Skip to main content

Author: David Werfel

David Werfel is a partner at Werfel & Werfel, PLLC.

OIG Report on Overpayments For Non-Emergency Transports

Written by David Werfel on . Posted in Medicare, Member Advisories, Member-Only, News, Reimbursement.

OIG Report – Overpayments For Non-Emergency Ambulance Transports To Non-Covered Destinations

The Office of the Inspector General released its report “Medicare Improperly Paid Providers for Non Emergency Ambulance Transports to Destinations Not Covered by Medicare“.

In sum, the OIG reviewed claims that Medicare paid for 2014 – 2016 non-emergency ambulance transports. The review focused on transports to non-covered destinations. OIG found that $8,633,940 was paid by Medicare for non-emergency ambulance transports under codes A0425 (ground mileage), A0426 (ALS non-emergency) and A0428 (BLS non-emergency) during this period of time.

The review was based solely on the claims and not based on a medical review or interviews of providers.

The claims that should not have been paid were to the following destinations:

  • 59% – to diagnostic or therapeutic sites other than a hospital or physician’s office, that did not originate at a SNF.
  • 31% – to a residence or assisted living facility (and not meeting the origin/destination requirement).
  •  6% – to the scene of an acute event.
  •  4% – to a destination code not used for ambulance claims or where no destination modifier was used.
  • <1% – to a physician’s office.

OIG recommended (and CMS agreed) that CMS:

  1. Notify the Medicare Administrative Contractors to recover that portion of the overpayment that is within the 4-year period in which claims can be re-opened.
  2. For the balance of the overpayment that is outside the 4-year period, CMS should provide the information needed for the MACs to notify the providers of the overpayments and have the providers exercise reasonable diligence to investigate and refund improper payments.
  3. Direct the MACs to review the origin/destination requirements for any overpayments following the audit period.
  4. Require the MACs implement edits to ensure they only pay for non-emergency transports that meet the Medicare requirements.

There is a chart in the report that indicates the improper payments for each jurisdiction. It is interesting to note that the overpayments range from a low of $515 (First Coast) to a high of $5,006,696 (Cahaba).

The report can be obtained at: https://go.usa.gov/xU5vf

Summary of September 2017 Ambulance Open Door Forum

Written by David Werfel on . Posted in Medicare, Member-Only, News, Reimbursement.

On September 14, 2017, CMS held its latest Open Door Forum. As usual, it started with a few announcements, as follows:

  1. “Locality” Rule – On 6/16/17 CMS issued Transmittal 236, to amend the Benefit Policy Manual, Chapter 10, section 10.3.5 to give Medicare Administrative Contractors discretion to determine the “locality”. This is for the issue of the nearest appropriate facility.

Transmittal 236

  1. ALS Assessment – The same Transmittal also amended section 30.1.1 to indicate that if an ALS assessment is performed, then the ALS emergency base rate shall be paid, even if there is no ALS intervention.
  2. Multiple Patient Transports – On 9/1/17, CMS issued Transmittal 3855 to restore to its Claims Processing Manual, Chapter 15, section 30.1.2 instructions for multiple patients transported in the same vehicle. This is not a change in policy. The section was inadvertently omitted from the Internet Only Manual.

Transmittal 3855

  1. Temporary Adjustments – The 2%, 3% and 22.6% temporary adjustments for ground ambulance transports originating in urban, rural and super-rural areas will expire 12/31/17, unless legislation is enacted. Later on the call, they indicated that they are aware of a legislative initiative in Congress that includes this issue (S.967, H.R. 3236).

Support Extending the Medicare Add-ons!

       Following these announcements, a Q & A period ensued. Most of the questions were not answered on the call, other than to advise the caller to submit their question via e-mail and CMS will respond to their concern via e-mail or to contact their Medicare Administrative Contractor.

Two items of note in the Q & A were as follows:

  • CMS has left it up to the MACs to define the “locality” for purposes of the nearest appropriate facility requirement. Therefore, providers and suppliers should ask their MAC for their definition.
  • CMS was asked whether the prior authorization program would continue nationwide, after this year. The representatives from CMS did not answer the question other than to advise the person who asked the question to submit it in writing to CMS.

Have questions? Please write to the Werfels at bwerfel@aol.com.

Court Decision Overpayment Determination Statistical Sampling

Written by David Werfel on . Posted in Medicare, Member Advisories, Member-Only, News, Reimbursement.

