QIO Program. BFCC-QIO 11th SOW Annual Medical Services Report - D. 4 Deliverable Contract Year 3 Area 4
|
|
- Barnaby Underwood
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 QIO Program BFCC-QIO 11th SOW Annual Medical Services Report - D. 4 Deliverable Contract Year 3 Area 4
2 BFCC-QIO 11TH SOW ANNUAL MEDICAL SERVICES REPORT D.4 DELIVERABLE
3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction... 6 Annual Report Body: ) Total Reviews ) Top 10 Principal Medical Diagnoses: ) Provider Reviews Settings: ) Quality of Care and Quality Improvement Initiatives ) Discharge/Service Terminations ) Beneficiary Appeals of Provider Discharge/Service Terminations and Denials of Hospital Admissions Outcomes by Notification Type ) Evidence Used in Decision-Making ) Reviews by Geographic Area ) Outreach and Collaboration with Beneficiaries ) Immediate Advocacy Reviews ) Example/Success Story ) Beneficiary Helpline Statistics Conclusion APPENDIX BFCC-QIO Area #4 State of Iowa ) Total Reviews ) Top 10 Principal Medical Diagnoses ) Beneficiary Demographics ) Provider Reviews Settings ) Quality of Care and Quality Improvement Initiatives ) Beneficiary Appeals of Provider Discharge/Service Terminations and Denials of Hospital Admissions Outcomes by Notification Type ) Reviews by Geographic Area Urban and Rural ) Immediate Advocacy Reviews BFCC-QIO Area #4 State of Illinois ) Total Reviews ) Top 10 Principal Medical Diagnoses ) Beneficiary Demographics Page 2
4 4) Provider Reviews Settings ) Quality of Care and Quality Improvement Initiatives ) Beneficiary Appeals of Provider Discharge/Service Terminations and Denials of Hospital Admissions Outcomes by Notification Type ) Reviews by Geographic Area Urban and Rural ) Immediate Advocacy Reviews BFCC-QIO Area #4 State of Indiana ) Total Reviews ) Top 10 Principal Medical Diagnoses ) Beneficiary Demographics ) Provider Reviews Settings ) Quality of Care and Quality Improvement Initiatives ) Beneficiary Appeals of Provider Discharge/Service Terminations and Denials of Hospital Admissions Outcomes by Notification Type ) Reviews by Geographic Area Urban and Rural ) Immediate Advocacy Reviews BFCC-QIO Area #4 State of Kansas ) Total Reviews ) Top 10 Principal Medical Diagnoses ) Beneficiary Demographics ) Provider Reviews Settings ) Quality of Care and Quality Improvement Initiatives ) Beneficiary Appeals of Provider Discharge/Service Terminations and Denials of Hospital Admissions Outcomes by Notification Type ) Reviews by Geographic Area Urban and Rural ) Immediate Advocacy Reviews BFCC-QIO Area #4 State of Michigan ) Total Reviews ) Top 10 Principal Medical Diagnoses ) Beneficiary Demographics ) Provider Reviews Settings ) Quality of Care and Quality Improvement Initiatives Page 3
5 6) Beneficiary Appeals of Provider Discharge/Service Terminations and Denials of Hospital Admissions Outcomes by Notification Type ) Reviews by Geographic Area Urban and Rural ) Immediate Advocacy Reviews BFCC-QIO Area #4 State of Minnesota ) Total Reviews ) Top 10 Principal Medical Diagnoses ) Beneficiary Demographics ) Provider Reviews Settings ) Quality of Care and Quality Improvement Initiatives ) Beneficiary Appeals of Provider Discharge/Service Terminations and Denials of Hospital Admissions Outcomes by Notification Type ) Reviews by Geographic Area Urban and Rural ) Immediate Advocacy Reviews BFCC-QIO Area #4 State of Missouri ) Total Reviews ) Top 10 Principal Medical Diagnoses ) Beneficiary Demographics ) Provider Reviews Settings ) Quality of Care and Quality Improvement Initiatives ) Beneficiary Appeals of Provider Discharge/Service Terminations and Denials of Hospital Admissions Outcomes by Notification Type ) Reviews by Geographic Area Urban and Rural ) Immediate Advocacy Reviews BFCC-QIO Area #4 State of Nebraska ) Total Reviews ) Top 10 Principal Medical Diagnoses ) Beneficiary Demographics ) Provider Reviews Settings ) Quality of Care and Quality Improvement Initiatives ) Beneficiary Appeals of Provider Discharge/Service Terminations and Denials of Hospital Admissions Outcomes by Notification Type ) Reviews by Geographic Area Urban and Rural Page 4
6 8) Immediate Advocacy Reviews BFCC-QIO Area #4 State of Ohio ) Total Reviews ) Top 10 Principal Medical Diagnoses ) Beneficiary Demographics ) Provider Reviews Settings ) Quality of Care and Quality Improvement Initiatives ) Beneficiary Appeals of Provider Discharge/Service Terminations and Denials of Hospital Admissions Outcomes by Notification Type ) Reviews by Geographic Area Urban and Rural ) Immediate Advocacy Reviews BFCC-QIO Area #4 State of Wisconsin ) Total Reviews ) Top 10 Principal Medical Diagnoses ) Beneficiary Demographics ) Provider Reviews Settings ) Quality of Care and Quality Improvement Initiatives ) Beneficiary Appeals of Provider Discharge/Service Terminations and Denials of Hospital Admissions Outcomes by Notification Type ) Reviews by Geographic Area Urban and Rural ) Immediate Advocacy Reviews Page 5
7 Introduction BFCC-QIO 11 th SOW Annual Medical Services Report D.4 Deliverable Improving the quality, safety, and value of the care the Medicare beneficiary receives through the Medicare program is what the Quality Improvement Organization (QIO) Program is all about. QIOs provide resources to help beneficiaries become more confident in making health care decisions and actively managing their health. Beneficiary and Family Centered Care QIOs (BFCC-QIOs), such as KEPRO, are also here to help when the beneficiary and/or their family members have a complaint about clinical quality or want to appeal a health care provider s decision to discontinue services or discharge the beneficiary from the hospital. It s important to know how QIOs, such as KEPRO, work with you, your family, and your health care team. Medicare has strict policies about our processes, designed to protect a Medicare beneficiary s privacy and give him/her objective information about the care he/she received. KEPRO is the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) designated BFCC-QIO for Area 4, which covers the following states: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The QIO Program is an integral part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Quality Strategy and the CMS Quality Strategy. Within this report, you will find data which reflects the work KEPRO has completed within the third year of its BFCC-QIO contract. In the first portion of this report, you will find global or overall data with state-specific data to follow in the Appendix section of the report. Page 6
8 ANNUAL REPORT BODY: 1) TOTAL NUMBER OF REVIEWS The below data reflects the total number of medical record reviews completed for Area 4. The BFCC-QIO has review authority for a number of different situations. These include: Beneficiaries or their appointed representatives who have concerns related to the quality of provided health care services by either a facility or physician. Beneficiaries or their representatives who are appealing a pending hospital discharge or the discontinuation of skilled services such as physical therapy. Hospitals requesting a higher reimbursement from Medicare. All of these claims are sent to the BFCC- QIO for coding validation and medical necessity review. Potential EMTALA violations In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual's ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with EMCs. If a hospital is unable to stabilize a patient within its capability, or if the patient requests, an appropriate transfer should be implemented. Review Type Reviews Total Reviews Coding Validation (120 - HWDRG) 6, % Coding Validation (All Other Selection Reasons) % Quality of Care Review (101 through Beneficiary Complaint) % Quality of Care Review (All Other Selection Reasons) % Utilization (158 - FI/MAC Referral for Readmission Review) % Utilization (All Other Selection Reasons) 14, % Notice of Non-coverage (105 through Admission and Preadmission) % Notice of Non-coverage (118 - BIPA) 8, % Notice of Non-coverage (117 - Grijalva) 26, % Notice of Non-coverage (121 through Weichardt) 3, % Notice of Non-coverage (111 - Request for QIO Concurrence) % Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) 5 Day % EMTALA 60 Day % Total 60, % Page 7
9 2) TOP 10 PRINCIPAL MEDICAL DIAGNOSES: BFCC-QIO 11 th SOW Annual Medical Services Report D.4 Deliverable The below data reflect the top 10 diagnoses associated with Medicare claims for Area 4. Top 10 Medical Diagnoses Beneficiaries Beneficiaries 1. A419 - SEPSIS, UNSPECIFIED ORGANISM 138, % 2. J189 - PNEUMONIA, UNSPECIFIED ORGANISM 59, % 3. N179 - ACUTE KIDNEY FAILURE, UNSPECIFIED 56, % 4. J441 - CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE PULMONARY DISEASE W (ACUTE) EXACERBATION 51, % 5. I214 - NON-ST ELEVATION (NSTEMI) MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION 46, % 6. N390 - URINARY TRACT INFECTION, SITE NOT SPECIFIED 41, % 7. I130 - HYP HRT & CHR KDNY DIS W HRT FAIL AND STG 1-4/UNSP 39, % CHR KDNY 8. M UNILATERAL PRIMARY OSTEOARTHRITIS, RIGHT KNEE 38, % 9. M UNILATERAL PRIMARY OSTEOARTHRITIS, LEFT KNEE 35, % 10. J440 - CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE PULMON DISEASE W ACUTE LOWER RESP INFCT 29, % Total 536, % 3) PROVIDER REVIEWS SETTINGS: The below data reflects the location associated with the beneficiary s complaint. Setting Providers Providers 0: Acute Care Unit of an Inpatient Facility % 1: Distinct Psychiatric Facility % 2: Distinct Rehabilitation Facility % 3: Distinct Skilled Nursing Facility 2, % 5: Clinic % 6: Distinct Dialysis Center Facility % 7: Dialysis Center Unit of Inpatient Facility % 8: Independent Based RHC % 9: Provider Based RHC % C: Free Standing Ambulatory Surgery Center % G: End Stage Renal Disease Unit % H: Home Health Agency % N: Critical Access Hospital % O: Setting does not fit into any other existing setting code % Q: Long-Term Care Facility % R: Hospice % S: Psychiatric Unit of an Inpatient Facility % T: Rehabilitation Unit of an Inpatient Facility % U: Swing Bed Hospital Designation for Short-Term, Long-Term Care, and Rehabilitation Hospitals % Page 8
