Codapedia is now a division of Find-A-Code

The Comprehensive Error Rate Testing Program

February 23rd, 2018 - Frank Cohen, MBA, MPA
Categories:   CPT® Coding  
0 Votes - Sign in to vote or comment.

With nearly a million physicians in this country, how do auditing organizations determine whom to audit? As of 2011, 100% of all Medicare fee-for-service claims are passed through the Fraud Prevention System, a series of predictive analytics algorithms that help to identify claims that may be have been billed incorrectly. While those results can help to target particularly high risk providers, there is much more to the audit/don't audit decision than just risk. For most auditors, because they are private contractors, their remuneration, bonuses, or contract continuation are tied to results-and make no mistake, results are measured in dollars returned to the trust fund. So, before an auditor embarks on an audit, they may engage in some form of expected value (EV) calculation that they use to determine the ROI of that audit.

Calculating EV and ROI require some advance notion of how much the auditor is likely to find in overpayments vs. the cost of doing the audit. And for these types of calculations, many will rely upon the CERT, or the Comprehensive Error Rate study.

CMS established the Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT) program to calculate a national paid claims error rate for all Medicare Fee-For-Service programs. The CERT program calculates the error rates for all Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs), Carriers, and Fiscal Intermediaries (FIs). Reading the CERT documentation, one might be under the impression that records are obtained only from the contractor. This, however, is not the case. In order to assess things like medical necessity, proper documentation and the like, the agency also requests the medical record from the practices that match the claims sample, adding to the administrative costs of doing business. In general, the sampling methodology includes:
  • Randomly selecting around 50,000 claims submitted to the payers during a given reporting period.
  • Requesting medical records from the health care providers that submitted the claims in the sample.
  • Where medical records were submitted by the provider, reviewing the claims in the sample and the associated medical records to see if the claims complied with Medicare coverage, coding, and billing rules, and, if not, assigning errors to the claims.
  • Where medical records were not submitted by the provider, classifying the case as a no documentation claim and counting it as an error.
  • Sending providers overpayment letters/notices or making adjustments for claims that were overpaid or underpaid.
It's also important to note that CMS counts underpayments as errors, as well as overpayments. For fiscal year 2017, CMS paid out some $390 billion in claims and of these, around $36 billion (9.5%) were paid in error. This simply means that, in the opinion of the auditor, the claim was paid in part or in full in disagreement with established guidelines, rules and regulations, or in contrast to the documentation provided. Of the 9.5% error rate, 0.3% represented underpayments. Now, while that may seem trivial, 0.3% of $390 billion is over $1 billion, which I would not consider to be crumbs. For example, procedure code 99212 was underpaid 16.9% of the time. If you reported 10,000 of these last year, it is statistically likely that some 1,700 were underpaid (or under documented). So, while you are creating your risk assessment, it is probably a good idea to create an opportunity assessment, as well.

Within the study, CERT specifies the reason for the improper payment. For example, in 2017, 64.1% of claims were paid where it was later determined that there was not sufficient documentation to support the procedure or service. 13.1% of payments were made in error due to incorrect coding while medically unnecessary errors accounted for 17.5% of all improperly paid claims. I find the latter statistic interesting because my experience is that many in our industry consider medical necessity to be the most important coding and billing issue. According to CERT, insufficient documentation accounts for nearly five times the number of error determinations.

From the compliance officer's perspective, CERT can be a gold mine for building a risk assessment because the study looks at error rates for specific procedure codes, which brings us back to our point on profiling. If CERT identifies specific procedure codes that are associated to high error rates, then it's only a matter of time before those same codes are used by the auditing agencies as a primer to develop the audit risk profile. Looking at the error rate also provides the auditors with the base data for their EV calculations.