Maxmed is a home health agency. In 2011, Medicare reviewed a sample of 40 claims involving 22 Medicare beneficiaries and determined that all but one were not medically necessary. The sample was extrapolated to their universe of claims, resulting in an overpayment of $773,967. The Administrative Law Judge invalidated the extrapolation methodology, but the Medicare Appeals Council reversed and Maxmed appealed to Federal District Court, where it lost. Maxmed then appealed claiming:
  • the extrapolation was invalid because the contractor failed to document the random numbers used in the sample and how they were selected.
  • a valid random sample must be for claims that are “defined correctly and independent” and here the same Medicare beneficiary had multiple claims in the sample.
On June 22, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, found the extrapolation and sampling methodology used was proper. The decision, Maxmed Healthcare Inc. v. Price, is just the latest in a recent line of decisions making it harder and harder to challenge statistical sampling and extrapolation of overpayments.

Medicare “Locality” Rule & ALS Assessment

Written by David Werfel on . Posted in Government Affairs, Member-Only.

“Locality” Rule – MAC Discretion – Since the inception of the CMS Internet Only Manual (in 2003), the Benefit Policy Manual 100-02, Chapter 10, section 10.3.5 has always defined “Locality” as:

The term “Locality” with respect to ambulance service means the service area surrounding the institution to which individuals normally travel or are expected to travel to receive hospital or skilled nursing services.

An example is then listed to indicate that the ambulance transportation to either of two large metropolitan hospitals that regularly provide services to the small community where the emergency arose would be covered destinations.

On June 16, 2017, CMS issued Transmittal 236 to add the following at the end of the paragraph before the example:

The MAC’s have the discretion to define locality in their service areas.

Effectively, there is no change as Carriers and Intermediaries (now MACs) have always had discretion to determine the “locality” around each facility. Often, they did this with mileage edits, e.g. in an urban area, they may have set a parameter of 15 miles, but in a rural area, they have allowed a much larger area. Nevertheless, it is a good time to ask your MAC for their definitions of the localities in their service area or the mileage edits that they use.

A copy of the Transmittal can be obtained at: https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Transmittals/2017Downloads/R236BP.pdf

ALS Assessment

The same Transmittal made two changes to the CMS definition of “ALS Assessment”, as listed in the Benefit Policy Manual, 100-02, Chapter 10, section 30.1.1, as follows:

1. Assuming the ALS assessment is performed and meets the definition, this section now states that the services provided by the supplier or provider “shall” be covered at the ALS emergency level. Previously, the definition indicated the services “may” be covered at the ALS emergency level. This change was needed as some MACs thought they did not have to pay ALS emergency when the ALS assessment is performed in accordance with the definition.

2. The other change was to add to the end of the paragraph “and all other coverage requirements are met”. In other words, aside from providing the ALS assessment in accordance with the definition, there must also be ambulance transportation, the origin/destination requirements are met, the provider/supplier must meet all vehicle and crew requirements, transportation was medically necessary, the ALS assessment was medically necessary, etc.

The effective date for the changes noted above is September 18, 2017.

CMS – MLN Ambulance Transports Booklet

Written by David Werfel on . Posted in Medicaid, Medicare, News, Reimbursement.

CMS has issued an MLN Ambulance Transports Booklet. The booklet (36 pages) can be downloaded here.

Download MLN Ambulance Transports Booklet

One section of the Booklet that you might want to keep handy involves Free-Standing Emergency Departments. Specifically, on page 15, CMS states the following:

Freestanding Emergency Department (ED)
If a freestanding ED is provider based (a department of the hospital), the ambulance transport from the freestanding ED to the hospital is not a separately payable service under Part B if the beneficiary is admitted as an inpatient prior to ambulance transport. For more information about criteria for coverage of ambulance transports separately payable under Part B or as a packaged hospital inpatient service under Part A, refer to Chapter 10, Section 10.3.3, of the Medicare Benefit Policy Manual.

This may be useful, along with the Manual section cited, when you have a free-standing ED that is part of a hospital and they call for transports to the main building for the patient to be admitted, but the hospital lists the time of admission as being prior to the time of your transport. When the hospital admits the patient prior to your transport, the hospital becomes responsible for the ambulance charges. It may be useful to show the hospital and ED the booklet and Manual section to prove to them that the hospital is responsible if the patient is admitted to the hospital prior to your transport.

OIG Releases Final Rule Revising Safe Harbor

Written by David Werfel on . Posted in Government Affairs, Member Advisories, Member-Only.

Office of the Inspector General – Final Rule – Revisions to the Safe Harbors for Waiving Coinsurance, et.al

On December 7, 2016, the Office of the Inspector General published a Final Rule (81 Federal Register 88368) and will be effective January 6, 2017.

The Final Rule includes technical corrections to the existing Safe Harbor for referral services, a new Safe Harbor for waiver of patient cost-sharing for emergency ambulance services, a new Safe Harbor for free or discounted local transportation services, and an amendment to the definition of “remuneration” for purposes of the Civil Monetary penalties for beneficiary inducements.  Since the Final Rule covers many issues that pertain to other providers and suppliers, such as pharmacies, outpatient hospital, Federally Qualified Health Centers, Medicare Advantage Plans, etc., this Member Advisory will focus on the two issues that impact ambulance services and transportation.

Safe Harbor – Cost Sharing Reductions for Emergency Ambulance Services

In recent years, we have seen a number of OIG Advisory Opinions that permitted public EMS entities to waive the cost-sharing obligations of Medicare beneficiaries in specified circumstances. The OIG is now adding these as a “Safe Harbor”. The regulation, at 42 C.F.R 1001.952, will protect certain reductions or waivers of beneficiary cost-sharing for emergency ambulance services provided by public entities, which are paid by Federal health care programs under a fee-for-service basis. However, to qualify, all of the following must be met:

  • The provider or supplier must be owned and operated by a State, political division of a state or a tribal health program. NOTE: While this protects government entities that own and operate their ambulance service, it does not protect a supplier who contracts with that government entity even when that government entity pays the supplier for patient cost-sharing obligations through tax funded revenues.  It also does not protect hospitals providing the emergency ambulance services.
  • The emergency ambulance services must be provided by a Part B provider or supplier. The definition of “Emergency” is the same one listed in 42 C.F.R. 414.605, which you use to determine whether to bill for an emergency base rate or a non-emergency base rate.
  • The reduction or waiver is not considered furnishing free services paid directly or indirectly by a government entity. It is not considered a free service if the government entity bills to the extent of insurance.
  • The reduction or waiver of cost-sharing is offered uniformly without considering patient- specific factors. NOTE:  The OIG allows residency to be considered. Thus, a city may choose to waive or reduce cost-sharing for residents but not for non-residents.
  • The provider does not later claim the amount waived as a bad debt, or shift the burden to a government program.

If all of the above items are met, the government entity providing the emergency ambulance service can reduce or waive the patient’s cost-sharing obligation.

Please note, there is no change here with respect to membership programs by a public or private ambulance service, nor is there any change in policy or the law concerning a government entity paying a private ambulance company for copayments of its residents.

Safe Harbor for Free or Discounted Local Transportation

A new Safe Harbor has been created at 42 C.F.R. 1001.952(bb) to protect free or discounted local transportation made available by an “eligible entity” for beneficiaries of Federal health care programs.  The key elements to this Safe Harbor are:

  • The transportation must be local. That is defined as up to 25 miles if urban and up to 50 miles if rural.
  • It can be provided to or from a provider of service.
  • It can be provided to the patient as well as to a person that assists the patient.
  • The transportation does not have to be scheduled ahead of time.
  • The entity can use a voucher program, if they want.
  • The transport cannot be provided by an air, luxury or ambulance level service.
  • An eligible entity cannot require an ambulance company to provide free or discounted transportation to its patients.
  • An eligible entity is defined as an individual or entity.
  • An “established” patient means a person who has selected and initiated contact with a provider or supplier to schedule an appointment or who has given consent to someone to do it for them.
  • The transportation cannot be advertised.
  • The transportation cannot be used to recruit patients.
  • The transportation must be for medically necessary services.
  • Eligible entities must have an established policy regarding the availability of transportation assistance and must apply it uniformly.
  • The eligible entity is not required to maintain documentation for each patient transported, but it would be a “best practice” to have such documentation.
  • Drivers cannot be paid on a per patient basis.
  • The eligible entity cannot have a sign saying “Donated by ___”, as that is marketing.
  • The eligible entity cannot shift the cost of the transportation to any government health care program.
  • Shuttles are permitted but the rules are slightly less stringent. The vehicle must be used for a set route or schedule, does not have to be for established patients, must be for local use (25 miles urban; 50 miles rural), it can make multiple stops and, while the entity cannot advertise, they can post a schedule.

Read the entire Final Rule is 42 (Federal Register).

CMS Announces 2017 Inflation Factor

Written by David Werfel on . Posted in Government Affairs, Medicare, Member Advisories, Member-Only, Regulatory, Reimbursement.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicare Services (CMS) issued Transmittal 3625 officially announcing that the inflation factor for payments under the Medicare ambulance fee schedule for 2017 will be 0.7%.

The calculation for determining the Medicare ambulance inflation factor is as follows: Consumer Price Index – Urban (which is the change in the CPI-U from June to June) minus the non-farm business multi-factor productivity adjustment (MFP) as projected by the Secretary of HHS (10-year average). The CPI-Urban for 2017 is 1.0% with a MFP of 0.3% which equals the 0.7% inflation factor. As part of the Affordable Care Act, a productivity adjustment is subtracted from the CPI-Urban for the final inflation update.

Prior Authorization Expansion Delay

Written by David Werfel on . Posted in Medicare, Member Advisories, News, Reimbursement.

Prior Authorization – Repetitive Non-Emergencies – Expansion Delay

CMS has notified the American Ambulance Association that the expansion of Prior Authorization for repetitive non-emergencies, to the states not already on Prior Authorization, will not be implemented January 1, 2017.

The reason for the delay is that, pursuant to Section 515(b) of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA), CMS must make determinations as to whether: (1) Prior Authorization for repetitive non-emergencies saves money, (2) it adversely affects quality of care and (3) it adversely impacts access to care.

These studies are being conducted and are expected to show the program saves money without adversely affecting quality or access to care.

For those of you in states currently not under Prior Authorization, it is highly recommended that you still prepare for it to be implemented, even though it will not be implemented January 1, 2017.  You should still ensure that these patients meet the requirements for medical necessity by reviewing your documents, obtaining documents from facilities, conducting assessments of repetitive patients, implementing internal procedures and processes, etc.

For those of you in states already under Prior Authorization for repetitive non-emergencies, there is no impact.  Your program continues.

Novitas – Denials

Written by David Werfel on . Posted in Medicare, Member Advisories, Member-Only.

This advisory is for members who have Novitas as their Medicare Administrative Contractor.

On August 17, 2016, Novitas called me to let me know that they are seeing many ambulance claims denied due solely to the diagnosis codes that are listed on claims. Novitas requires a minimum of two ICD-10 codes, as follows:

  • A primary diagnosis code that describes the patient’s medical condition at the time of transport, AND
  • A secondary diagnosis code that reflects the patient’s need for the ambulance at the time of transport.

The list of primary ICD-10 codes was published by Novitas in their Ambulance Local Coverage Article A54574. While the ICD-10 codes in A54574 are not the only codes that will be accepted, it is highly recommended that you use one of those as your primary code, whenever possible.

Novitas also requires a secondary “diagnosis code”. This list is in their Ambulance Local Coverage Determination (LCD) Policy L35162. That has the four “Z” codes, at least one of which must be used as the secondary diagnosis code:

  • Z74.01 – Bed Confined
  • Z74.3 – needs continuous supervision (includes EKG)
  • Z78.1 – physical restraints (patient safety, danger to self/others)
  • Z99.89 – dependence on enabling machines (includes IV fluids, active airway management)

If the claim does not list a primary AND a secondary code, the claim is automatically denied. While the claim can be corrected and resubmitted for processing, that delays cash flow and adds time and expense for the ambulance supplier. Therefore, please make sure you list an appropriate primary code AND an appropriate secondary code.

 

Prior Authorization Pilot Program – Status Update

Written by David Werfel on . Posted in Medicare, Member Advisories, Member-Only.

CMS released preliminary data on the impact of the prior authorization demonstration program on Medicare payments for ambulance services.  This data is limited to the three states (NJ, PA, and SC) that were included in the demonstration program’s first year.

CMS noted that it has observed a dramatic decrease in expenditures for repetitive non-emergency ambulance transports since the program’s implementation.  CMS released the following data for the first 10 months of the program (i.e. December 2014 – September 2015), comparing that data to the first 11 months of 2014:

  • Payments for repetitive non-emergency ambulance transportation in these states averaged $5.4 million per month, down from nearly $18.9 million per month prior to the program’s implementation. This is a reduction of more than 70%.
  • In the states that were not part of the demonstration program, payments have decreased very slightly for the 10 months in 2014 and are very similar to the payments in the 11 months prior to the program beginning in SC, NJ and PA.
  • 18,367 prior authorization requests were received and finalized by Medicare’s contractors. Of these, 6,430 (35.0%) were approved.