10 Y: Federally Qualified Health Centers % Z: Swing Bed Designation for Critical Access Hospitals % Other % Total 4, % 4) QUALITY OF CARE CONCERNS CONFIRMED AND QUALITY IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVES The below data reflects the category of quality of care concerns identified during medical record reviews along with the corresponding outcome. A Quality of Care review is conducted by the BFCC-QIO to determine whether the quality of services provided to beneficiaries was consistent with professionally recognized standards of health care. A Quality of Care review can either be initiated by a Medicare beneficiary or his/her appointed representative or referred to the BFCC-QIO from another agency such as the Office of Medicare Ombudsmen and/or Congress, etc. KEPRO, in keeping with CMS directions, has referred all confirmed quality of care concerns, which appear to be systemic in nature and appropriate for quality improvement activities, to the appropriate Quality Innovation Network QIO (QIN-QIO) for follow-up. For confirmed concerns that may be amenable to a different approach to health care or related to documentation, KEPRO would retain those concerns and work directly with the health care provider and/or practitioner. The below data reflects the total number of concerns referred to the QIN- QIO and not those retained by KEPRO in order to provide technical assistance. Quality of Care ( C Category) PRAF Category Codes C01: Apparently did not obtain pertinent history and/or findings from examination C02: Apparently did not make appropriate diagnoses and/or assessments C03: Apparently did not establish and/or develop an appropriate treatment plan for a defined problem or diagnosis which prompted this episode of care [excludes laboratory and/or imaging (see C06 or C09) and procedures (see C07 or C08) and consultations (see C13 and C14)] C04: Apparently did not carry out an established plan in a competent and/or timely fashion C05: Apparently did not appropriately assess and/or act on changes in clinical/other status results C06: Apparently did not appropriately assess and/or act on laboratory tests or imaging study results Number of Percent % % Referred as Quality Improvement Initiatives (QII) % % % % Page 9
11 Number of Percent Referred as Quality Improvement Initiatives (QII) Quality of Care ( C Category) PRAF Category Codes C07: Apparently did not establish adequate clinical justification for a procedure which carries patient risk % and was performed C08: Apparently did not perform a procedure that was indicated (other than lab and imaging, see C09) % C09: Apparently did not obtain appropriate laboratory tests and/or imaging studies % C10: Apparently did not develop and initiate appropriate discharge, follow-up, and/or rehabilitation plans % C11: Apparently did not demonstrate that the patient was ready for discharge % C12: Apparently did not provide appropriate personnel and/or resources % C13: Apparently did not order appropriate specialty consultation % C14: Apparently specialty consultation process was not completed in a timely manner % C15: Apparently did not effectively coordinate across disciplines % C16: Apparently did not ensure a safe environment (medication errors, falls, pressure ulcers, transfusion % 20 reactions, nosocomial infection) C17: Apparently did not order/follow evidence-based practices % C18: Apparently did not provide medical record documentation that impacts patient care % C40: Apparently did not follow up on patient s noncompliance % C99: Other quality concern not elsewhere classified % Total 1, % 28 Quality of Care Referred for Quality Improvement Initiatives (QIIs) Referred for QII Quality of Care Referred for QII % Page 10
12 5) DISCHARGE/SERVICE TERMINATIONS The below data reflects the discharge location of beneficiaries which are linked to hospital discharge appeal reviews. Note: Data contained in this table represent discharge/service termination reviews from August 1, 2016, through April 30, A shortened time frame is necessary to allow for maturity of claims data, which are the source of Discharge Status for these cases. Discharge Status Beneficiaries Beneficiaries 01: Discharged to home or self care (routine discharge) % 02: Discharged/transferred to another short-term general hospital for inpatient care % 03: Discharged/transferred to skilled nursing facility (SNF) % 04: Discharged/transferred to intermediate care facility (ICF) % 05: Discharged/transferred to another type of institution (including distinct parts) % 06: Discharged/transferred to home under care of organized home health service organization % 07: Left against medical advice or discontinued care % 09: Admitted as an inpatient to this hospital % 20: Expired (or did not recover Christian Science patient) % 21: Discharged/transferred to court/law enforcement % 30: Still a patient % 40: Expired at home (Hospice claims only) % 41: Expired in a medical facility (e.g., hospital, SNF, ICF, or free standing Hospice) % 42: Expired place unknown (Hospice claims only) % 43: Discharged/transferred to a federal hospital % 50: Hospice - home % 51: Hospice - medical facility % 61: Discharged/transferred within this institution to a hospital-based, Medicareapproved swing bed % 62: Discharged/transferred to an inpatient rehabilitation facility including distinct part units of a hospital % 63: Discharged/transferred to a long-term care hospital % 64: Discharged/transferred to a nursing facility certified under Medicaid but not under Medicare % 65: Discharged/transferred to a psychiatric hospital or psychiatric distinct part unit of a hospital % 66: Discharged/transferred to a critical access hospital % 70: Discharged/transferred to another type of health care institution not defined elsewhere in code list % Other % Total 1, % Page 11
13 6) BENEFICIARY APPEALS OF PROVIDER DISCHARGE/SERVICE TERMINATIONS AND DENIALS OF HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS OUTCOMES BY NOTIFICATION TYPE The below data reflect the number of appeal reviews and the percentage of reviews, for each outcome, in which the physician reviewer either agreed or disagreed with the discharge or discontinuation of skilled services decision. Reviews Physician Reviewer Disagreed with Discharge (%) Physician Reviewer Agreed with Discharge (%) Appeal Review by Notification Type 105: Notice of Non-coverage FFS Preadmission Notice Concurrent Immediate Review % % 106: Notice of Non-coverage FFS Preadmission Notice Non-immediate Review % 0.00% 107: Notice of Non-coverage FFS Admission Notice Concurrent Immediate Review % 54.55% 108: Notice of Non-coverage FFS Admission Notice Nonimmediate Review % 0.00% 111: Notice of Non-coverage Request for BFCC-QIO Concurrence % % 117: MA Appeal Review (CORF, HHA, SNF) 25, % 71.84% 118: FFS Expedited Appeal (CORF, HHA, Hospice, SNF) 8, % 83.61% 121: Notice of Non-coverage Continued Stay Notice Immediate Review - Attending Physician Concurs 2, % 94.58% 122: Notice of Non-coverage Continued Stay Notice Concurrent Non-immediate Review % 0.00% 123: Notice of Non-coverage Continued Stay Retrospective % % 124: MA Notice of Non-coverage Continued Stay Notice Immediate Review - Attending Physician Concurs 1, % 93.02% Total 37, % 76.50% 7) EVIDENCE USED IN DECISION-MAKING The table that follows describes the one to two most common types of evidence or standards of care used to support KEPRO Review Analysts assessments and aid in formatting questions raised to the Peer Reviewer for his/her clinical decisions for Medical Necessity/Utilization Review and Appeals. For the Quality of Care reviews, KEPRO has provided one to three most highly utilized types of evidence/standards of care to support KEPRO Review Analysts assessments and aid in formatting questions raised to the Peer Reviewer for his/her clinical decisions. A brief statement of the rationale for selecting the specific evidence or standards of care is also included. Page 12
