Latest News

Best practices for approaching payer audits

Posted by on Nov 3, 2016 in Latest News | Comments Off on Best practices for approaching payer audits

Best practices for approaching payer audits

As we continue to see an increasing number of payer audits in the pathology world, we wanted to take the time to walk you through some best practices and helpful tips for navigating these audits and protecting your revenue. It’s important to note that these audits will not be limited strictly to Medicare. Many managed care organizations have identified this as potential cost savings and now have their own internal audit teams or have hired third party auditors to validate your charges. Sometimes, these requests may not be directly addressed as an audit and may instead come in another form. It is imperative that you or your biller are on the lookout for these types of communication (or denials). Some auditors are finding 100% error rates – and may go back years to reprocess and take back payments already made to you. You must be vigilant in understanding your contract and the payer’s limitations on takebacks. We’ve seen clients successfully win money back because, under their contract, the payer could only recoup back “x” number of months or years. Unfortunately, many billers are still appealing these incorrectly because they are not communicating these denials and getting the coding department or doctors involved to write these appeals! Several of our groups that bill stains are having issues with limitations of units, medical necessity denials and back end audits.  The billers are often not staffed well enough to have a successful appeal process, which many of these carriers are banking on to begin with! These payers are looking for signed requisitions for IHC/special stains/molecular orders and/or documentation of medical necessity. Action steps for appeals: Include in the pathology report the trigger words:  “ X was ordered because…”. The auditors are most likely not pathologists, they usually just look for trigger words. When an audit request is received, it’s not enough to just send the final reports. Also, include an additional signed attestation by the pathologists that they ordered such and such stains/flow/ihc/molecular. Include a copy of relevant medical chart notes that makes it clear why the pathology specimen was ordered in the first place, i.e. surgeon’s note saying a colectomy was indicated due to presence of cancer or obstruction....

read more

Navigating MUEs

Posted by on Nov 3, 2016 in Latest News | Comments Off on Navigating MUEs

As with most CMS initiatives, it can be difficult to keep pace with the constantly evolving list of medically unlikely edits, especially when considering CMS and other carriers reserve the right to maintain a list of unpublished MUEs that providers and their billers likely won’t know about until they receive a denial. We were first gifted with these edits when CMS implemented an unpublished MUE list in 2007 with hopes of reducing the error rate of paid claims. Fortunately, the agency decided to begin publicly publishing most MUEs in October 2008, and now updates the list quarterly. In an attempt to highlight the constantly evolving nature of MUEs, we’ve identified changes to the maximum number of allowed units for some of the most popular pathology codes that occurred between the list published by CMS in July 2015 and the most recent one released in October 2016. It’s worth reiterating that CMS and other carriers reserve the right to create unpublished MUEs, which means CMS’s published list is really more of a national guideline than a hard and fast rule. However, an MUEs existence doesn’t prevent you from appealing to potentially receive full payment for all services provided. We work closely with our clients and their billers to make sure billers are appealing MUE denials and that our clients are getting paid on those appeals. But just because a denial is appealed doesn’t necessarily mean you’re going to get paid, especially if the physician’s documentation does not clearly substantiate the necessity of the number of units performed. We have encountered some billers who just want to just slap on a 59 modifier to override the edit, but we’re finding more and more that these MUE edits are often not overridden with a 59 edit. You must support those numbers with sufficient documentation if they exceed the limit. We’ve also seen billers who change the number of units to get around an MUE. Their argument is that the carrier will deny 100 percent of the charges otherwise, so they attempt to get paid on the maximum number of allowed units rather than none. That’s a major red flag in terms of compliance that could create headaches down the road later if you’re audited. While we know many billers don’t want to dedicate the time and resources necessary for an appeal, they need to understand they must bill only what was performed. And if the carrier denies it, they have to go through the appeal process. It’s best to get a handle on that process now if you haven’t already so that you’re not left scrambling down the...

read more

Want to avoid Medicare penalties under MACRA?