Looking at the FY 2017 report, for example, we see that CERT reported that, of all the 99233 codes reviewed, over 50% were paid in error. Of the 99214 codes reviewed, 7.1% were paid in error. For calendar year 2016, 23,702,514 claims that included 99233 were submitted to the CMS and CMS paid out $1.8 billion to those providers. If, as stated above, 50% were paid in error, then nearly $900 million were paid improperly. Imagine you are an auditor and you come across a practice that was paid a million dollars last year on code 99233. Statistically speaking, that means that there is a 50% probability that at least half of those were overpaid. This is an easy step from EV to ROI. For 99214, the CMS paid out around $7 billion for 103 million encounters and at an error rate of 7.1%, this would account for nearly $500 million in potential improper payments. And the list goes on.

The point is this; these auditing agencies, some of which are paid a commission of what they are able to recover from a practice, are going to go for the low-hanging fruit first. So a practice that is reporting a higher number of these 99233 and 99214 codes than their peers may substantially increase their risk of audit and review. The takeaway here, at least for me, is that the CERT study gives me the opportunity identify potential errors the same way that the auditor's do. And for my money, that's something you can take to the bank.


Questions, comments?

If you have questions or comments about this article please contact us.  Comments that provide additional related information may be added here by our Editors.

Latest articles:  (any category)

Finalized Confidentiality of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Patient Records Regulations
August 31st, 2018 - Wyn Staheli, Director of Research
In January, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued updates to the privacy regulations regarding the confidentiality of patient information of substance use disorder patients (42 CFR Part 2).  This notice included references to better alignment with HIPAA regulations, but did state that Part 2 is more protective ...
Pricing for ASC’s and APC’s
August 27th, 2018 - Chris Woolstenhulme, QCC, CMCS, CPC, CMRS
For Medicare purposes, an Ambulatory Surgical Center Resources (ASC) is a distinct entity that operates exclusively to furnish surgical services to patients who do not require hospitalization and in which the expected duration of services does not exceed 24 hours following admission. ASC payment groups determine the amount that...
PSAVE Pilot Program - What Does it Mean to You?
August 20th, 2018 - Wyn Staheli, Director of Research
Noridian's pilot program Provider Self-Audit with Validation and Extrapolation (PSAVE) has been extended which means that it has been successful for the payer, which means that they are saving money. Historically, when a pilot program is proven to be successful, it isn’t too long before other MACs follow. Before signing up to participate, providers need to carefully evaluate the program. Are the benefits worth the costs?
Importance of Depression Screenings
August 16th, 2018 - Wyn Staheli, Director of Research
Why would a chiropractor be concerned about depression screenings when you aren’t trained to be a mental health provider? The answer lies in patient outcomes. Many quality care organizations recommend depression screenings for patients with a chronic condition. According to The National Institute of Mental Health, “People with other chronic ...
Using Modifiers 96 and 97
August 16th, 2018 - Wyn Staheli, Director of Research
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires coverage of certain essential health benefits (EHBs), two of which are rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices. Since the ACA did not define these terms or specify coverage requirements, it is left up to individual states to create benchmark plans to determine coverage requirements. ...
Medicare Timed Codes Guidelines
August 16th, 2018 - Wyn Staheli, Director of Research
Medicare's guidelines for reporting of timed codes is found in Medicare Claims Processing Manual Chapter 5, Section 20.2. Also known as the '8 minute' rule, it describes how to calculate time for appropriate reporting when more than one timed code is performed at the same time. It should be noted that while ...
QPro’s First Annual QPro Con
August 15th, 2018 - Chris Woolstenhulme QCC, CMCS, CPC, CMRS
Date: October 9-10 Time: 9-3 MST QPro Con is featuring a virtual event with keynote speakers and experts with years of hands-on experience in the healthcare industry. Stay ahead of the changes and keep informed of important information that affects the healthcare community. Attendees receive 12 FREE CEUs with the purchase ...

About Codapedia & Find-A-Code Contact Us Terms of Use Privacy Policy Advertise with Us

Codapedia™/Find-A-Code™ - 62 E 300 North, Spanish Fork, UT 84660 - Phone 801-770-4203 (9-5 Mountain) - Fax (801) 770-4428

Copyright © 2009-2018 Find A Code, LLC - CPT® copyright American Medical Association