14 Diagnostic Review Type Categories Quality of Care Pneumonia Heart Failure Pressure Ulcers Evidence/ Standards of Care Used CMS Pneumonia indicators (PN 2-7) UpToDate American College of Cardiology (ACC); CMS Heart Failure indicators (HF 1-3) UpToDate AHRQ website; Wound, Ostomy & Continence Nursing website ( CMS Hospital- Acquired Conditions & Patient Safety Indicators (PSI-03 & PSI-90 Composite Measure) UpToDate Rationale for Evidence/Standard of Care Selected CMS guidelines for the management of patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) address basic aspects of preventive care and treatment for CAP. The guidelines emphasize the importance of vaccination as well as the need for appropriate and timely antimicrobial therapy. Adherence to guidelines is associated with improved patient outcomes. UpToDate is the premier evidence-based clinical decision support resource, trusted worldwide by health care practitioners to help them make the right decisions at the point of care. It is proven to change the way clinicians practice medicine and is the only resource of its kind associated with improved outcomes. ACC s guidelines for the management of patients with heart failure address aspects of care that when followed are associated with improved patient outcomes. UpToDate is the premier evidence-based clinical decision support resource, trusted worldwide by health care practitioners to help them make the right decisions at the point of care. It is proven to change the way clinicians practice medicine and is the only resource of its kind associated with improved outcomes. The Agency for Health care Research and Quality (AHRQ) remains an excellent online resource for the identification of standards of care and practice guidelines. WOCN provides nursing guidelines for staging and care of pressure ulcers. CMS Patient Safety Indicators (PSI) are measurements of quality of patient care during hospitalization and were developed by AHRQ after years of research and analysis. AHRQ developed the PSIs to help hospitals identify potentially preventable adverse events or serious medical errors. UpToDate is the premier evidence-based clinical Page 13
15 Acute Myocardial Infarction Urinary Tract Infection American College of Cardiology Acute Myocardial Infarction Guidelines; CMS Acute Myocardial Infarction indicators (AMI 2-10) UpToDate HAI-CAUTI (f/k/a HAC-7) UpToDate decision support resource, trusted worldwide by health care practitioners to help them make the right decisions at the point of care. It is proven to change the way clinicians practice medicine and is the only resource of its kind associated with improved outcomes. ACC s guidelines for the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction address aspects of care that when followed are associated with improved patient outcomes. UpToDate is the premier evidence-based clinical decision support resource, trusted worldwide by health care practitioners to help them make the right decisions at the point of care. It is proven to change the way clinicians practice medicine and is the only resource of its kind associated with improved outcomes. CMS PSIs are measurements of quality of patient care during hospitalization and were developed by AHRQ after years of research and analysis. AHRQ developed the PSIs to help hospitals identify potentially preventable adverse events or serious medical errors. Sepsis Adverse Drug Events Institute for Health care Improvement (IHI) UpToDate CMS Hospital- Acquired Conditions & Patient Safety Indicators (PSI-03 & UpToDate is the premier evidence-based clinical decision support resource, trusted worldwide by health care practitioners to help them make the right decisions at the point of care. It is proven to change the way clinicians practice medicine and is the only resource of its kind associated with improved outcomes. IHI developed sepsis indicators and guidelines for the identification and treatment of sepsis. Adherence to such guidelines has improved patient outcomes. UpToDate is the premier evidence-based clinical decision support resource, trusted worldwide by health care practitioners to help them make the right decisions at the point of care. It is proven to change the way clinicians practice medicine, and is the only resource of its kind associated with improved outcomes. CMS PSIs are measurements of quality of patient care during hospitalization and were developed by AHRQ after years of research and analysis. AHRQ developed the PSIs to help hospitals Page 14
16 Medical Necessity/ Utilization Review Appeals Falls Patient Trauma Surgical complications InterQual & CMS Two- Midnight Rule Benchmark criteria PSI-90 Composite Measure) CMS Hospital- Acquired Conditions & Patient Safety Indicators (PSI-03 & PSI-90 Composite Measure) CMS Hospital- Acquired Conditions & Patient Safety Indicators (PSI-03 & PSI-90 Composite Measure) KEPRO s Generic Quality Screening Tool InterQual & CMS Two-Midnight Rule Benchmark criteria National Coverage Determination Guidelines; JIMMO settlement language and guidelines; and InterQual and CMS Two Midnight Rule Benchmark identify potentially preventable adverse events or serious medical errors. CMS PSIs are measurements of quality of patient care during hospitalization and were developed by AHRQ after years of research and analysis. AHRQ developed the PSIs to help hospitals identify potentially preventable adverse events or serious medical errors. CMS PSIs are measurements of quality of patient care during hospitalization and were developed by AHRQ after years of research and analysis. AHRQ developed the PSIs to help hospitals identify potentially preventable adverse events or serious medical errors. KEPRO developed a generic quality screening tool based upon generally recognized standards of care, for example: state-specific reportable events and Joint Commission reportable events. Specific questions are found on this tool, which ask about surgical complications. InterQual - Assess the safest and most efficient care level based on severity of illness, comorbidities and complications, and the intensity of services being delivered. Its criteria cover more than 95% of admission reasons for any level of care. Under the final CMS Two-Midnight Rule, surgical procedures, diagnostic tests, and other treatments (in addition to services designated as inpatient-only) are generally appropriate for inpatient hospital admission and payment under Medicare Part A when the physician expects the beneficiary to require a stay that crosses at least two midnights and admits the beneficiary to the hospital based upon that expectation. Medicare coverage is limited to items and services that are reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of an illness or injury (and within the scope of a Medicare benefit category). National coverage determinations (NCDs) are made through an evidence-based process. Page 15
17 8) REVIEWS BY GEOGRAPHIC AREA In tables 8A-B, KEPRO has provided the count and percent by rural vs. urban geographical locations for Health Service Providers (HSPs) associated with a completed QIO review. Table 8A: Appeal Reviews by Geographic Area Urban and Rural: Geographic Area Providers Providers in Service Area Urban 2, % Rural 1, % Unknown % Total 3, % Table 8B: Quality of Care Reviews by Geographic Area Urban and Rural: Geographic Area Providers Providers in Service Area Urban % Rural % Unknown % Total % 9) OUTREACH AND COLLABORATION WITH BENEFICIARIES In Area 4, KEPRO has joined in on a collaborative partnership with several Ohio agencies working with the Medicare population. Led by the Ohio Senior Health Insurance Information Program (OSHIIP), these monthly Medicare Partner meetings include stakeholders such as Senior Medicare Patrol (SMP), Office of the State Long-term Care Ombudsman, Heath Services Advisory Group (Ohio s Quality Innovation Network QIO), CGS Administrators (Ohio s Medicare Administrative Contractor), and the Social Security Administration. Participation in this group allows us to consistently update our stakeholders and provide them with important resources and materials that they can then distribute to beneficiaries and providers. Furthermore, as a result of KEPRO s strong relationship with OSHIIP, we have been invited to present information on our services numerous times to staff and volunteers across the state, which has the potential to reach over 350,000 Medicare beneficiaries. 10) IMMEDIATE ADVOCACY REVIEWS The below data reflects the number of beneficiary complaints resolved through the use of Immediate Advocacy. Based on the nature of the concern(s) raised by the beneficiary, KEPRO staff members may recommend the use of Immediate Advocacy. Immediate Advocacy is an informal process used to quickly resolve an oral or verbal complaint. In this process, KEPRO makes immediate/direct contact with a provider and/or practitioner for the beneficiary. The KEPRO staff member will summarize what Immediate Advocacy involves for the beneficiary and obtain the beneficiary s oral consent to participate in Immediate Advocacy before proceeding. Page 16
18 Immediate Total Beneficiary Complaints Beneficiary Complaints Advocacy Reviews Resolved by Immediate Advocacy % 11) EXAMPLE/SUCCESS STORY a.) A Medicare beneficiary contacted the BFCC-QIO with concerns about his ostomy supplies. He had undergone an ileostomy procedure and was receiving home health care. An order was put in two weeks earlier for the supplies, and he had not yet received them. He had not had a clean bag in eight days. He contacted the BFCC-QIO for assistance. The Intake Specialist set up a conference call with the durable medical equipment (DME) provider and the beneficiary. The home health agency had sent in an order for the supplies that day. The DME provider stated that they would send out an urgent sample request that afternoon. She would then verify the insurance and get the doctor s signature and send the rest of the supplies out marked as urgent. The Intake Specialist followed up with the beneficiary, and he had received all of his supplies. She also contacted the home health agency to see what had caused the delay. The agency stated that there had been some confusion about the beneficiary s coverage, which had caused a problem with the supplier. The agency representative stated that she would be contacting the beneficiary to go over his concerns. b.) A Medicare beneficiary contacted the BFCC-QIO with concerns about her discharge plan. She had a hernia repair and was discharged to home with a non-functioning wound vac. During the night, the staples came out of the wound, and it was