if that is what they are due to and not to the localized infection
- Documentation should be consistent and complete…if not, a query should be sent for clarification
- Collaboration between coders, CDI and physicians to ensure that the documentation clearly describes the condition of sepsis
- Facilities should have an escalation policy for CDI and/or coders to send records that lack clinical support of sepsis prior to finalizing the record
- Coders, CDI and physicians should be aware of the different sepsis criteria used
- If there are contracts with certain payers on what criteria will be used, coders, CDI and the physicians should be aware of this. If they are not aware then there may surely be lacking documentation in the records
- QUERY at the time of coding prior to billing
- Never depend on the denial letter to list all the clinical indicators. ALWAYS review the record to be sure that there are no other clinical findings to help support the diagnosis that was reported. Oftentimes only a superficial or minimal review of the record may lead to a claim denial.
- Consider having a second-level review to determine if there is clinical validity within the record to support the diagnosis of sepsis before billing
- Appeal letters should include ALL of the supporting documentation in the record for sepsis and any references that help to support reporting this diagnosis
- When writing an appeal letter be sure and state that you realize that there are differences of opinion
Remember, even if coded based on the physician documentation, if there are no clinical indicators present to support the diagnosis, there is a high chance of denials. When this occurs, it impacts the entire facility.
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.
With the implementation of ICD-10-CM came different codes and coding rules for many diagnoses. One of these is the coding of bowel obstruction when the patient presents for this condition that is caused by another condition.
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.
In the first parts of this series we looked at definitions of AKI/ARF, causes, coding and sequencing. In Part 3, we will look at what clinical indicators would possibly be present to support the diagnosis of AKI/ARF.
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.