Posted by on Nov 3, 2016 in Latest News | Comments Off on Want to avoid Medicare penalties under MACRA?

Want to avoid Medicare penalties under MACRA?

Sure you do. And we can help. Unless you’ve been living under a rock (or avoiding revenue issues like the plague) chances are you’ve heard the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released the Medicare CHIP and Reauthorization Act (MACRA) Final Rule upon the masses in mid-October. But what does that really mean in terms of how your practice’s Medicare Part B revenue stands to be impacted? We’ve covered seemingly every aspect of MACRA and the Merit-based Incentive Payment System since its passage in 2015 and numerous iterations along the way. And we’ve broken down the system’s various components at length, including taking looks at the varying reporting obligations specialty clinicians face as opposed to their primary care counterparts. This paper, conversely, is intended to provide a brief overview of the action steps most pathologists can take to avoid a penalty to their 2019 Medicare reimbursements based on their MIPS performance next year. MORE: Read our breakdown of the major changes put forth in the final rule. Understand that this won’t answer all your questions if you’re just jumping into the game. But rest assured, we’ve done the research and have answers to nearly any scenario you can think of. Give us a call at 517-486-4262 or email amitchell@vachettepathology.com and we’ll be happy to look into your unique situation. Is there a way I can avoid MIPS? Do you or your group receive less than $30,000 in Medicare Part B payments and see fewer than 100 Medicare patients each year? Are you participating in an Advanced Alternative Payment Model (APM)? Are you a first time Medicare enrollee? Unless you answered “yes” to any of these questions, then you’re most likely stuck going along for the ride. What qualifies an APM as “advanced”? CMS has identified a handful of APMs that use certified EHR technology, feature payments tied to quality metrics similar to those measured by MIPS and require participants to bear some financial risk for reimbursement. In order to avoid MIPS reporting, a clinicians must receive at least 25 percent of their Medicare Part B payments through an advanced APM or see at least 20 percent of their Medicare patients through the model. Those who meet this requirement during the 2017 performance year will automatically receive a 5 percent lump sum incentive payment in 2019. Eventually, participants under this track will also receive a higher annual fee schedule increase. Below is a list of APMs that will qualify for the 2017 performance year: Track 2 and Track 3 Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) accountable care organizations (ACOs) Pioneer ACOs NextGen ACOs Oncology Care Model two-sided risk arrangements Comprehensive Primary Care Plus Comprehensive ESRD Care What if I participate in an APM that’s not on this list? If you participate in an APM that’s not on the advanced list, or if you don’t receive enough Medicare payments through the model to meet the participant threshold (noted above), you will be required to report under MIPS, but will likely have a reduced reporting burden. Also, CMS expects to add more APMs to the advanced list each year, so there’s a good chance your model might receive the designation in future years. We’ll be happy to let you know what your requirements for 2017 are if you feel this situation applies to...

read more

MACRA Final Rule should ease providers’ fears for now

Posted by on Oct 17, 2016 in Latest News | Comments Off on MACRA Final Rule should ease providers’ fears for now