now an open wound. She stated that after a home health evaluation, it was determined that she could not qualify because she was not completely homebound. However, she felt that due to the current circumstances, she should qualify. The Intake Specialist agreed to contact the home health agency on her behalf. The Intake Specialist contacted the Director at the home health agency. The Intake Specialist told the Director that the beneficiary was only out of the house once a week to get groceries, and that was difficult for her. The Director stated that she would reach out to the beneficiary to verify her homebound status. She stated that if the beneficiary qualified, they would start home health. If not, they would set her up for outpatient services. The Intake Specialist received a message from the Director several days later. They did admit the beneficiary for wound care services with the home health agency. She felt that the beneficiary did meet the criteria for being homebound. The Intake Specialist then contacted the beneficiary who expressed that this would not have happened without the phone call to the BFCC-QIO. c.) A Medicare beneficiary contacted the BFCC-QIO with concerns about her care at the hospital. She had been experiencing abdominal pain, and the medical staff was discussing surgery. She had not received any food since being at the facility. The staff wanted her to take antibiotics, but she was concerned about doing that on an empty stomach. She requested that the Intake Specialist intervene to find out her plan of care. Page 17
19 The Intake Specialist left a message with the facility and received a voic from the Assistant Quality Director. She stated that the beneficiary was on a clear liquid diet because she had a small bowel obstruction. The surgeon also came in to speak with the beneficiary about the surgery. The Intake Specialist then contacted the beneficiary. The beneficiary stated that her procedure had been delayed due to her infection, but she was appreciative of the intervention by the Intake Specialist. She felt that staff had come in to address her concerns because of the call by the Intake Specialist. Because her procedure was delayed, her diet was changed. She would be in the hospital for a few more days on antibiotics, and her surgery would be scheduled as an outpatient. The Intake Specialist then received a voic from the facility stating that the beneficiary liked to call KEPRO because they are the only people that get things done. 12) BENEFICIARY HELPLINE STATISTICS The below data reflect the total number of telephone calls received and processed for Area4. Beneficiary Helpline Report Total Per Category Total Calls Received 166,128 Total Calls Answered 154,231 Total Abandoned Calls 6,995 Average Length of Call Wait Times 00:01:06 Calls Transferred by Medicare 0 CONCLUSION KEPRO s outcomes and findings for year three of this CMS contract outline the daily work performed during the pursuit of care improvements provided to the individual Medicare beneficiary. These reviews provide solid data that can be extrapolated to improve the quality of provider care throughout the system based upon these individual s experiences as a part of the overall system. Page 18
20 APPENDIX BFCC-QIO AREA #4 STATE OF IOWA 1) TOTAL NUMBER OF REVIEWS Review Type Reviews Total Reviews Coding Validation (120 - HWDRG) % Coding Validation (All Other Selection Reasons) % Quality of Care Review (101 through Beneficiary Complaint) % Quality of Care Review (All Other Selection Reasons) % Utilization (158 - FI/MAC Referral for Readmission Review) % Utilization (All Other Selection Reasons) % Notice of Non-coverage (105 through Admission and Preadmission) % Notice of Non-coverage (118 - BIPA) % Notice of Non-coverage (117 - Grijalva) % Notice of Non-coverage (121 through Weichardt) % Notice of Non-coverage (111 - Request for QIO Concurrence) % EMTALA 5 Day % EMTALA 60 Day % Total 1, % 2) TOP 10 PRINCIPAL MEDICAL DIAGNOSES Top 10 Medical Diagnoses Beneficiaries Beneficiaries 1. A419 - SEPSIS, UNSPECIFIED ORGANISM 6, % 2. J189 - PNEUMONIA, UNSPECIFIED ORGANISM 4, % 3. J441 - CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE PULMONARY DISEASE W (ACUTE) 2, % EXACERBATION 4. M UNILATERAL PRIMARY OSTEOARTHRITIS, RIGHT KNEE 2, % 5. N179 - ACUTE KIDNEY FAILURE, UNSPECIFIED 2, % 6. M UNILATERAL PRIMARY OSTEOARTHRITIS, LEFT KNEE 2, % 7. I214 - NON-ST ELEVATION (NSTEMI) MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION 2, % 8. N390 - URINARY TRACT INFECTION, SITE NOT SPECIFIED 2, % 9. I130 - HYP HRT & CHR KDNY DIS W HRT FAIL AND STG 1-4/UNSP 1, % CHR KDNY 10. Z ENCOUNTER FOR OTHER SPECIFIED AFTERCARE 1, % Total 28, % 3) BENEFICIARY DEMOGRAPHICS Demographics Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Sex/Gender Female % Page 19
21 Demographics Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Male % Unknown % Total 1, % Race Asian % Black % Hispanic % North American Native % Other % Unknown % White 1, % Total 1, % Age Under % % % % % Total 1, % 4) PROVIDER REVIEWS SETTINGS Setting Providers Providers 0: Acute Care Unit of an Inpatient Facility % 1: Distinct Psychiatric Facility % 2: Distinct Rehabilitation Facility % 3: Distinct Skilled Nursing Facility % 5: Clinic % 6: Distinct Dialysis Center Facility % 7: Dialysis Center Unit of Inpatient Facility % 8: Independent Based RHC % 9: Provider Based RHC % C: Free Standing Ambulatory Surgery Center % G: End Stage Renal Disease Unit % H: Home Health Agency % N: Critical Access Hospital % O: Setting does not fit into any other existing setting code % Q: Long-Term Care Facility % R: Hospice % S: Psychiatric Unit of an Inpatient Facility % T: Rehabilitation Unit of an Inpatient Facility % U: Swing Bed Hospital Designation for Short-Term, Long-Term Care, and Rehabilitation Hospitals % Y: Federally Qualified Health Centers % Page 20
22 Setting Providers Providers Z: Swing Bed Designation for Critical Access Hospitals % Other % Total % 5) QUALITY OF CARE CONCERNS CONFIRMED AND QUALITY IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVES Quality of Care ( C Category) PRAF Category Codes C01: Apparently did not obtain pertinent history and/or findings from examination C02: Apparently did not make appropriate diagnoses and/or assessments C03: Apparently did not establish and/or develop an appropriate treatment plan for a defined problem or diagnosis which prompted this episode of care [excludes laboratory and/or imaging (see C06 or C09) and procedures (see C07 or C08) and consultations (see C13 and C14)] C04: Apparently did not carry out an established plan in a competent and/or timely fashion C05: Apparently did not appropriately assess and/or act on changes in clinical/other status results C06: Apparently did not appropriately assess and/or act on laboratory tests or imaging study results C07: Apparently did not establish adequate clinical justification for a procedure which carries patient risk and was performed C08: Apparently did not perform a procedure that was indicated (other than lab and imaging, see C09) C09: Apparently did not obtain appropriate laboratory tests and/or imaging studies C10: Apparently did not develop and initiate appropriate discharge, follow-up, and/or rehabilitation plans C11: Apparently did not demonstrate that the patient was ready for discharge C12: Apparently did not provide appropriate personnel and/or resources C13: Apparently did not order appropriate specialty consultation Number of Percent % % % % % Referred as Quality Improvement Initiatives (QII) % % % % % Page 21
23 Number of Percent Referred as Quality Improvement Initiatives (QII) Quality of Care ( C Category) PRAF Category Codes C14: Apparently specialty consultation process was not completed in a timely manner C15: Apparently did not effectively coordinate across disciplines C16: Apparently did not ensure a safe environment (medication errors, falls, pressure ulcers, transfusion % reactions, nosocomial infection) C17: Apparently did not order/follow evidence-based practices % C18: Apparently did not provide medical record documentation that impacts patient care C40: Apparently did not follow up on patient s noncompliance C99: Other quality concern not elsewhere classified % Total % 2 6) BENEFICIARY APPEALS OF PROVIDER DISCHARGE/SERVICE TERMINATIONS AND DENIALS OF HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS OUTCOMES BY NOTIFICATION TYPE Appeal Reviews by Notification Type Reviews Percent of Total 105: Notice of Non-coverage FFS Preadmission Notice Concurrent Immediate Review % 106: Notice of Non-coverage FFS Preadmission Notice Non-immediate Review % 107: Notice of Non-coverage FFS Admission Notice Concurrent Immediate Review % 108: Notice of Non-coverage FFS Admission Notice Non-immediate Review % 111: Notice of Non-coverage Request for QIO Concurrence % 117: MA Appeal Review (CORF, HHA, SNF) % 118: FFS Expedited Appeal (CORF, HHA, Hospice, SNF) % 121: Notice of Non-coverage Continued Stay Notice Immediate Review - Attending Physician Concurs % 122: Notice of Non-coverage Continued Stay Notice Concurrent Non-immediate Review % 123: Notice of Non-coverage Continued Stay Retrospective % 124: MA Notice of Non-coverage Continued Stay Notice Immediate Review - Attending Physician Concurs % Total % Page 22
24 7) REVIEWS BY GEOGRAPHIC AREA URBAN AND RURAL Table 7A: Appeal Reviews by Geographic Area Urban and Rural: BFCC-QIO 11 th SOW Annual Medical Services Report D.4 Deliverable Geographic Area Providers Providers in State Providers in Service Area Urban % 72.08% Rural % 27.77% Unknown % 0.15% Total % % Table 7B: Quality of Care Reviews by Geographic Area Urban and Rural: Geographic Area Providers Providers in State Providers in Service Area Urban % 83.96% Rural % 16.04% Unknown % 0.00% Total % % 8) IMMEDIATE ADVOCACY REVIEWS Beneficiary Immediate Total Beneficiary Complaints Complaints Advocacy Reviews Resolved by Immediate Advocacy % Page 23
25 BFCC-QIO AREA #4 STATE OF ILLINOIS 1) TOTAL NUMBER OF REVIEWS BFCC-QIO 11 th SOW Annual Medical Services Report D.4 Deliverable Review Type Reviews Total Reviews Coding Validation (120 - HWDRG) % Coding Validation (All Other Selection Reasons) % Quality of Care Review (101 through Beneficiary Complaint) % Quality of Care Review (All Other Selection Reasons) % Utilization (158 - FI/MAC Referral for Readmission Review) % Utilization (All Other Selection Reasons) 2, % Notice of Non-coverage (105 through Admission and Preadmission) % Notice of Non-coverage (118 - BIPA) 1, % Notice of Non-coverage (117 - Grijalva) 3, % Notice of Non-coverage (121 through Weichardt) % Notice of Non-coverage (111 - Request for QIO Concurrence) % EMTALA 5 Day % EMTALA 60 Day % Total 9, % 2) TOP 10 PRINCIPAL MEDICAL DIAGNOSES Top 10 Medical Diagnoses Beneficiaries Beneficiaries 1. A419 - SEPSIS, UNSPECIFIED ORGANISM 25, % 2. J189 - PNEUMONIA, UNSPECIFIED ORGANISM 11, % 3. N179 - ACUTE KIDNEY FAILURE, UNSPECIFIED 10, % 4. J441 - CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE PULMONARY DISEASE W (ACUTE) EXACERBATION 9, % 5. N390 - URINARY TRACT INFECTION, SITE NOT SPECIFIED 8, % 6. I130 - HYP HRT & CHR KDNY DIS W HRT FAIL AND STG 1-4/UNSP CHR KDNY 8, % 7. I214 - NON-ST ELEVATION (NSTEMI) MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION 7, % 8. M UNILATERAL PRIMARY OSTEOARTHRITIS, RIGHT KNEE 6, % 9. J440 - CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE PULMON DISEASE W ACUTE LOWER RESP INFCT 5, % 10. M UNILATERAL PRIMARY OSTEOARTHRITIS, LEFT KNEE 5, % Total 100, % 3) BENEFICIARY DEMOGRAPHICS Demographics Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Sex/Gender Female 4, % Male 3, % Page 24
26 Demographics Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Unknown % Total 8, % Race Asian % Black 1, % Hispanic % North American Native % Other % Unknown % White 6, % Total 8, % Age Under % , % , % , % 91+ 1, % Total 8, % 4) PROVIDER REVIEWS SETTINGS Setting Providers Providers 0: Acute Care Unit of an Inpatient Facility % 1: Distinct Psychiatric Facility % 2: Distinct Rehabilitation Facility % 3: Distinct Skilled Nursing Facility % 5: Clinic % 6: Distinct Dialysis Center Facility % 7: Dialysis Center Unit of Inpatient Facility % 8: Independent Based RHC % 9: Provider Based RHC % C: Free Standing Ambulatory Surgery Center % G: End Stage Renal Disease Unit % H: Home Health Agency % N: Critical Access Hospital % O: Setting does not fit into any other existing setting code % Q: Long-Term Care Facility % R: Hospice % S: Psychiatric Unit of an Inpatient Facility % T: Rehabilitation Unit of an Inpatient Facility % U: Swing Bed Hospital Designation for Short-Term, Long-Term Care, and Rehabilitation Hospitals % Y: Federally Qualified Health Centers % Z: Swing Bed Designation for Critical Access Hospitals % Page 25
27 Setting Providers Providers Other % Total % 5) QUALITY OF CARE CONCERNS CONFIRMED AND QUALITY IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVES Quality of Care ( C Category) PRAF Category Codes C01: Apparently did not obtain pertinent history and/or findings from examination C02: Apparently did not make appropriate diagnoses and/or assessments C03: Apparently did not establish and/or develop an appropriate treatment plan for a defined problem or diagnosis which prompted this episode of care [excludes laboratory and/or imaging (see C06 or C09) and procedures (see C07 or C08) and consultations (see C13 and C14)] C04: Apparently did not carry out an established plan in a competent and/or timely fashion C05: Apparently did not appropriately assess and/or act on changes in clinical/other status results C06: Apparently did not appropriately assess and/or act on laboratory tests or imaging study results C07: Apparently did not establish adequate clinical justification for a procedure which carries patient risk and was performed C08: Apparently did not perform a procedure that was indicated (other than lab and imaging, see C09) C09: Apparently did not obtain appropriate laboratory tests and/or imaging studies C10: Apparently did not develop and initiate appropriate discharge, follow-up, and/or rehabilitation plans C11: Apparently did not demonstrate that the patient was ready for discharge C12: Apparently did not provide appropriate personnel and/or resources C13: Apparently did not order appropriate specialty consultation C14: Apparently specialty consultation process was not completed in a timely manner Number of Percent % % % % Referred as Quality Improvement Initiatives (QII) % % % % % % % % % Page 26
28 Number of Percent Referred as Quality Improvement Initiatives (QII) Quality of Care ( C Category) PRAF Category Codes C15: Apparently did not effectively coordinate across disciplines % C16: Apparently did not ensure a safe environment (medication errors, falls, pressure ulcers, transfusion % 5 reactions, nosocomial infection) C17: Apparently did not order/follow evidence-based practices % C18: Apparently did not provide medical record documentation that impacts patient care % C40: Apparently did not follow up on patient s noncompliance C99: Other quality concern not elsewhere classified % Total % 5 6) BENEFICIARY APPEALS OF PROVIDER DISCHARGE/SERVICE TERMINATIONS AND DENIALS OF HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS OUTCOMES BY NOTIFICATION TYPE Appeal Reviews by Notification Type Reviews Percent of Total 105: Notice of Non-coverage FFS Preadmission Notice Concurrent Immediate Review % 106: Notice of Non-coverage FFS Preadmission Notice Non-immediate Review % 107: Notice of Non-coverage FFS Admission Notice Concurrent Immediate Review % 108: Notice of Non-coverage FFS Admission Notice Non-immediate Review % 111: Notice of Non-coverage Request for QIO Concurrence % 117: MA Appeal Review (CORF, HHA, SNF) 3, % 118: FFS Expedited Appeal (CORF, HHA, Hospice, SNF) 1, % 121: Notice of Non-coverage Continued Stay Notice Immediate Review - Attending Physician Concurs % 122: Notice of Non-coverage Continued Stay Notice Concurrent Non-immediate Review % 123: Notice of Non-coverage Continued Stay Retrospective % 124: MA Notice of Non-coverage Continued Stay Notice Immediate Review - Attending Physician Concurs % Total 5, % Page 27
29 7) REVIEWS BY GEOGRAPHIC AREA URBAN AND RURAL Table 7A: Appeal Reviews by Geographic Area Urban and Rural: BFCC-QIO 11 th SOW Annual Medical Services Report D.4 Deliverable Geographic Area Providers Providers in State Providers in Service Area Urban % 72.08% Rural % 27.77% Unknown % 0.15% Total % % Table 7B: Quality of Care Reviews by Geographic Area Urban and Rural: Geographic Area Providers Providers in State Providers in Service Area Urban % 83.96% Rural % 16.04% Unknown % 0.00% Total % % 8) IMMEDIATE ADVOCACY REVIEWS Beneficiary Immediate Total Beneficiary Complaints Complaints Advocacy Reviews Resolved by Immediate Advocacy % Page 28
30 BFCC-QIO AREA #4 STATE OF INDIANA 1) TOTAL NUMBER OF REVIEWS BFCC-QIO 11 th SOW Annual Medical Services Report D.4 Deliverable Review Type Reviews Total Reviews Coding Validation (120 - HWDRG) % Coding Validation (All Other Selection Reasons) % Quality of Care Review (101 through Beneficiary Complaint) % Quality of Care Review (All Other Selection Reasons) % Utilization (158 - FI/MAC Referral for Readmission Review) % Utilization (All Other Selection Reasons) % Notice of Non-coverage (105 through Admission and Preadmission) % Notice of Non-coverage (118 - BIPA) % Notice of Non-coverage (117 - Grijalva) 3, % Notice of Non-coverage (121 through Weichardt) % Notice of Non-coverage (111 - Request for QIO Concurrence) % EMTALA 5 Day % EMTALA 60 Day % Total 6, % 2) TOP 10 PRINCIPAL MEDICAL DIAGNOSES Top 10 Medical Diagnoses Beneficiaries Beneficiaries 1. A419 - SEPSIS, UNSPECIFIED ORGANISM 15, % 2. J441 - CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE PULMONARY DISEASE W (ACUTE) EXACERBATION 6, % 3. N179 - ACUTE KIDNEY FAILURE, UNSPECIFIED 6, % 4. J189 - PNEUMONIA, UNSPECIFIED ORGANISM 6, % 5. I214 - NON-ST ELEVATION (NSTEMI) MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION 5, % 6. N390 - URINARY TRACT INFECTION, SITE NOT SPECIFIED 4, % 7. J440 - CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE PULMON DISEASE W ACUTE LOWER RESP INFCT 4, % 8. I130 - HYP HRT & CHR KDNY DIS W HRT FAIL AND STG 1-4/UNSP CHR KDNY 4, % 9. M UNILATERAL PRIMARY OSTEOARTHRITIS, RIGHT KNEE 3, % 10. M UNILATERAL PRIMARY OSTEOARTHRITIS, LEFT KNEE 3, % Total 62, % 3) BENEFICIARY DEMOGRAPHICS Demographics Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Sex/Gender Female 3, % Male 2, % Page 29
AREA #5 BFCC-QIO 11TH SOW ANNUAL MEDICAL SERVICES REPORT 08 /01/ /31/2017
AREA #5 BFCC-QIO 11TH SOW ANNUAL MEDICAL SERVICES REPORT 08 /01/2016-07/31/2017 1 P a g e Area TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS... 2 INTRODUCTION:... 6 LIVANTA QIO AREA #5 SUMMARY... 7 1) TOTAL # OF
More informationAREA #1 BFCC-QIO 11TH SOW ANNUAL MEDICAL SERVICES REPORT 08 /01/ /31/2017
AREA #1 BFCC-QIO 11TH SOW ANNUAL MEDICAL SERVICES REPORT 08 /01/2016-07/31/2017 1 P a g e TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS... 2 INTRODUCTION:... 6 LIVANTA QIO AREA #1 SUMMARY... 7 1) TOTAL # OF REVIEWS...
