Summer Concert Collision
S93.431A — Sprain of tibiofibular ligament of right ankle, initial encounternnW03.XXXA — Other fall on same level due to collision with another person, initial encounternnY93.41 — Activity, dancingnnY92.252 — Music hall as the place of occurrence of the external causenn nnIn preparation for the upcoming deadline for ICD-10 implementation, Welter Healthcare Partners presents weekly ICD-10 Codes of the Week! Our goal is to familiarize you with the new and expanded code set and the additional clinical documentation needed from your providers to comply with ICD-10 coding, and more importantly, for accurate and clean claims submission to keep your revenue stream flowing! We are to help YOU prepare for the October 1, 2014 implementation date. Please don’t hesitate to contact us for all of your training and education needs!
WASHINGTON — In another setback for President Obama’s health care initiative, the administration has delayed until 2015 a significant consumer protection in the law that limits how much people may have to spend on their own health care.nnThe limit on out-of-pocket costs, including deductibles and co-payments, was not supposed to exceed $6,350 for an individual and $12,700 for a family. But under a little-noticed ruling, federal officials have granted a one-year grace period to some insurers, allowing them to set higher limits, or no limit at all on some costs, in 2014.nnThe grace period has been outlined on the Labor Department’s Web site since February, but was obscured in a maze of legal and bureaucratic language that went largely unnoticed. When asked in recent days about the language — which appeared as an answer to one of 137 
Health plans are free to set out-of-pocket limits lower than the levels allowed by the administration. But many employers and health plans sought the grace period, saying they needed time to upgrade their computer systems. “Benefit managers using different computer systems often cannot keep track of all the out-of-pocket costs incurred by a particular individual,” said Kathryn Wilber, a lawyer at the American Benefits Council, which represents many Fortune 500 companies that provide coverage to employees.nnLast month the White House announced a one-year delay in enforcement of another major provision of the law, which requires larger employers to offer health coverage to full-time employees. Valerie Jarrett, Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, said that the delay of the employer mandate showed “we are listening” to businesses, which had complained about the complexity of federal reporting requirements.nnAlthough the two delays are unrelated, together they underscore the difficulties the Obama administration is facing as it rolls out the health care law.nnAdvocates for people with chronic illnesses said they were dismayed by the policy decision on out-of-pocket costs.nn“The government’s unexpected interpretation of the law will disproportionately harm people with complex chronic conditions and disabilities,” said Myrl Weinberg, the chief executive of the National Health Council, which speaks for more than 50 groups representing patients.nnFor people with serious illnesses like cancer and multiple sclerosis, Ms. Weinberg said, out-of-pocket costs can total tens of thousands of dollars a year.nnDespite the delay, consumers in 2014 will still have many new protections. They cannot be denied health insurance or charged higher premiums because of pre-existing conditions, and many will qualify for subsidies intended to lower their costs.nnIn promoting his health care plan in 2009, Mr. Obama cited the limit on out-of-pocket costs as one of its chief virtues. “We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick,” Mr. Obama told a joint session of Congress in September 2009.nnAdvocates for patients said the promise of the law was being deferred. “We have wonderful new drugs, the biologics, to treat rheumatoid arthritis, but they are extremely expensive,” said Dr. Patience H. White, a vice president of the Arthritis Foundation. “In the past, patients had to live in constant pain, often became disabled and had to leave their jobs. The new drugs can make a huge difference, and we were hoping that the cap on out-of-pocket costs would make them affordable. But now many patients will have to wait another year.”nn
The American Cancer Society shares the concern and noted that some new cancer drugs cost $100,000 a year or more.nn“If a prescription drug plan does not currently have a limit, then it will not have to have one in 2014,” said Molly Daniels, deputy president of the lobbying arm of the American Cancer Society. “Patients who require expensive drugs could continue to have enormous financial exposure, despite the clear intent of the law to limit a patient’s total out-of-pocket exposure.”nnFederal officials said they were offering transition relief to certain health plans in 2014. But, they said, by 2015, health plans must comply with the law and must have an overall limit on out-of-pocket costs for medical, drug and other benefits combined.nnTheodore M. Thompson, a vice president of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, said: “The promise of out-of-pocket limits was one of the main reasons we supported health care reform. So we are disappointed that some plans will be allowed to have multiple out-of-pocket limits in 2014.”nnThe law also requires coverage of dental care for children, but these benefits can be offered in a separate health plan with its own limit on out-of-pocket costs.nnFederal rules say that a free-standing dental plan must have “a reasonable annual limitation on cost-sharing.” In states where the new health insurance marketplace will be run by the federal government, the limit on out-of-pocket costs for pediatric dental benefits can be no more than $700 for coverage of one child and $1,400 for a plan covering two or more children in the same family.n