MACRA Final Rule should ease providers’ fears for now

By: Alex Mitchell, Practice Value and News Coordinator At long last, the Medicare CHIP and Reauthorization Act (MACRA) Final Rule has been released upon us, and lo and behold, the sky has not fallen. Our initial analysis shows that all the hand-wringing and apocalyptic proclamations were a bit overstated given that we now know providers who are currently engaged in some form of quality reporting will be able to easily avoid penalties to their Medicare reimbursements for the foreseeable future without being burdened with new reporting requirements. Quick Hits: The “Cost” category of the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) will not have an impact on a clinician’s MIPS score for the 2017 performance year. Pathways offering clinicians the opportunity to avoid Medicare penalties altogether in 2019 by reporting limited or full data sets during an abbreviated window in 2017 were finalized. The low-volume threshold at which clinicians are required to participate under MACRA was raised from $10,000 in annual Part B payments to $30,000 or 100 Medicare patients. More alternative payment models (APMs) are being reviewed by CMS in hopes of expanding the pool of “advanced” APMs that exempt clinicians from MIPS reporting. Perhaps the most important change CMS announced was its decision to finalize a proposal to offer multiple pathways that will allow providers to choose their own reporting pace and level of participation during the 2017 reporting year. Other changes from the proposed rule include the elimination of the “cost” category for the 2017 reporting year, the establishment of a higher threshold for low-volume providers to qualify for participation, and an expansion of what qualifies as an “advanced” alternative payment model under MACRA. Let’s breakdown the major changes: 2017 “Transitional” Year: Before we dig into the minutiae of the change put forth in the final rule, providers should be sure they fully understand just how low CMS has set the bar for satisfactory participation during MACRA’s inaugural year. Clinicians who will be fulfilling their MACRA requirements by participating in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System will only need to report one quality measurement, one practice improvement activity or fulfill the requirements of the Advancing Care Information category in order to completely avoid a negative adjustment of up to 4 percent of their Medicare Part B reimbursements in 2019. This massive change from the proposed rule that was released in April partially came about as a result of the thousands of comments CMS received, many of which pointed out that a significant portion of MIPS-eligible providers wouldn’t be ready to fully participate next year. That being said, the minimal reporting requirement should only be considered by providers who have been ignoring the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), Value-Based Modifier (VBM) and Electronic Hospital Record Meaningful Use (EHR MU) reporting to this point. CMS appears to have offered this route as a concession for these latecomers in hopes that they’ll become full participants in later years. The vast majority of providers who have already been engaged in some form of quality or cost reporting should instead consider either reporting during a reduced 90-day window in order to be eligible for a small Medicare boost in 2019, or attempt to report for the full 2017 calendar year in hopes of receiving a full 4 percent bonus (and possibly more if they...

read more

How pathologists can survive MIPS in 2017

Posted by on Sep 19, 2016 in Latest News | Comments Off on How pathologists can survive MIPS in 2017

How pathologists can survive MIPS in 2017

Is your practice still scrambling to get a handle on the ins and outs of the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System before it goes into effect Jan. 1? Well, take solace in knowing you’re not alone. In its current iteration, the proposed MIPS rule laid as part of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) was, simply put, not designed with pathology in mind. Under MACRA, physicians have the option to avoid MIPS participation by participating in various alternative payment models that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services deems to be “advanced.” The bad news: Very few APMs currently qualify for participation and CMS won’t start accepting proposals for specialty-focused Physician-focused Payment Models (PFPM) until early 2017. This means eligible pathologists will be forced to at least partially participate in MIPS during the 2017 performance year, or risk facing future penalties to their Medicare reimbursements. Fortunately, the good folks at the College of American Pathologists are working to develop a pathology-focused alternative payment model that they hope will receive approval next year from CMS. Vachette has stayed on top of MIPS news throughout its development and has spent considerable time researching what the payment system will mean for pathologists, both in the short- and long-term. Here’s a breakdown of what you need to know: Performance Categories By now, you’ve likely read or heard at least some information on the four categories that will be measured to compile your total MIPS score. But here’s what you may not know: Pathologists will likely only be scored in two of the four categories, and possibly only one if you’re an independent lab. For a quick refresher, let’s run through the categories briefly and note how each ties to an existing quality measurement program.   Quality: At 50 percent of your total MIPS score, this category is the most heavily weighted among the four. It will act as the successor to the Physician Quality Reporting System, which is currently in its final performance year (PQRS penalties, meanwhile, will be levied through 2018). At the behest of CAP, CMS has stated it will allow pathologists use CAP’s eight quality reporting measures for 2017, however, there is no guarantee that will be the case in subsequent years. Those quality reporting categories include: Breast Cancer Resection Pathology Reporting Colorectal Cancer Resection Pathology Reporting Barrett’s Esophagus Pathology Reporting Radical Prostatectomy Pathology Reporting Evaluation of HER2 for Breast Cancer Patients Lung Cancer Reporting (biopsy/cytology specimens) Lung Cancer Reporting (resection specimens) Melanoma Reporting *IMPORTANT NOTE FOR INDEPENDENT LABS: The proposed rule appears to exclude independent labs from reporting quality metrics, however, CAP is still seeking clarification from CMS at this time. Under the proposed rule, eligible clinicians (EC) or groups that are exempt from a reporting category will have that category’s weight redistributed to the remaining categories. Resource Use: Weighted at 10 percent of an EC’s total MIPS score, resource use will replace the value-based payment modifier. As with VBM, pathologists will not face reporting requirements for resource use, since CMS calculates the category based on claims. Again, this category will be reweighted to zero and redistributed to remaining reporting categories. Advancing Care Information: This replacement for the existing EHR Meaningful Use program is slated to be worth 25 percent of an EC’s total MIPS score. But, (stop...