More informationAREA #5 BFCC-QIO 11TH SOW ANNUAL MEDICAL SERVICES REPORT 08/01/ /31/2016
AREA #5 BFCC-QIO 11TH SOW ANNUAL MEDICAL SERVICES REPORT 08/01/2015-07/31/2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS... 2 INTRODUCTION:... 1 Livanta QIO Area #5 Summary... 2 1) Total # of Reviews... 2 2)
More informationKEPRO The Beneficiary and Family Centered Care Quality Improvement Organization. Nancy Jobe
KEPRO The Beneficiary and Family Centered Care Quality Improvement Organization Nancy Jobe 1 KEPRO KEPRO is a federal contractor for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) KEPRO is the Beneficiary
More informationKEPRO The Beneficiary and Family Centered Care Quality Improvement Organization. Brittny Bratcher, MS, CHES
KEPRO The Beneficiary and Family Centered Care Quality Improvement Organization Brittny Bratcher, MS, CHES 1 KEPRO KEPRO is a federal contractor for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) KEPRO
More informationPassport Advantage Provider Manual Section 5.0 Utilization Management
Passport Advantage Provider Manual Section 5.0 Utilization Management Table of Contents 5.1 Utilization Management 5.2 Review Criteria 5.3 Prior Authorization Requirements 5.4 Organization Determinations
More informationTips for Completing the UB04 (CMS-1450) Claim Form
Tips for Completing the UB04 (CMS-1450) Claim Form As a Beacon facility partner, we value the services you provide and it is important to us that you are reimbursed for the work you do. To assure your
More informationAdministrative Billing Data
Administrative Billing Data Patient Identification and Demographic Information: From UB-04 Data or Medical Record Face Sheet. Note: When you go to enter data on this case, the information below will already
More informationAn Overview of BFCC-QIO Services for People with Medicare
An Overview of BFCC-QIO Services for People with Medicare What is this presentation about? You will learn about: 1. Free services for people with Medicare from Beneficiary and Family Centered Care Quality
More informationObservation Coding and Billing Compliance Montana Hospital Association
Observation Coding and Billing Compliance Montana Hospital Association Sue Roehl, RHIT, CCS sroehl@eidebaill.com 701-476-8770 IP versus Observation considerations Severity of patient s signs and symptoms
More informationUTILIZATION MANAGEMENT AND CARE COORDINATION Section 8
Overview The focus of WellCare s Utilization Management (UM) Program is to provide members access to quality care and to monitor the appropriate utilization of services. WellCare s UM Program has five
More informationReadmission Policy REIMBURSEMENT POLICY UB-04. Reimbursement Policy Oversight Committee
Readmission Policy Policy Number 2018F7001A Annual Approval Date 11/11/2017 Approved By Reimbursement Policy Oversight Committee IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT THIS REIMBURSEMENT POLICY You are responsible for submission
More informationExecutive Summary MEDICARE FEE-FOR-SERVICE (FFS) HOSPITAL READMISSIONS: QUARTER 4 (Q4) 2012 Q STATE OF CALIFORNIA
MEDICARE FEE-FOR-SERVICE (FFS) HOSPITAL READMISSIONS: QUARTER 4 (Q4) 2012 Q3 2013 Executive Summary STATE OF CALIFORNIA The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has tasked Health Services Advisory
More informationHOME HEALTH CARE TABLE OF CONTENTS. OVERVIEW TRANSITIONAL... CARE... SERVICES . MEMBERS... MANAGED... BY... EVICORE
TABLE OF CONTENTS. OVERVIEW............................................................................................. 452..... TRANSITIONAL................. CARE...... SERVICES......................................................................
More informationThe Pain or the Gain?
The Pain or the Gain? Comprehensive Care Joint Replacement (CJR) Model DRG 469 (Major joint replacement with major complications) DRG 470 (Major joint without major complications or comorbidities) Actual
More informationCommunity Performance Report
: Wenatchee Current Year: Q1 217 through Q4 217 Qualis Health Communities for Safer Transitions of Care Performance Report : Wenatchee Includes Data Through: Q4 217 Report Created: May 3, 218 Purpose of
More informationUnitedHealthcare Medicare Readmission Review Program for Medicare Advantage Plans General Clinical Guidelines for Payment Review
UnitedHealthcare Medicare Readmission Review Program for Medicare Advantage Plans General Clinical Guidelines for Payment Review Introduction The UnitedHealthcare Medicare Readmission Review Program is
More informationReducing Readmissions: Potential Measurements
Reducing Readmissions: Potential Measurements Avoid Readmissions Through Collaboration October 27, 2010 Denise Remus, PhD, RN Chief Quality Officer BayCare Health System Overview Why Focus on Readmissions?
More informationHealth Management Policy
Health Management Policy Policy Number: 0101 Effective Date: 4/1/18 Policy Title: Circumvention of PPS/Readmission Review Applies To: Generations Advantage Purpose: The Martin s Point Health Care Medicare
More information10.0 Medicare Advantage Programs
10.0 Medicare Advantage Programs This section is intended for providers who participate in Medicare Advantage programs, including Medicare Blue PPO. In addition to every other provision of the Participating
More informationUsing Clinical Criteria for Evaluating Short Stays and Beyond. Georgeann Edford, RN, MBA, CCS-P. The Clinical Face of Medical Necessity
Using Clinical Criteria for Evaluating Short Stays and Beyond Georgeann Edford, RN, MBA, CCS-P The Clinical Face of Medical Necessity 1 The Documentation Faces of Medical Necessity ç3 Setting the Stage
More informationNew Models in Payment: Joint Replacements. Sharon Eloranta, MD February 18, 2016
New Models in Payment: Joint Replacements Sharon Eloranta, MD February 18, 2016 Qualis Health A leading national population health management organization The Medicare Quality Innovation Network - Quality
More informationManaged Care Referrals and Authorizations (Central Region Products)
In this section Page Overview of Referrals and Authorizations 10.1 Referrals 10.1! Referrals: SelectBlue only 10.1! Definition of referrals 10.1! Services not requiring a referral 10.1! Who can issue a
More informationMolina Healthcare Michigan Health Care Services Department Phone: (855) Fax: (800)
Utilization Management Program Molina Healthcare of Michigan s Utilization Management (UM) program utilizes a care management approach based upon empirically validated best practices, where experience
More informationSection 4 - Referrals and Authorizations: UM Department
Section 4 - Referrals and Authorizations: UM Department Primary Care Referral Process 1 Referrals to In-Network Specialists 1 Referrals to Out-Of-Network Specialists 2 Consultation Referral Forms 2 Consultation
More informationCMS Quality Program- Outcome Measures. Kathy Wonderly RN, MSEd, CPHQ Consultant Developed: December 2015 Revised: January 2018
CMS Quality Program- Outcome Measures Kathy Wonderly RN, MSEd, CPHQ Consultant Developed: December 2015 Revised: January 2018 Philosophy The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is changing
More informationQuestions and Answers on the CMS Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model
Questions and Answers on the CMS Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model MEGGAN BUSHEE, ESQ. 704.343.2360 mbushee@mcguirewoods.com 201 North Tryon Street, Suite 3000 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202-2146
More information2017 Quality Reporting: Claims and Administrative Data-Based Quality Measures For Medicare Shared Savings Program and Next Generation ACO Model ACOs
2017 Quality Reporting: Claims and Administrative Data-Based Quality Measures For Medicare Shared Savings Program and Next Generation ACO Model ACOs June 15, 2017 Rabia Khan, MPH, CMS Chris Beadles, MD,
More informationEMTALA. Federal Law and the Medical Staff. Shaheed Koury, MD, MBA, FACEP SVP & Chief Medical Officer Quorum Health
EMTALA Federal Law and the Medical Staff Shaheed Koury, MD, MBA, FACEP SVP & Chief Medical Officer Quorum Health Objectives Review EMTALA Law Clarify Key Terms Define Hospital and Physician Responsibilities
More informationDischarge Planning/ Transition of Care: What s Hot in the 20-teens CMSANJ - July 24, 2014
Discharge Planning/ Transition of Care: What s Hot in the 20-teens CMSANJ - July 24, 2014 Jackie Birmingham, RN, BSN, MS VP, Emerita, Clinical Leadership Curaspan Health Group jbirmingham@curaspan.com
More informationBenefit Criteria for Outpatient Observation Services to Change for Texas Medicaid
Benefit Criteria for Outpatient Observation Services to Change for Texas Medicaid Information posted on October 8, 2010 Effective for dates of service on or after December 1, 2010, the benefit criteria
More informationOutpatient Hospital Facilities
Outpatient Hospital Facilities Chapter 6 Chapter Outline Introduce students to 1. Different outpatient facilities 2. Different departments involved in the reimbursement process 3. The Chargemaster 4. Terminology
More informationTherapies (e.g., physical, occupational and speech) Medical social worker (MSW) 3328ALL0118-F 1
1. Q: Why is Humana implementing this utilization management (UM) program? A: Humana is implementing this program to help coordinate home health care for its Medicare Advantage members in Oklahoma and
More informationNational Provider Call: Hospital Value-Based Purchasing
National Provider Call: Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Fiscal Year 2015 Overview for Beneficiaries, Providers, and Stakeholders Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 1 March 14, 2013 Medicare Learning
More informationVANTAGE HEALTH PLAN FACILITY CREDENTIALING APPLICATION
VANTAGE HEALTH PLAN FACILITY CREDENTIALING APPLICATION GENERAL INFORMATION Primary Practice Facility Location The type of application being submitted: Please choose facility type (check all that apply):
