Variability in Code Selection Using the 1995 and 1998 HCFA Documentation Guidelines for Office Services

,

Original Research

Variability in Code Selection Using the 1995 and 1998 HCFA Documentation Guidelines for Office Services

J Fam Pract. 2000 July;49(7):642-645

By

Thomas J. Zuber, MD

References

1. Chao J, Gillanders WG, Flocke SA, Goodwin MA, Kikano GE, Stange KC. Billing for physician services: a comparison of actual billing with CPT codes assigned by direct observation. J Fam Pract; 47:28-32.

2. Bentzen-Bilkvist K. The evolution of evaluation and management coding. College Rev 1998;15:5-39.

3. Brett AS. New guidelines for coding physicians’ services—a step backward. N Engl J Med 1998;339:1705-08.

4. Zuber TJ, Henley TJ. A guide to the new office evaluation and management codes for 1992. Am Fam Physician 1992;45:703-08.

5. Zuber TJ. Monitoring physician use of new CPT codes by Medicare. Am Fam Physician 1992;46:58-60.

6. Stevens C. What you must know to crack the new codes. Med Econ 1992;69:164-83.

7. Kirschner CG, Coy JA, Edwards NK, et al. Physicians’ current procedural terminology: CPT 1992. Chicago, Ill: American Medical Association; 1991.

8. Hirschi N. Eternal/mystery or essential/mastery: evaluation and management coding for physician services. JAHIMA 1995;66:14-18.

9. Larkin H. AMA walks E & M highwire. Am Med News November 16, 1998;5-8.

10. O’Donohue WJ. CPT coding and Medicare reimbursement from beans to bullets. Chest 1998;113:1431-32.

11. Hand RW. E & M guidelines: is the medical record a database repository or a communication tool? Chest 1998;113:1432-34.

12. Kassirer JP, Angell M. Evaluation and management guidelines—fatally flawed. N Engl J Med 1998;339:1697-98.

13. Division of CPT editorial and informational services, American Medical Association. Draft “new framework” for evaluation and management (E/M) documentation guidelines. Chicago, Ill: American Medical Association; 1998.

14. Werner MJ. Understanding the fraud and abuse laws: guidance for internists. Ann Intern Med 1998;128:678-84.

15. Martin J. OIG: $20 billion in ‘improper’ Medicare payments. Am Med News May 11, 1998;7-8.

16. King MS. Billing code accuracy. J Fam Pract 1998;47:385-86.

17. Horner RD, Paris JA, Purvis JR, Lawler FH. Accuracy of patient encounters and billing information in ambulatory care. J Fam Pract 1991;33:543-48.

18. Medical Group Management Association. E/M documentation auditors’ instructions. Englewood, Colo: MGMA; 1995.

19. American Medical Association. Draft ‘new framework’ for evaluation and management (E/M) documentation guidelines. Chicago, Ill: American Medical Association; 1998.

20. Kirschner CG, Davis SJ, Evans D, et al. Current procedural terminology CPT 1999. Chicago, Ill: American Medical Association; 1998.

BACKGROUND: Documentation guidelines have been developed by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) to promote consistent selection of physician evaluation and management (E & M) codes. Our goals were to determine whether medical providers and auditors agree in their assignment of office codes using 1995 and 1998 guidelines and to ascertain if the code levels assigned are affected by auditor experience and training.

METHODS: A total of 1069 established patient charts from private family physician offices were reviewed by a family practice faculty physician, a family practice resident physician, and a professional coder. The main outcome measures were the agreement between the auditors and the medical care provider on code selection and the degree to which documentation supported the code selected.

RESULTS: All auditors agreed with the medical provider code selection in only 15.2% (1995 guidelines) and 29.2% (1998 guidelines) of visits. Professional coders were more likely than faculty physicians or resident physicians to agree with the code assigned by the medical provider (51.7% vs 40.7% and 39.6%, P <.001). Documentation adequately supported the most common office code selection, 99213, in 92.7% (1995) and 91.0% (1998) of the charts reviewed. Concurrence among all auditors was only 31.0% (1995) and 44.3% (1998).

CONCLUSIONS: Interobserver differences exist in the assignment of E & M codes by auditors using both 1995 and 1998 HCFA guidelines. The 1998 documentation guidelines produce greater agreement among auditors. The documentation supported the level of code billed in the majority of established patient office visits.

In 1992, the American Medical Association (AMA) adopted modifications to the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes used for reporting physician evaluation and management (E & M) services.^1-5 Code levels were determined in the majority of visits by the degree of history taking, the physical examination performed, and the complexity of the medical decision making required to provide patient care.^4,6-8 These 3 contributory factors in code determination became known as the key components. The Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) provided guidelines for the required documentation to support the level of visit coded, and modified the guidelines further in 1995 and 1997.⁹ The 1997 guidelines were not well received by many medical groups,^3,9-12 and the adoption of those guidelines was postponed.⁹ The HCFA released a new proposed set of documentation guidelines in late 1998,^12,13 but at the time of this study those guidelines had not been field tested.

Increasing concern about inaccurate coding and fraudulent billing has led to audits of physician billing practices.^14,15 The Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Resources has stated that approximately 40% of physician payments questioned at audit involved insufficient chart documentation.¹⁵ Huge dollar losses to the Medicare program have been extrapolated from small federally sponsored audits.¹⁵

Studies of billing and coding practices have demonstrated poor agreement between the code level and medical record documentation.^1,16,17 A recent study by Chao and colleagues¹ demonstrated only a 55% concordance rate between the billing codes assigned in the office and those assigned by direct observation.

Our study was undertaken to evaluate the level of agreement among physician and nonphysician auditors with office code selections by practicing family physicians. Chart evaluations were performed by physician reviewers with extensive practice experience (faculty), younger and less-experienced physicians (residents), and trained chart auditors (professional coders). We performed direct comparison of the 1995 and 1998 documentation guidelines.

Methods

Source of Data

Five private family physician offices, including 10 medical providers (9 physicians, 1 family nurse practitioner) volunteered to participate. No documentation training was given to the medical providers before initiating the study.

Consecutive billing sheets or computer sheets describing the level of established patient evaluation and management service billed between July 1998 and January 1999 were selected and placed on top of the corresponding chart. The medical providers were blinded to which charts would be audited.

Supporting documentation for this audit was limited to information recorded in the progress note on the date of service, unless the note directed the reviewer to another section of the chart. For example, medications recorded on a separate page were not included as documentation unless a specific reference was made to that page.

Documentation

The 1995 documentation guidelines were selected because of the poor physician acceptance of the 1997 guidelines. The checklist for the 1995 guidelines was created using a modification of the worksheet of the E/M Documentation Auditors’ Instructions.¹⁸ The checklist for the proposed 1998 guidelines was created from a document released by the AMA in November 1998.¹⁹

On the basis of the documentation, the auditor selected the level for each of the 3 key components for both sets of guidelines. Code selection was based on published coding guidelines from the 1999 CPT.²⁰ Because the proposed 1998 guidelines eliminated the straightforward level of medical decision making, only 3 levels of medical decision making were used to determine the 1998 code selections.