read more

PAMA Final Rule: What to know and who it affects

Posted by on Sep 18, 2016 in Latest News | Comments Off on PAMA Final Rule: What to know and who it affects

PAMA Final Rule: What to know and who it affects

In July, CMS finally released the long awaited final ruling for the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA), which implements largescale change to the process of establishing rates under Medicare’s fee schedule for clinical labs. The rule came nine months after CMS first released its proposed PAMA ruling. Expect repricing under the rule to potentially have a significant impact on your revenue given that CMS has estimated Medicare Part B payments for clinical diagnostic lab tests will be lowered by $390 million during the 2018 fiscal year (and by a total of $3.9 billion during the subsequent 10 years). Some quick highlights: New reimbursement rates won’t take effect until Jan. 1, 2018 as opposed to Jan. 1, 2017 as initially proposed. The data collection period was reduced from one year to six months. Additionally, dates for data collection and submission were also amended. Labs do not need to report if they receive $12,500 or less in Medicare Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (MCLFS) revenue during the data collection period, down from the $50,000 reporting threshold put forth in the proposed rule. Advanced diagnostic lab tests (ADLTs) have been expanded to include protein-only tests. Additionally, the requirement calling for ADLTs to be performed at a single-lab facility has been removed. The definition of “applicable labs” will be based on a lab’s national provider identifier (NPI) rather than its taxpayer identification number (TNI). The change means some hospital outreach labs should now also have reporting obligations. Under PAMA, CMS will be required to update the MCLFS through rates paid by private payers for lab tests reported by “applicable laboratories.” The rates will be established by determining the weighted median of the reported rates, although the rate a test can be decreased each year will be limited. Since data collection for CDLTs is already underway, labs that stand to be affected by PAMA should be sure to have systems installed for collecting the required data, which they will be required to report to CMS during the first quarter of 2017. This means that labs that stand to be affected should already have a data-collection system in place in order to comply with the reporting requirement. Affected Laboratories In the final rule, CMS defines an applicable lab as one that bills Medicare Part B under its own NPI and collects more than 50 percent of its Medicare revenue during the data collection period under the MCLFS or Medicare Physician Fee Schedule and receives at least $12,500 in MCLFS revenue during the data collection period. The change came as a result of concerns that defining applicable labs based on TINs would exclude hospital outreach labs from reporting obligations and could in turn skew pricing due to the significant amount of Medicare Part B testing performed by those labs. The fear being that this would lead to lower reimbursement rates across the board. Despite this change, labs will still be technically report to CMS through their TIN. This means each unique corporate entity with its own TIN that operates a facility that meets the definition of an applicable lab must consolidate reports of its eligible labs into a single aggregated report. Timeline While the proposed rule called for the first data collection period to last for six months and for future collection periods to...