More informationPlace of Service Code Description Conversion
Place of Conversion CMS Place of Code Place of Name The place of service field indicates where the services were performed Possible values include: Code Description Inpatient Outpatient Office Home 5 Independent
More informationMEDICARE ENROLLMENT, HEALTH STATUS, SERVICE USE AND PAYMENT DATA FOR AMERICAN INDIANS & ALASKA NATIVES
American Indian & Alaska Native Data Project of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Tribal Technical Advisory Group MEDICARE ENROLLMENT, HEALTH STATUS, SERVICE USE AND PAYMENT DATA FOR AMERICAN
More informationPATIENT STATUS DEFINITIONS, 2 MIDNIGHT RULE AND 96 HOUR RULE
PURPOSE It is the policy of Mason General Hospital and Family of Clinics (MGH&FC) that based on the Patient Status Definitions, all placements concerning the use of observation beds, or placements made
More informationDEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Discharge Planning
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ICN 908184 October 2014 This booklet was current at the time it was published or uploaded onto the web. Medicare policy
More informationDEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Discharge Planning
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ICN 908184 October 2013 This page intentionally left blank. This booklet was current at the time it was published or uploaded
More informationIntroduction to the BFCC-QIO Program
Introduction to the BFCC-QIO Program Bryan Fischer Communications Lead 11-SOW-MD-2017-QIOBFCC-CP2 About Livanta LLC Established in 2004 Privately-held, government contracting firm headquartered in Annapolis
More informationUTILIZATION MANAGEMENT Section 4. Overview The Plan s Utilization Management (UM)
Overview The Plan s Utilization Management (UM) Program is designed to meet contractual requirements and comply with federal regulations while providing members access to high quality, cost effective medically
More informationPrecertification: Overview
Precertification: Overview Introduction Precertification determines whether medical services are: Medically Necessary or Experimental/Investigational Provided in the appropriate setting or at the appropriate
More informationMedicare Noncoverage Notices
March 2014 This job aid is intended to assist home health and hospice clinicians in: Understanding and complying with regulations for issuing required Medicare notices at the time of termination and change
More informationPolicy Number: Title: Abstract Purpose: Policy Detail:
- 1 Policy Number: N03402 Title: NHIC-Grievance Resolution Policy and Procedure for Medicare Advantage Plans Abstract Purpose: To define the Network Health Insurance Corporation s grievance process for
More informationCAH PREPARATION ON-SITE VISIT
CAH PREPARATION ON-SITE VISIT Illinois Department of Public Health, Center for Rural Health This day is yours and can be flexible to the timetable of hospital staff. An additional visit can also be arranged
More informationPerformance Scorecard 2013
NORTHWESTERN LAKE FOREST HOSPITAL Performance Scorecard 2013 updated May 2013 Northwestern Lake Forest Hospital is committed to providing the communities we serve the highest quality health care through
More informationBlue Choice PPO SM Provider Manual - Preauthorization
In this Section Blue Choice PPO SM Provider Manual - The following topics are covered in this section. Topic Page Overview E 3 What Requires E 3 evicore Program E 3 Responsibility for E 3 When to Preauthorize
More informationReview Process. Introduction. InterQual Level of Care Criteria Long-Term Acute Care Criteria
InterQual Level of Care Criteria Long-Term Acute Care Criteria Review Process Introduction InterQual Level of Care Criteria support determining the appropriateness of Long-Term Acute Care (LTAC) admission,
More informationMedicare Part A Update
Medicare Part A Update Jennifer Bogenrief, JD Manager, Regulatory Affairs AOTA AOTA Specialty Conference: Effective Documentation Friday, September 12, 2014 1 Topics Medicare Therapy Documentation Requirements
More informationQuality Reporting in the Public Domain
Quality Reporting in the Public Domain Disclaimer This material is designed and provided to communicate information about inpatient coding, clinical documentation, and/or compliance in an educational format
More informationHOSPITAL PATIENT SAFETY INITIATIVE (PSI)
HOSPITAL PATIENT SAFETY INITIATIVE (PSI) DRAFT RISK EVALUATION TOOL Discharge Planning Name of State Agency: Instructions: The following is a list of items that must be assessed during the on-site survey,
More informationMore than a Century of Legal Experience
Advanced Beneficiary Notice (ABN) and Hospital Issued Notice of Non Coverage(HINN): To Issue, or Not to Issue an ABN or HINN July 30, 2013 Presented by: Jennifer McManis More than a Century of Legal Experience
More informationUtilizing a Pharmacist and Outpatient Pharmacy in Transitions of Care to Reduce Readmission Rates. Disclosures. Learning Objectives
Utilizing a Pharmacist and Outpatient Pharmacy in Transitions of Care to Reduce Readmission Rates. Disclosures Rupal Mansukhani declares grant support from the Foundation for. Rupal Mansukhani, Pharm.D.
More informationMEDICAL POLICY No R2 TELEMEDICINE
Summary of Changes Clarifications: Page 1, Section I. A 6, additional language added for clarification. Deletions: Additions Page 4, Section IV, Description, additional language added in regards to telemedicine.
More informationKEPRO Beneficiary and Family Centered Care Quality Improvement Organization. Andrea Plaskett, MPH
KEPRO Beneficiary and Family Centered Care Quality Improvement Organization Andrea Plaskett, MPH 1 KEPRO KEPRO is a federal contractor for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) KEPRO is the
More informationAugust 1, 2012 (202) CMS makes changes to improve quality of care during hospital inpatient stays
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Room 352-G 200 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20201 FACT SHEET FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: CMS Media Relations
More informationMolina Healthcare MyCare Ohio Prior Authorizations
Molina Healthcare MyCare Ohio Prior Authorizations Agenda Eligibility Medicare Passive Enrollment Transition of Care Definition Submission Time Frame Standard vs. Urgent How to Submit a Prior Authorization
More informationReferrals, Prior Authorizations, Medical Management, and Appeals
Referrals, Prior Authorizations, Medical Management, and Appeals 1 An Independent Licensee of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association 044506 (12-21-2017) 2017 Premera. Proprietary and Confidential. Referrals
More informationMedical Management Program
Medical Management Program Introduction Molina Healthcare maintains a medical management program to ensure patient safety as well as detect and prevent Fraud, Waste and Abuse in its programs. The Molina
More informationOASIS ITEM ITEM INTENT
(M2400) Intervention Synopsis: (Check only one box in each row.) At the time of or at any time since the previous OASIS assessment, were the following interventions BOTH included in the physician-ordered
More informationMedicare P4P -- Medicare Quality Reporting, Incentive and Penalty Programs
Medicare P4P -- Medicare Quality Reporting, Incentive and Penalty Programs Presenter: Daniel J. Hettich King & Spalding; Washington, DC dhettich@kslaw.com 1 I. Introduction Evolution of Medicare as a Purchaser
More informationQuality Based Impacts to Medicare Inpatient Payments
Quality Based Impacts to Medicare Inpatient Payments Overview New Developments in Quality Based Reimbursement Recap of programs Hospital acquired conditions Readmission reduction program Value based purchasing
More informationA23/B23: Patient Harm in US Hospitals: How Much? Objectives
A23/B23: Patient Harm in US Hospitals: How Much? 23rd Annual National Forum on Quality Improvement in Health Care December 6, 2011 Objectives Summarize the findings of three recent studies measuring adverse
More informationPublic Policy HCA Public Policy No
Public Policy HCA Public Policy No.2-2014 TO: FROM: RE: HCA CHHA & LTHHCP PROVIDER MEMBERS PATRICK CONOLE, VICE PRESIDENT, FINANCE & MANAGEMENT UPDATES FROM NGS HOME HEALTH ADVISORY MEETING DATE: MARCH
More informationAppeals and Grievances
Appeals and Grievances Community HealthFirst MA Special Needs Plan (HMO SNP) Community HealthFirst MA Plan (HMO) Community HealthFirst Medicare MA Pharmacy Plan (HMO) Community HealthFirst MA Extra Plan
More informationKDHE-DHCF: Kansas Department of Health and Environment - Division of Health Care Finance. UM Retrospective Review Services.
KDHE-DHCF: Kansas Department of Health and Environment - Division of Health Care Finance UM Retrospective Review Services Provider Manual August 2017 This page intentionally blank Table of Contents KDHE-DHCF:
More informationTopics. Overview of the Medicare Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) Understanding Medicaid Integrity Contractor
RACS, ZPICS & MICS John Falcetano, CHC-F, CCEP-F, CHPC, CHRC, CIA Chief Audit and Compliance Officer University Health Systems of Eastern Carolina jfalceta@uhseast.com Topics Overview of the Medicare Recovery
More informationPayment Methodology. Acute Care Hospital - Inpatient Services
Grid Medi-Pak Advantage generally reimburses deemed providers the amount they would have received under Original Medicare for Medicare covered services, minus any amounts paid directly by Original Medicare
More informationDEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES
State of West Virginia DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES Office of Inspector General Board of Review 2699 Park Avenue, Suite 100 Huntington, WV 25704 Earl Ray Tomblin Michael J. Lewis, M.D., Ph.