CMS is closely monitoring these results to evaluate its effectiveness. Here is the full status update.

Medicaid Waivers to End Coverage of Non-Emergency Transportation

Written by David Werfel on . Posted in Medicaid, Medicare, Reimbursement.

By David M. Werfel, Esq | AAA Medicare Consultant
Updated February 16, 2016

Federal law requires that state Medicaid programs cover necessary transportation to and from health care providers in order to ensure access to care. However, as a result of Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act and cost increases, recently, a few states have asked CMS to waive the requirement for non-emergency transportation so they can end coverage of non-emergency transportation.

CMS granted waivers to Iowa and Indiana. Pennsylvania received permission, but the subsequent change in the governor’s office altered the state’s expansion plans and state officials ultimately chose not to use it. Arizona has a pending request to provide prior authorization.

When Iowa was granted the waiver, a beneficiary survey was conducted to determine the impact on access to care. The survey found some beneficiaries with incomes under the poverty level did not have transportation to or from a healthcare visit. Other beneficiaries said a lack of transportation could prevent them from getting a physical exam in the coming year. However, CMS stated the cases of negative impact were not statistically significant enough to discontinue the waiver.

As a result of the complaints, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Sen. Frank Pallone, (D-NJ) asked the Government Accountability Office to investigate the impact of these waivers. The report is not expected in the near future. However, when issued, it could embolden other states to seek a waiver.

CMS Announces 2016 Inflation Factor

Written by David Werfel on . Posted in Government Affairs, Member Advisories, Member-Only, Regulatory.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicare Services (CMS) has officially announced that the inflation factor for payments under the Medicare ambulance fee schedule for 2016 will be negative .4% (-0.4%). As part of the Affordable Care Act, a productivity adjustment has been part of the calculation for the last several years which for 2016 has resulted in a negative update.

The calculation for determining the Medicare ambulance inflation factor is as follows: Consumer Price Index – Urban (which is the change in the CPI-U from June to June) minus the non-farm business multi-factor productivity adjustment (MFP) as projected by the Secretary of HHS (10-year average). The CPI-Urban for 2016 is 0.1% with a MFP of 0.5% which equals negative .4%.

The AAA had projected an inflation factor of negative .5%.

Summary of CMS Ambulance Open Door Forum of November 5, 2015

Written by David Werfel on . Posted in Government Affairs, Medicaid, Medicare, Member Advisories, Member-Only, Regional Workshops, Regulatory.

By David M. Werfel, Esq. | Updated November 6, 2015

On November 5, 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) conducted its latest Ambulance Open Door Forum.  As usual, CMS started with announcements, which were as follows:

As required under the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (HR 2), the pilot program for prior authorization for non-emergency repetitive patients will be expanded to Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia, effective January 1, 2016.  A Special Open Door Forum on the topic will be held by CMS on November 10, 2015 from 12:30 to 1:30 pm. (Link to PDF).

Payment Policies

On October 30, CMS released the final rule on changes in CY 2016 to the Medicare ambulance fee schedule.  The final rule will be published in the Federal Register on November 16, 2015.  The rule finalizes the following:

  • The 2% urban, 3% rural and 22.6% super rural adjustments have been extended through December 31, 2017.
  • Urban/Rural Designations – CMS will continue in 2016 and thereafter with the current geographic designations of urban and rural that were implemented on January 1, 2015. CMS also stated the Agency is further reviewing those zip codes which are a RUCA 2 or 3 and have a portion that include a rural census tract.  The Agency will issue possible changes in a proposed rule.  This review was requested by the AAA and should result in more urban zip codes being designated as rural.
  • Vehicle/Staff – For Medicare purposes, a BLS vehicle must include at least a driver and an EMT-Basic.  However, the vehicle/staff must also meet all state and local rules.

ICD-10 – CMS published an ambulance crosswalk from ICD-9 codes to ICD-10 codes.  Also, the condition codes list is only a guide and using one of the codes does not guarantee coverage.