read more

Collection agency’s blunder leaves $565K in limbo

Posted by on Sep 7, 2016 in Latest News | Comments Off on Collection agency’s blunder leaves $565K in limbo

Collection agency’s blunder leaves $565K in limbo

A Midwestern pathology group we assist was recently being pushed by its third-party collection agency to pursue legal action for a number of unpaid accounts. Because of this discussion, we began receiving reports from the collection agency that were supposed to show the accounts the agency received each month from the group’s biller. However, as soon as we saw the account volume in the report, we knew something was off. A collection agency’s “error” led to them losing track of more than 3,400 worth roughly $565,000 during an eighth month period in 2016. The agency originally claimed they had not received these accounts until being confronted with proof that they indeed had. Since the pathology group’s biller was no longer responsible for the accounts once they were sent to collections, it’s clear there was very little oversight of the collection agency’s process. Although the report showed that only 114 accounts totaling about $15,000 had been sent over for collections from January to July of 2016, we knew that couldn’t be correct given that the agency had received 5,023 accounts from the group’s biller in 2015. When pressed, the collection agency said it hadn’t questioned the dramatic drop off in the volume of accounts they were receiving and instead blamed the biller by claiming they had loaded all accounts they were given. To debunk the collector’s claim, we worked with the group’s biller and their IT department to determine that during a three-month span from April to June of 2016, a total of 1,193 accounts were sent to the collection agency. Since the biller puts the accounts on a server that the collection agency must log into to download from, they were able to confirm through login records that the agency did in fact receive all the reports in question. When confronted with proof, the collection agency claimed the thousands of missing accounts were a result of an “error” on their end. They’ve since sent us and the pathology group a new report that shows they’ve received more than 3,500 accounts worth a total of $580,000 so far in 2016. Just a minor difference of more than 3,400 accounts and $565,000 from what they had originally reported. Needless to say, our group is now in the process of changing collection agencies. Who’s watching your revenue like this? Your biller won’t, since they write these accounts off (rightly so) as bad debt once they’re sent to collection. Even if your receiving reports from your collection agency, as our group was, it can be difficult to decipher them to determine if they’re working your accounts properly. That’s what we pride ourselves in at Vachette Pathology and Stark Medical Auditing: Finding the dollars that are slipping between the cracks! Give us a call today at 517-486-4262 if you’d like to talk with one of our team members about how our quarterly audits can help pad your...

read more

Mr. Raich goes to Medicare

Posted by on Aug 25, 2016 in Latest News | Comments Off on Mr. Raich goes to Medicare

Mr. Raich goes to Medicare

Recently, I traveled to Baltimore to visit the Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.  This gave me a little insight into how things are playing out. During my 30 years in health care I have heard the word “change” many times. Now the current buzz words are “value versus volume” and “bundled payments”, phrases that are causing the latest round of mergers and acquisitions (M&A).  Instead of hospitals buying physician groups, it seems whole hospitals and health systems are merging. These changes are very evident in the CMS Department of Performance-Based Payment Policy Group the Division of Shared Saving Program the Division of Value-Based Payment. During my visit I learned CMS is a very busy place with more than 3,000 employees in one office building. They have others too, including many departments that all are trying very hard to move the quality of health care forward.  It is also a very large organization with tentacles in many different areas. My visit provided some great insight into what is happening in the bundled payment world.  For example, if you go to innovation.cms.gov, you’ll find the 75 different innovation models either in use or being proposed for use at this time.  The most interesting seems to be the Bundled Payment for Care Improvement Initiative, which allows you to see each bundle payment model that is currently being used.  It was interesting to note the current Oncology Care Model has 195 practices and is an Episode-Based Payment Initiative which looks at the patient’s age, gender and comorbidity, and pays a bonus to those practices that keep patients out of the emergency room and hospital.  This model took effect in July of 2016 and will be closely watched as a template for other models. What bundles will come next? The best guess would be to look for high frequency procedures with relative standardized episodes of care. For example, some Blue Cross Blue Shield plans are bundling endoscopies into a single payment by ambulatory care center. What’s in the crystal ball of health care changes for the next ten years?  My read is that there will be continued consolidation of health care until there are approximately 200 healthcare systems nationwide.  These systems would control utilization and quality in their region (remember, many of the new payment models are based on “regional” quality of care).  These regional players would then diffuse their government payments downward to their own providers. This model seems to fit the current financial situation.  Now no one at CMS will confirm this model and frankly they will be downstream of this change anyways. Bottom line from my visit:  We will have more bundled payments, we will have regional healthcare measurements and metrics and healthcare will continue to consolidate.  Until November at least, at which point all bets are off. But remember, The Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services provide services for 100 million lives.  Medicare is the biggest insurance plan in the nation, so it’s no wonder politicians look at it and say, “Why not have Medicare for...