S00.83XA — Contusion of other part of head, initial encounter.nnY93.82 — Activity, spectator at an eventnnW21.03XA — Struck by baseball, initial encounter.nnY92.320 — Baseball field as the place of occurrence of the external cause.nn nnIn preparation for the upcoming deadline for ICD-10 implementation, Welter Healthcare Partners presents weekly ICD-10 Codes of the Week! Our goal is to familiarize you with the new and expanded code set and the additional clinical documentation needed from your providers to comply with ICD-10 coding, and more importantly, for accurate and clean claims submission to keep your revenue stream flowing! We are to help YOU prepare for the October 1, 2014 implementation date. Please don’t hesitate to 
In the wake of several dismal surveys and a disturbing Medicare announcement, providers would be forgiven for thinking that ICD-10 is on life support and fading fast. Will the industry be ready by the October 1, 2014 compliance date? If it isn’t, what will we do? EHRintelligence spoke to Robert M. Tennant, MA, Senior Policy Advisor at the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), to talk about what the future holds for providers, payers, clearinghouses, and coders as ICD-10 creeps ever closer.nn[toggle title_open=”CMS has stated that Medicare won’t be conducting external end-to-end testing with providers. How will that impact the ICD-10 transition?” title_closed=”CMS has stated that Medicare won’t be conducting external end-to-end testing with providers. How will that impact the ICD-10 transition?” hide=”yes” border=”yes” style=”default” excerpt_length=”0″ read_more_text=”Read More” read_less_text=”Read Less” include_excerpt_html=”no”]nnWith the Version 5010 transition, Medicare conducted National Testing Day and other communications like that to encourage testing, which really helped providers meet that particular challenge. Even with that, about half a dozen state Medicaid agencies were not ready for the transition to Version 5010. So you’ve got that as the foundation, and then we find out that Medicare does not plan to test with providers. We believe that is an absolute recipe for disaster. If practices don’t know if a) the claim will even be accepted for adjudication, and b) whether or not the claim will be paid, then there could be real cash flow issues following the compliance date.nnFrom our perspective, just because Medicare itself may be ready to accept ICD-10 claims, that does not guarantee that they will be paying a particular ICD-10 code that shows up on the claim. That’s the reason why we need to test: so providers know well in advance if a particular code is appropriate, and if it’s not appropriate, they will need to be able to change that code or ensure that they have the documentation that supports that code. And you can only do that prior to the compliance date through testing.nnAs we mentioned in our letter to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, what kind of message does it send to the industry if Medicare itself says they won’t be testing? Does that give a green light to commercial health plans to say they don’t need to test either? That means that when you flip the switch October 1, 2014, providers literally will have no idea if they’re going to be paid for their services.[/toggle]nn[toggle title_open=”Are other health plans going to be conducting external testing?” title_closed=”Are other health plans going to be conducting external testing?” hide=”yes” border=”yes” style=”default” excerpt_length=”0″ read_more_text=”Read More” read_less_text=”Read Less” include_excerpt_html=”no”]nnWe haven’t heard of any health plans that are testing with their providers right now. So we have no idea. But let’s say you have a claim with an ICD-10 code, and you submit that same claim to a hundred payers. You may have a very wide variation on if they pay it, and at what rate, because each will be driven by a proprietary payment policy. Needless to say, we’ve called on health plans to release those payment policies as quickly as possible, so we can understand the variation.nnMany of the large health plans should be ready to test by the first quarter of 2014…or at least that’s what they’re saying publically. But this is a very heavy lift for everybody, including the health plans, because it’s not just a question of reworking their software to accept a different length of diagnostic code. All their payment policies must be examined and rewritten to accommodate the changes in the codes. I think that has proven to be more challenging than many had anticipated.