Meeting at the AAA

  • Rogers spoke at the AAA Workshop on Prior Authorization held at the AAA headquarters on October 2.  He thanked the AAA for inviting him as a speaker.
  • Rogers mentioned one of the issues he discussed at the AAA headquarters was the transportation of psychiatric patients. Dr. Rogers indicated that his opinion is that when patients are in a “psychiatric hold”, that the psychiatric hold, by itself, does not constitute Medicare coverage for an ambulance.  He indicated that coverage would exist if there was IV, EKG, medications administered, etc., but that possible elopement was not enough for coverage.  Dr. Rogers’s statement was his individual opinion.  The AAA does not agree with that opinion and we will be following up with Dr. Rogers and CMS on the matter.
  • Rogers stated another issue discussed at the AAA headquarters was on the proper level of service being determined at the time of dispatch. He stated that it was his opinion that Medicare should reimburse for the level of service dispatched.

Healthcare Marketplace – individuals can apply for health coverage through the marketplace from November 1, 2015 to January 31, 2016 through healthcare.gov.

Medicare Open Enrollment – CMS announced the Open Enrollment period has begun for Medicare beneficiaries to select their plan.

The question and answer period followed the announcements.  As usual, several resulted in the caller being asked to e-mail their question to CMS.  Questions concerning the prior authorization program were asked but the callers were told the questions would be answered on the Special Open Door Forum for prior authorization that will be held on November 10.  Answers to questions asked were as follows:

  • Medicare does not cover an ambulance transport of a psych patient, as the patient can be transported safely by other means, such as by law enforcement.
  • When physicians and facilities do not provide records needed for prior authorization, the ambulance provider may have to choose discontinuing transportation of that patient.
  • The denial rate for ICD-10 codes is the same as it was for ICD-9 codes.
  • No solution was offered for situations where the SNF uses 911 to call for an ambulance that they know is not needed.
  • When Medicaid pays and takes back its payment more than a year after the date of service, due to the patient receiving retroactive Medicare eligibility, Medicare can be billed.

No date was given for the next Ambulance Open Door Forum, other than the November 10 date for the Special Open Door Forum on the expansion of prior authorization.

Redeterminations/Reconsiderations: Scope of Review Limited

Written by David Werfel on . Posted in Medicare, Member Advisories, Member-Only.

CMS published MLN Matters article number SE1521, which states:

“For redeterminations and reconsiderations of claims denied following a post-payment review or audit, CMS has instructed MACs and QICs to limit their review to the reason(s) the claim or line item at issue was initially denied.”

What this means is that if you have an audit and a claim is denied for a reason, e.g. not medically necessary, then when you appeal that denial, the MAC cannot deny the claim for a different reason, e.g. signature not legible. The same applies to a denial in the Redetermination decision as the QIC cannot deny for a different reason than what was stated in the original denial. Thus, the Redetermination decision and the Reconsideration decision are limited to the original reason for the denial.

This went into effect for Redetermination and Reconsideration requests received by a MAC or QIC on or after August 1, 2015.

It does not apply to denials that result from failing to submit requested documentation needed to process the claim. It also does not apply to denials from pre-payment reviews.

Ambulance Open Door Forum, April 22, H.R. 2

Written by David Werfel on . Posted in Government Affairs, Legislative, Medicare, Member Advisories, Regulatory, Reimbursement.

CMS held its latest Ambulance Open Door Forum on April 22. It started with the following two announcements:

– H.R. 2 was signed into law extending the temporary ambulance adjustments through December 31, 2017. The adjustments are 2% (urban pick-ups), 3% (rural) and 22.6% (super rural).

– For free standing facilities, use the “P” modifier if the facility is not part of the hospital and use “H” if it is hospital-based.
Following these announcements, there was a Question and Answer period. Most of the questions were not answered on the call and the caller was asked to submit their questions to CMS, or was told to ask their Medicare Administrative Contractor or was told to appeal the denied claim referenced in their question. A few were answered, as follows:

Continue reading

Prior Authorization Issues – South Carolina

Written by David Werfel on . Posted in Government Affairs, Medicare, Regulatory, Reimbursement.

Based on implementation issues involving the Prior Authorization program for repetitive patients inSouth Carolina, Brian and I had a conference call with representatives of CMS and Palmetto on Friday January 9, 2015. Three main issues were discussed, as follows:

1. Legal Representative Payee – There was confusion concerning repetitive patients that had a Legal Representative Payee. These are patients who can not conduct their own affairs and have a form on file at the Social Security Administration for someone else to be their legal representative. When ambulance companies submitted for Prior Authorization for these patients, they were told thePrior Authorization did not apply for the patient. Palmetto posted their policy for these patients on their web site.

