HAP Radiology Billing and Coding Blog

In our recent article we explored the ways radiology groups can begin to move toward participation in Alternative Payment Models (APM*) as an option in place of working within MIPS under the Medicare QPP.  But what does APM participation mean for a radiology practice, and what should radiologists look for to begin moving in this direction? 

In radiology, like all other medical specialties, proper documentation is critical to achieving appropriate reimbursement. If the proper terminology is no used or important descriptors are omitted from the radiology report, the physician may not get paid for the services he or she performed.

Our recent article How Radiology Practices Can Drive True Quality of Care describes how the use of clinical data can be integrated with a business process to provide benefits for both patient care and practice value.  Expanding this concept to the next level triggers the imagination – what other types of cases in the practice need follow-up within specific time periods?  Thus came the idea for the second iteration of HAP’s clinical analytics solution deployment that involved patients with implanted inferior vena cava (IVC) filters.

A recent study^[1] published by the Journal of the American College of Radiology concludes that clinicians prefer radiology reports in a more structured format over those in a “more traditional, prose style”.  This finding supports the position we at Healthcare Administrative Partners have long advocated.  Our May 2016 article points out the many benefits of structured reporting, which include easier transition to clinical decision support systems, compliance with quality reporting standards, and fewer denials from payers for questions of medical necessity or coding at the appropriate level of service.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) threw a surprise into the Quality Payment Program (QPP) Final Rule for 2018 when it included the Cost Category as 10% of the MIPS Final Score for 2018 reporting.  The QPP Proposed Rule issued a few months earlier stated that Cost would be zero-weighted for 2018 as it had been in 2017.  So what does this mean for radiology?

The first performance measurement year of the Medicare Incentive-based Payment System (MIPS) was 2017, the results of which will be used to determine Medicare payment adjustments in 2019.  This was considered a “transition year” that allowed practices to “pick your pace,” ranging from a streamlined path that would simply avoid penalties in 2019 to full participation that could generate positive payment adjustments in 2019.  The bar has been raised for 2018 performance measurement, and it will continue to be raised again in 2019 as the program reaches full implementation as required by law.  This article summarizes the changes for 2018 that will affect the performance of radiology practices as they work to maximize their reimbursement in 2020.

Click here to read our 2024 code changes update article.

The recently issued Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) Final Rule for 2018 tells us which of the revisions to the Current Procedural Terminology[i] (CPT)^® have been adopted for use in the Medicare system, and how Medicare values those codes.  The diagnostic radiology changes are fairly straightforward, but the Interventional Radiology (IR) coding for Endovascular Repair has been drastically altered with 20 new or revised codes. 

Physicians participating in Medicare’s Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) have the option of reporting data for 2018 as an individual Eligible Clinician (EC), as part of a group practice that bills Medicare using the same Taxpayer ID Number (TIN), or as part of a Virtual Group.  The latter option is available to a group with 10 or fewer ECs, or an EC in solo practice, who might want to join forces with at least one or more similarly-sized practices for the purpose of reporting their MIPS data for a performance year.  A solo practitioner participating under two TINs may even form a virtual group across both practices.  

When people are referred by their personal physician to a specialist, they usually see the specialist in his or her office for a consultation.  Following the office visit, if the patient and physician deem a procedure to be appropriate, the procedure is scheduled in a facility such as an ambulatory surgicenter or hospital procedure room.  Interventional radiologists, on the other hand, most often see their consultation patients at the time of the procedure in the hospital setting where the procedure will be performed, rather than in their own office.  Changing this approach can yield benefits for the radiology practice, as well as for the patient.

Click here to read our October 2020
y-90 radioembolization article 

Our 2014 article "Interventional Radiology Meets Radiation Oncology – The y-90 Story” focused on the documentation requirements that will assist coders to maximize reimbursement for this complex procedure.  Those documentation tips are still valid today.  This update reviews the 2017 state-of-the-art in coding for y-90 procedures.