read more

Several pathology codes could see significant cuts under proposed Medicare fee schedule

Posted by on Jul 26, 2016 in Latest News | Comments Off on Several pathology codes could see significant cuts under proposed Medicare fee schedule

Several pathology codes could see significant cuts under proposed Medicare fee schedule

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has proposed rate cuts for a large number of TC pathology codes in its proposal for the agency’s 2017 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, a move the agency has justified primarily as a reflection of the reduced cost of supplies for these procedures. The most significant proposed cuts would affect TC rates for 17 codes, with the most notable being a 15 percent reduction for 88305-TC ($29.34) that CMS has attributed to the decreased cost of utilizing eosin stain supplies rather than eosin solution. The other codes negatively affected by this adjustment include 88302, 88304, 88307, 88309, 88323, 88325, 88364, 88365, 88366, 88367, 88368, 88369, 88373, 88374, 88377 and G0416. The only other major reduction is a 19 percent drop for 88184, 88185 and 88189, which pertain to flow cytometry. Fortunately, the rates for professional components will remain largely unchanged. Although there were very few rate hikes proposed, there were at least some notable concessions made. The most significant hike would boost global reimbursement for 88361 by 4 percent ($155.98), while also upping the code’s technical component by 7 percent ($94.80) and its professional portion by 1 percent ($61.18). Additionally, the professional portion of the G0416 prostate biopsy would see a 17 percent boost ($184.96) Check out the chart below for a breakdown of the major proposed changes for several key pathology codes. Keep in mind that the conversion factor for 2016 is 35.8043, while the proposed factor for 2017 is 35.7751. Comparing these rate adjustments against your lab’s current volume will be essential in determining how your revenue stands to be impacted, assuming the proposed rates remain relatively static in the finalized Medicare fee schedule that is expected to be released in October. CMS is accepting public comment on its proposed fee schedule through Sept. 6. The new rates will then go into effect on Jan. 1, 2017. CPT Code Description Proposed 2017 Current 2016 Percent Change 88112-Global Cytopath cell enhance tech 68.33 72.32 -6% 88112-26 Cytopath cell enhance tech 28.98 29.00 0% 88112-TC Cytopath cell enhance tech 39.35 43.32 -9% 88184-TC only Flow cytometry/1st marker 61.53 76.26 -19% 88185-TC only Flow cytometry/each additional marker 37.56 46.55 -19% 88189-TC only Flow cytometry, read 16+ 92.30 114.22 -19% 88305-Global Tissue exam by pathologist 69.05 74.11 -7% 88305-26 Tissue exam by pathologist 39.71 39.74 0% 88305-TC Tissue exam by pathologist 29.34 34.37 -15% 88307-Global Level V, tissue exam by pathologist 269.03 312.21 -14% 88307-26 Level V, tissue exam by pathologist 87.65 87.36 0% 88307-TC Level V, tissue exam by pathologist 181.38 224.85 -19% 88312-Global Special stains, group 1 98.74 98.82 0% 88312-26 Special stains, group 1 28.26 28.29 0% 88312-TC Special stains, group 1 70.48 70.53 0% 88313-Global Special stains; group 2 70.12 69.10 1% 88313-26 Special stains; group 2 12.52 12.53 0% 88313-TC Special stains; group 2 57.60 56.57 2% 88341-Global Immunohistochemistry (Additonal stain) 90.15 90.23 0% 88341-26 Immunohistochemistry (Additonal stain) 28.26 27.93 1% 88341-TC Immunohistochemistry (Additonal stain) 61.89 62.30 -1% 88342-Global Immunohistochemistry (1st stain) 107.68 107.41 0% 88342-26 Immunohistochemistry (1st stain) 37.21 37.24 0% 88342-TC Immunohistochemistry (1st stain) 70.48 70.18 0% 88361-Global Tumor immunohistochem/computer 155.98 149.66 4% 88361-26 Tumor immunohistochem/computer 61.18 60.87 1% 88361-TC Tumor immunohistochem/computer 94.80 88.79 7% G0416-Global Prostate Biopsy 488.33 534.20 -9% G0416-26 Prostate Biopsy 184.96 157.90 17% G0416-TC...

