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.
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).
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.
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.
Effective with 4/1/2020 discharges, ICD-10-CM code U07.0 is used to report vaping -related disorders. ICD-10-CM code U07.0 (vaping related disorder) should be used when documentation supports that the patient has a lung-related disorder from vaping. This code is found in the new ICD-10-CM Chapter 22. U07.0 will be in listed in the ICD-10-CM manual under a new section: Provisional assignment of new disease of uncertain etiology or emergency use.
The US government and public-health officials are urging consumers to utilize telemedicine for remote treatment, fill prescriptions and get medical attention during the new coronavirus pandemic. The goal is to keep people with symptoms at home and to practice social distancing if their condition doesn’t warrant more intensive hospital care.
Coronavirus: Tips for working from home. Companies around the world have told their employees to stay home and work remotely. Whether you’re a new to this concept or a work from home veteran, here’s some tips to staying productive from our #HIAfamily.
This is the final part of a three part series in which we address how coders can better interact with Clinical Documentation Improvement (CDI) professionals. In this part, we provide an actual example of an effective communication response to CDI.
This is part two of a three part series in which we address how coders can better interact with Clinical Documentation Improvement (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.
This is part one of a three part series in which we address how coders can better interact with Clinical Documentation Integrity (CDI) professionals. Many times these departments are separate and the remote environment makes it difficult to interact efficiently between the two departments. In part one, we will discuss the history and objectives of CDI so the coder has a better understanding of CDI’s role.
One reason that coders should report chronic conditions (including history and status codes) on outpatient records is the HCC’s—Hierarchical Condition Categories. The quick and easy explanation of what HCC’s are is each HCC is mapped to certain ICD-10-CM codes or code ranges. HCC coding is designed to estimate future health care costs for patients.
For Part 5 of this 5-part series, we will look at Chapter 4 within ICD-10-CM—E00-E89—Endocrine, Nutritional, and Metabolic Diseases. There is no possible way to include every guideline or coding reference for this chapter, but here are some of the most common issues.
For Part 4 of this 5-part series, we will look at Chapter 10 within ICD-10-CM—J00-J99—Diseases of the Respiratory System. There is no possible way to include every guideline or coding reference for this chapter, but here are some of the most common issues.
For Part 3 of this 5 part series, we will look at Chapter 9 within ICD-10-CM—I00-I99—Diseases of the Circulatory System. This chapter contains so many of the everyday diagnoses that we code such as hypertension, heart disease and stroke.
For Part 2 of this 5-part series, we will look at Chapter 1 within ICD-10-CM—A00-B99—Certain Infectious and Parasitic Diseases. There is no possible way to include every guideline or coding reference for this chapter, but here are some of the most common issues.
For Part 1 of this 5-part series, we will look at Chapter 21 within ICD-10-CM—Z00-Z99—Factors influencing health status and contact with health services. There is no possible way to include every guideline or coding reference for this chapter, but I’ll do my best to touch on some off the most common issues.
In response to the recent occurrences of vaping related disorders and in consultation with the World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the WHO Family of International Classifications (WHOFIC) Network Classification and Statistics Advisory Committee (CSAC) was convened to discuss a diagnosis code for vaping related illness for immediate use.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is in process of developing a new code for the COVID-19 (coronavirus) that will be released October 1, 2020. In the meantime, the CDC has provided advice on coding the COVID-19 coronavirus.
We’re finally at the #1 most common DRG with recommendations by HIA for 2019. Just to recap, HIA reviewed over 50,000 inpatient records in 2019. Most have probably already guessed what the correct DRG would be with the most recommendations. There are just some diagnoses and DRG’s that will always be a thorn in the side for coders. #1 DRG with the most recommendations during HIA reviews : DRG 871—Septicemia or severe sepsis w/o mechanical ventilation >96 hours with MCC
We’re now at the second most common DRG with recommendations by HIA for 2019. Just to recap, HIA reviewed over 50,000 inpatient records in 2019. We are counting down to # 1. #2 DRG with the most recommendations during HIA reviews: DRG 872—Septicemia or severe sepsis w/o mechanical ventilation >96 hours w/o MCC.
In 2019, HIA reviewed over 50,000 inpatient records. Wow! That is a lot of records. Even with this large number of records, the DRG’s with recommendations are still the ones that coders typically see during audits. #3 DRG 190—Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with MCC.
In 2019, HIA reviewed over 50,000 inpatient records. Wow! That is a lot of records. Even with this large number of records, the DRG’s with recommendations are still the ones that coders typically see during audits. #4 is DRG 193—Simple pneumonia & pleurisy with MCC.