More informationExpedited Determinations. Cheryl Cook, RN Program Director
Expedited Determinations Cheryl Cook, RN Program Director 1 BFCC-QIO On August 1, 2014, KEPRO became the Beneficiary and Family Centered Care Quality Improvement Organization (BFCC-QIO) for the Centers
More informationCMS Proposed Rule. The IMPACT Act. 3 Overhaul Discharge Planning Processes to Comply With New CoPs. Arlene Maxim VP of Program Development, QIRT
Overhaul Discharge Planning Processes to Comply With New CoPs Arlene Maxim VP of Program Development, QIRT 1 CMS Proposed Rule Included discharge planning specifics However, when the CoPs were finalized,
More informationHOW TO GET SPECIALTY CARE AND REFERRALS
THE BELOW SECTIONS OF YOUR MEMBER HANDBOOK HAVE BEEN REVISED TO READ AS FOLLOWS HOW TO GET SPECIALTY CARE AND REFERRALS If you need care that your PCP cannot give, he or she will refer you to a specialist
More informationUsing Clinical Criteria for Evaluating Short Stays and Beyond
Using Clinical Criteria for Evaluating Short Stays and Beyond Georgeann Edford I. History A. Social Security Act Medical Necessity and Utilization Review 1. Items or services necessary for the diagnosis
More informationEffective Use of Existing Licensed Healthcare Infrastructure During a Crisis or Catastrophe
Effective Use of Existing Licensed Healthcare Infrastructure During a Crisis or Catastrophe Kathy McCanna, Program Manager-Office of Medical Facilities Connie Belden, Team Leader-Office of Medical Facilities
More informationRegulatory Advisor Volume Eight
Regulatory Advisor Volume Eight 2018 Final Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) Rule Focused on Quality by Steve Kowske WEALTH ADVISORY OUTSOURCING AUDIT, TAX, AND CONSULTING 2017 CliftonLarsonAllen
More informationReviewing Short Stay Hospital Claims for Patient Status: Admissions On or After October 1, 2015 (Last Updated: 11/09/2015)
7 Reviewing Short Stay Hospital Claims for Patient Status: Admissions On or After October 1, 2015 (Last Updated: 11/09/2015) Medical Review of Inpatient Hospital Claims Starting on October 1, 2015, the
More informationCritical Access Hospital Quality Improvement Activities and Reporting on Quality Measures: Results of the 2007 National CAH Survey
Flex Monitoring Team Briefing Paper No.18 Critical Access Hospital Quality Improvement Activities and Reporting on Quality Measures: Results of the 2007 National CAH Survey March 2008 The Flex Monitoring
More informationHOSPITAL QUALITY MEASURES. Overview of QM s
HOSPITAL QUALITY MEASURES Overview of QM s QUALITY MEASURES FOR HOSPITALS The overall rating defined by Hospital Compare summarizes up to 57 quality measures reflecting common conditions that hospitals
More informationFY 2014 Inpatient Prospective Payment System Proposed Rule
FY 2014 Inpatient Prospective Payment System Proposed Rule Summary of Provisions Potentially Impacting EPs On April 26, 2013, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released its Fiscal Year
More informationLearning Objectives. The EMTALA Framework. EMTALA Update: Challenges in Community and Specialty Hospitals. Originally known as Anti-Dumping Law
EMTALA Update: Challenges in Community and Specialty Hospitals Presented by Jan Corcoran, RN, BS, CEN Divisional Director of Clinical Services Learning Objectives 1) Describe the definition and history
More informationSection 7. Medical Management Program
Section 7. Medical Management Program Introduction Molina Healthcare maintains a medical management program to ensure patient safety as well as detect and prevent fraud, waste and abuse in its programs.
More informationLeadingAge Michigan SNF Regulatory Day. State Licensure & Federal Certification Update
LeadingAge Michigan SNF Regulatory Day State Licensure & Federal Certification Update Bureau of Community & Health Systems (BCHS) Larry Horvath, Director Regulatory Oversight Bureau of Community & Health
More informationPatient Identifiers: Facial Recognition Patient Address DOB (month/day year) / / UHHC. Month Day Year / / Month Day Year
Transfer (M0010) CMS Certification Number: 367549 (M0014) Branch State: OH (M0016) Branch ID Number: N/A Patient Identifiers: Facial Recognition Patient Address DOB (month/day year) / / UHHC (M0020) Patient
More informationUnderstanding Hospital Value-Based Purchasing
VBP Understanding Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Updated 12/2017 Starting in October 2012, Medicare began rewarding hospitals that provide high-quality care for their patients through the new Hospital
More informationMBQIP Quality Measure Trends, Data Summary Report #20 November 2016
MBQIP Quality Measure Trends, 2011-2016 Data Summary Report #20 November 2016 Tami Swenson, PhD Michelle Casey, MS University of Minnesota Rural Health Research Center ABOUT This project was supported
More informationNational Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting Measures Specifications Manual
National Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting Measures Specifications Manual Release Notes Version: 4.4a Release Notes Completed: October 21, 2014 Guidelines for Using Release Notes Release Notes 4.4a
More informationHealthStream Regulatory Script
HealthStream Regulatory Script [EMTALA] Version: [May 2005] Lesson 1: Introduction Lesson 2: History and Enforcement Lesson 3: Medical Screening Lesson 4: Stabilizing Care Lesson 5: Appropriate Transfer
More informationCurrent Status: Active PolicyStat ID: Effective: 08/2001 Approved: 12/2016 Last Revised: 12/2016 Expiration: 12/2019
Current Status: Active PolicyStat ID: 3023748 Effective: 08/2001 Approved: 12/2016 Last Revised: 12/2016 Expiration: 12/2019 Owner: Department: References: DeAnna Read: Dir. Case Management Case Management
More informationCMS -1599F. The 2 Midnight Rule Effective October 1, 2013
Joseph Nitti, M.D. Medical Director/Physician Advisor Continuum of Care Dept. Morristown Medical Center 973-971-4004 CMS -1599F The 2 Midnight Rule Effective October 1, 2013 Determination of Inpatient
More informationNational Patient Safety Goals & Quality Measures CY 2017
National Patient Safety Goals & Quality Measures CY 2017 General Clinical Orientation 2017 January National Patient Safety Goals 1. Identify Patients Correctly 2. Improve Staff Communication 3. Use Medications
More informationClinical Documentation: Beyond The Financials Cheryll A. Rogers, RHIA, CDIP, CCDS, CCS Senior Inpatient Consultant 3M HIS Consulting Services
Clinical Documentation: Beyond The Financials Cheryll A. Rogers, RHIA, CDIP, CCDS, CCS Senior Inpatient Consultant 3M HIS Consulting Services Clinical Documentation: Beyond The Financials Key Points of
More informationProvider Manual. Utilization Management Care Management
Provider Manual Utilization Management Care Management Utilization Management This section of the Manual was created to help guide you and your staff in working with Kaiser Permanente s Resource Stewardship
More informationCMS Observation vs. Inpatient Admission Big Impacts of January Changes
CMS Observation vs. Inpatient Admission Big Impacts of January Changes Linda Corley, BS, MBA, CPC Vice President Compliance and Quality Assurance 706 577-2256 Cellular 800 882-1325 Ext. 2028 Office Agenda
More informationMedi-Pak Advantage: Reimbursement Methodology
Medi-Pak Advantage: Reimbursement Methodology The information located on the following pages is intended to summarize the reimbursement methodologies for Medi-Pak Advantage: Medi-Pak Advantage reimburses
More informationChapter 2 Provider Responsibilities Unit 6: Behavioral Health Care Specialists
Chapter 2 Provider Responsibilities Unit 6: Health Care Specialists In This Unit Unit 6: Health Care Specialists General Information 2 Highmark s Health Programs 4 Accessibility Standards For Health Providers
More informationUnderstanding Patient Choice Insights Patient Choice Insights Network
Quality health plans & benefits Healthier living Financial well-being Intelligent solutions Understanding Patient Choice Insights Patient Choice Insights Network SM www.aetna.com Helping consumers gain
More informationNorth Carolina Ambulatory Surgery Visit Data - Data Dictionary FY2011 Alphabetic List of Variables and Attributes Standard Research File
North Carolina Ambulatory Surgery Visit Data - Data Dictionary FY2011 Alphabetic List of Variables and Attributes Standard Research File One of these three variables must be suppressed (Diag1, fac, ptzip)
More informationINFORMATION ABOUT YOUR OXFORD COVERAGE REIMBURSEMENT PART I OXFORD HEALTH PLANS OXFORD HEALTH PLANS (NJ), INC.
OXFORD HEALTH PLANS (NJ), INC. INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR OXFORD COVERAGE PART I REIMBURSEMENT Overview of Provider Reimbursement Methodologies Generally, Oxford pays Network Providers on a fee-for-service
More informationCatherine Porto, MPA, RHIA, CHP Executive Director HIM. Madelyn Horn Noble 3M HIM Data Analyst
1 Catherine Porto, MPA, RHIA, CHP Executive Director HIM Madelyn Horn Noble 3M HIM Data Analyst University of New Mexico Hospitals» The state s only academic medical center» The primary teaching hospital
More information