[/toggle]nn[toggle title_open=”What will happen if the industry doesn’t get ready in time?” title_closed=”What will happen if the industry doesn’t get ready in time?” hide=”yes” border=”yes” style=”default” excerpt_length=”0″ read_more_text=”Read More” read_less_text=”Read Less” include_excerpt_html=”no”]nnThe issue of contingency planning is going to be a critical one, and it’s one that MGMA is going to be looking at very closely as we move into 2014. We’re going to be replicating our survey on a regular basis to track the readiness level of the industry. And let’s say that we do a survey in late Summer or early Fall of 2014 to show that trading partners are not ready, I can assure you that we will be communicating a very robust contingency plan to CMS.nnI would not be surprised if dual processing, or in other words, accepting both ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes, would be part of that. We have heard from other health plans that they don’t want to move in that direction because it’s too much work, but we can’t have services not paid for in this country. That would be disastrous for patient care. Just like every other implementation of a HIPAA standard, there have always been delays and contingencies, so I suspect ICD-10 will be no different.[/toggle]nn[toggle title_open=”What are the key issues that might prevent a successful transition?” title_closed=”What are the key issues that might prevent a successful transition?” hide=”yes” border=”yes” style=”default” excerpt_length=”0″ read_more_text=”Read More” read_less_text=”Read Less” include_excerpt_html=”no”]nnOne thing that has not been discussed much is the role of the clearinghouse. A vast majority of our survey respondents say that they send their claims through a clearinghouse. A clearinghouse, however, typically cannot assign an ICD-10 code. Without the clinical documentation in front of them they can’t take an ICD-9 code and just magically convert it to an ICD-10 code. That has got me concerned – especially when the clearinghouses report that 20% of their clients are still running 4010, which cannot accept an ICD-10 code at all. So right away we have an enormous problem.nnThen we have state Medicaid agencies. If a significant number of them weren’t ready for 5010, how many will not be ready for ICD-10? So dual coding may be forced upon the industry because certain health plans, especially on the Medicaid side, may not be ready in time.[/toggle]nn[toggle title_open=”What should providers be doing right now?” title_closed=”What should providers be doing right now?” hide=”yes” border=”yes” style=”default” excerpt_length=”0″ read_more_text=”Read More” read_less_text=”Read Less” include_excerpt_html=”no”]nnPractices have to run on the assumption that their trading partners may not be ready well in advance of the compliance. Practices can still take steps even their software is not yet updated , and testing can’t occur with your clearinghouse or your health plans. They can take a sample of claims that have already been adjudicated successfully and paid and try to assign an ICD-10 code to that claim based on the existing documentation. During the next year, it is a good exercise to say “What would that ICD-10 code be?”nnAnd the other thing to consider is dual coding to become better acquainted to what is required under ICD-10. The practice assigning both ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes at the same time, of course, is made more challenging because we don’t know what is expected from the health plans. However, but if practices assume that unspecified is generally not going to be accepted for payment, then they will need to focus on ensuring that sufficient clinical documentation in included in the patient record so the physician or coder can assign that more specific code. Doing those two things can arm the practice with knowledge of how their physicians are faring with their encounter documentation and alleviate at least some of the stress of October 1, 2014.[/toggle]n
S90.871A — Other superficial bite of right foot, initial encounternnW56.01XA — Bitten by dolphin, initial encounternnY93.15 — Activity, underwater diving and snorkelingnnY92.832 — Beach as the place of occurrence of the external cause.nn nnIn preparation for the upcoming deadline for ICD-10 implementation, Welter Healthcare Partners presents weekly ICD-10 Codes of the Week! Our goal is to familiarize you with the new and expanded code set and the additional clinical documentation needed from your providers to comply with ICD-10 coding, and more importantly, for accurate and clean claims submission to keep your revenue stream flowing! We are to help YOU prepare for the October 1, 2014 implementation date. Please don’t hesitate to 
When all is said and done, ICD-10 is about the money. On October 1, 2014, providers just want to know if they’ll be getting paid for their services. The question isn’t as easy to answer as many people think, and there are plenty of jitters when it comes to how payers will handle ICD-10 codes, if they will be processed in a timely manner – and if the new version of their claims will even go through. Unfortunately, it’s impossible to predict whether the industry will be ready on time, and if the transition will be a success. But even without a crystal ball, you can get a jump on your preparations by asking your payers this list of important questions about their ICD-10 plans.n
Are you going to be conducting external testing?