read more

A quick look at the 2017 proposed Medicare Fee Schedule

Posted by on Jul 12, 2016 in Latest News | Comments Off on A quick look at the 2017 proposed Medicare Fee Schedule

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is aiming to better compensate primary care physicians for helping to coordinate their patient’s care and for providing behavioral health services, according to the agency’s proposed 2017 fee schedule that was released late last week. The latest proposal aims to raise payments for physicians assisting patients with care coordination and planning, care for cognitive disabilities and overall mental health care. Providers would also receive increased compensation for providing care to patients with mobility-related impairments due to the increased attention and time commitment these patients often require, which falls in line with the ongoing push toward value-based care being spurred by MACRA. While pathology labs and practices don’t stand to face any drastic changes most weren’t previously aware of, there are at least a few key items to note: The standard times established last year for six clinical labor services will remain the same. An additional 11 could also be standardized pending forthcoming recommendations from RUC. See the figure below. A number of CPT codes have also undergone slight work RVU modifications. Click here to see a full list starting on page 374. (Use the “ctrl F” search function on your keyboard to search for a specific code without scrolling.) Additionally, a couple key pathology-related proposals were also put forth by CMS as part of an effort to amend the hospital outpatient prospective payment system. A proposal to discontinue the use of the “L1” modifier on outpatient lab tests to identify unrelated tests on claims. These would instead be packaged if they appear on a claim with other hospital outpatient services. A proposal to expand lab packaging exclusion that currently applies to molecular tests to all lab tests designated as an ADLT that meet established criteria. CMS also noted that it believes some of these diagnostic tests that meet the criteria will not be molecular tests, but will also have a different pattern of clinical use than more conventional tests, which in turn may make them less tied to a primary service in the hospital outpatient setting than more common and routine lab tests that are packaged. An “A” status indicator would be assign to ADLTs once a test is designated an ADLT under the clinical laboratory fee schedule. Those pathology-specific adjustments aside, one of the most unique fee schedule proposals put forth is to expand the pilot Diabetes Prevention Program beginning Jan. 1, 2018. This would be the first time a preventative service program from CMS’ Innovation Center would be expanded into Medicare. CMS projects these moves will generate a substantial funding boost, according to acting administrator Andy Slavitt. “We conservatively estimate that these changes would result in approximately $900 million in additional funding in 2017 to physicians and practitioners providing these services,” Slavitt said on the CMS Blog. “Over time, if the practitioners qualified to provide these services were to fully provide these services to all eligible beneficiaries, the increase could be as much as $5 billion in additional funding for care coordination and patient-centered care.” CMS is also proposing to add a provision that would reduce outpatient prospective payment system spending by roughly $500 million in 2017 by no longer paying for services at an outpatient department at a higher rate. Besides physicians, the proposed fee schedule also pays nurse...

read more