Unfortunately, you will not know right away which patients have a legal representative payee. Most likely you will not know until you receive a rejection of the Prior Authorization request. Therefore, until you have been told a repetitive patient has a legal representative payee, file with Palmetto for the priorauthorization.

Once you are told the patient has a legal representative payee, then submit claims, just as you would for non-repetitive patients, i.e. do not continue to try to obtain prior approval or a Unique Transaction Number (UTN).

We have asked Palmetto if there is a database that you can access before going through the priorauthorization process. So far, there is not, but they are checking on this issue.

FYI, this was a policy instituted by CMS for the Prior Authorization process based on other programs (not ambulance) they have in place.

2. Incorrect Edit for Non-Repetitive Patients – On Wednesday, January 7th, we advised Palmetto that claims for non-repetitive patients were either being denied or that they needed further development as there is a systems edit that is pulling patients who had multiple transports over a period of time, but are not supposed to be in this Prior Authorization program. For example, a patient who has had four hospital discharges following illnesses for a fracture, a CVA, pneumonia and surgery, is not “repetitive”, for Prior Authorization purposes. On the conference call on Friday, Palmetto and CMS agreed with our assessment of the situation. They indicated that not only has the cause of the problem been identified, but they believe that it will be fixed in approximately one week. They are testing it now. They are looking at January 19 as the date for the “fix” to be implemented.

They have located 485 claims in this status that are currently “suspended”. When the “fix” is implemented, they will release these claims for processing, i.e. those providers should not resubmit the claims as Palmetto will do it automatically. Claims for these non-repetitive patients that have already been rejected should be resubmitted.

NOTE: Novitas is having the same problem. They sent out a notice to providers in their jurisdiction advising them they are aware of the problem. We assume that the same “fix” will be tried by Novitas.

3. Common Errors – We asked Palmetto if they could come up with a list of the common errors being made by ambulance companies. Following the conference call, they provided us with the list below. Providers in South Carolina (as well as in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, even though NJ and PA submit to Novitas) should review the list to ensure you are not making these mistakes:

– The PCS submitted does not have a valid signature date.

– The date of the signature is post- dated, perhaps to match a future date the patient will be starting.

– The signature on the PCS is not identifiable. The name of the physician must be identifiable. This does not mean the signature itself must be legible, it means that Palmetto has to be able to read the name of the physician that signed the PCS.

– The PCS has been amended (e.g. to print or type the name of the physician) without any notation by the amending individual. Any amendments/additional information should be clearly signed or initialed and dated by the person making the change or note.

– Submission of contradictory documentation. For instance, the PCS may support the transport, but the supporting documentation from the certifying physician does not.

– If the Prior Authorization is approved, the UTN is not entered into the appropriate field or submitted at all.

– For claims that are non-emergent, non-repetitive, providers are listing something (e.g. “N/A” or “not a PA” or “non-repetitive”) in the UTN field. For these non-repetitive patients, do not put anything the UTN field. The edit for the prior authorization is hard coded. Therefore, if their computer finds anything in this field, for patients who do not have prior authorization, the claim will reject.

Palmetto indicated that they will have a conference call with ambulance providers to discuss “hot issues”, including those above. At this time, they are looking to have that conference call on January 19th, although that is subject to change. For those affected, check the Palmetto web site and otherwise look for the notice for this conference call.

Finally, implementing a program of this nature is always going to have some start-up problems. Now that the two issues noted in #1 and #2 above have been identified and are about to be resolved, the remaining problems, such as those noted in #3 above, are mostly left up to the providers to understand what is needed, where the information is to be listed, etc. Once that is understood, the process will work smoothly as it did for many years in Ohio, when Palmetto and its predecessor used a prior authorization process for ambulance transports of non-emergency dialysis patients.

Of course, there will always be those situations where you believe medical necessity is met, but Palmetto does not agree. In those situations you will have to decide if more information is needed, whether you agree with Palmetto and the patient can be transported via wheelchair van, whether you need to advise the patient/facility accordingly, whether to accept the denial or whether to appeal.

Stay In Touch!

By signing up, you agree to the AAA Privacy Policy & Terms of Use.