Medicare Address Match: Hospital Outpatient Denials Looming

05 June 2019 Health Care Law Today Blog
Authors: Alexis Finkelberg Bortniker Emily Weber

Beginning in July, 2019, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will direct Medicare Part A/B Macs to perform claim validation edits and return all claims to hospital providers if the address included on their claim forms do not exactly match the information included in the Medicare Provider Enrollment, Chain, and Ownership System (PECOS) system. Any discrepancy, such as the difference between the use of “Road” vs “Rd” or “Suite” vs “Ste” on a claim, may mean a return to the provider of claims for services provided in hospital outpatient sites of service. This could result in millions of dollars in claims being returned, and an obvious delay in payment.

The new edits are being implemented to enforce the requirements stemming from the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 and resulting CMS “site-neutral” payment policies, which requirements have been memorialized in the Medicare Claims Processing Manual, Chapter 1, Section 170. Non-excepted services provided at an off-campus, outpatient, provider-based department of a hospital are required to be identified as the payment rate for non-excepted items and services billed on an institutional claim are to be paid the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule rate and not the Outpatient Prospective Payment System rate.

The edits have been in process since 2017, and providers were reminded of their application in a March MLN Matters published by CMS. It is expected that they will finally be implemented in July after a final round of testing is completed by CMS in June. 

Important Reminder to Hospitals: Action Required

Hospitals still have time prior to the system implementation to educate their billing staff on these changes as well as confirm that their billing information exactly matches PECOS information and correct any inconsistencies. Failure to comply with these changes could result in unpaid claims.

 
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

RCE PTA Carve-Out Resumes After Interference
18 September 2019
PharmaPatents
The Ninth Circuit Expected to Rule that Doctors Can Be Wrong in the Winter v. Gardens False Claims Act Case
18 September 2019
Legal News: Government Enforcement Defense & Investigations
Upcoming Webinar: Maximizing Solar Tax Credits - Navigating the Start of Construction Rules (Part 1)
17 September 2019
Renewable Energy Outlook
When Birds Finally Find a Nest
17 September 2019
Dashboard Insights
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.