Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Más filtros




Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
J Hosp Med ; 14(2): 129-130, 2019 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30785423
2.
J Hosp Med ; 12(4): 251-255, 2017 04.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28411297

RESUMEN

Hospitalists and other providers must classify hospitalized patients as inpatient or outpatient, the latter of which includes all observation stays. These orders direct hospital billing and payment, as well as patient out-of-pocket expenses. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) audits hospital billing for Medicare beneficiaries, historically through the Recovery Audit program. A recent U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report identified problems in the hospital appeals process of Recovery Audit program audits to which CMS proposed reforms. In the context of the GAO report and CMS's proposed improvements, we conducted a study to describe the time course and process of complex Medicare Part A audits and appeals reaching Level 3 of the 5-level appeals process as of May 1, 2016 at 3 academic medical centers. Of 219 appeals reaching Level 3, 135 had a decision--96 (71.1%) successful for the hospitals. Mean total time since date of service was 1663.3 days, which includes mean days between date of service and audit (560.4) and total days in appeals (891.3). Government contractors were responsible for 70.7% of total appeals time. Overall, government contractors and judges met legislative timeliness deadlines less than half the time (47.7%), with declining compliance at successive levels (discussion, 92.5%; Level 1, 85.4%; Level 2, 38.8%; Level 3, 0%). Most Level 1 and Level 2 decision letters (95.2%) cited time-based (24-hour) criteria for determining inpatient status, despite 70.3% of denied appeals meeting the 24-hour benchmark. These findings suggest that the Medicare appeals system merits process improvement beyond current proposed reforms. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2017;12:251-255.


Asunto(s)
Centros Médicos Académicos , Hospitalización/economía , Hospitalización/legislación & jurisprudencia , Revisión de Utilización de Seguros/legislación & jurisprudencia , Medicare Part A/legislación & jurisprudencia , Fraude/prevención & control , Gastos en Salud , Auditoría Médica/métodos , Medicare Part A/normas , Estados Unidos
3.
J Hosp Med ; 10(4): 212-9, 2015 Apr.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25707363

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Outpatient (observation) and inpatient status determinations for hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries have generated increasing concern for hospitals and patients. Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) activity alleging improper status, however, has received little attention, and there are conflicting federal and hospital reports of RAC activity and hospital appeals success. OBJECTIVE: To detail complex Medicare Part A RAC activity. DESIGN, SETTING AND PATIENTS: Retrospective descriptive study of complex Medicare Part A audits at 3 academic hospitals from 2010 to 2013. MEASUREMENTS: Complex Part A audits, outcome of audits, and hospital workforce required to manage this process. RESULTS: Of 101,862 inpatient Medicare encounters, RACs audited 8110 (8.0%) encounters, alleged overpayment in 31.3% (2536/8110), and hospitals disputed 91.0% (2309/2536). There was a nearly 3-fold increase in RAC overpayment determinations in 2 years, although the hospitals contested and won a larger percent of cases each year. One-third (645/1935, 33.3%) of settled claims were decided in the discussion period, which are favorable decisions for the hospitals not reported in federal appeals data. Almost half (951/1935, 49.1%) of settled contested cases were withdrawn by the hospitals and rebilled under Medicare Part B to avoid the lengthy (mean 555 [SD 255] days) appeals process. These original inpatient claims are considered improper payments recovered by the RAC. The hospitals also lost appeals (0.9%) by missing a filing deadline, yet there was no reciprocal case concession when the appeals process missed a deadline. No overpayment determinations contested the need for care delivered, rather that care should have been delivered under outpatient, not inpatient, status. The institutions employed an average 5.1 full-time staff in the audits process. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest a need for RAC reform, including improved transparency in data reporting.


Asunto(s)
Centros Médicos Académicos/normas , Fraude , Auditoría Médica/normas , Medicare Part A/normas , Centros Médicos Académicos/tendencias , Fraude/prevención & control , Fraude/tendencias , Humanos , Auditoría Médica/métodos , Auditoría Médica/tendencias , Medicare Part A/tendencias , Estados Unidos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA