1 / 24

Don’t Get with 5010

Don’t Get with 5010. Presented by Gretchen Beicher UW Medical Foundation April 3, 2009. Clinical practice organization for the faculty physicians of UW School of Medicine and Public Health The Medical Staff of over 60 clinical practice locations throughout Wisconsin

lisle
Download Presentation

Don’t Get with 5010

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Don’t Get with 5010 Presented by Gretchen BeicherUW Medical FoundationApril 3, 2009

  2. Clinical practice organization for the faculty physicians of UW School of Medicine and Public Health • The Medical Staff of over 60 clinical practice locations throughout Wisconsin • Largest academic, multi-specialty physician group in Wisconsin • 837 = 87% -- > 837P <FQHC 837I < Dental 837D • 277K clm/mo Most are direct connections • 835 = 88.9% of payments posted • 270/271 – 11 connections

  3. Version 5010 835 - Payments • Version 5010 270/271 – Eligibility • Providers • Payers

  4. 835 Remittance Advice • Claim Status code list has changed significantly. Claims Status Code location at CLP02 identify the status of the entire claim as assigned by the payor. • Claim status code 4 - Denial definition changed • Codes removed from list • Notes added for clarifications.

  5. 835 Remittance Advice Claims Status Codes Payer • Payer should know whether or not they are primary. Multiple coverages may make this difficult to determine. Provider • Redefinition of Claims Status 4 will make it more difficult for the provider to distinguish between a true denial or claims with high deductible amounts. • Claim Status Code 4 should only be used when the patient cannot be found on the payer system.

  6. 835 Remittance Advice • Allows for the provision of a technical contact and the payer’s website where further policy information can be found. • Not required.

  7. 835 Remittance Advice Technical contact Payer • May lead to procedure/workflow changes for supporting inquiries at the technical level. • Policy may need to be on an unsecured website which many payers do not like Provider • Would have to make changes to accept and store the information • Would be great to have the specific informational policy without making a phone call or researching the web for a possible match

  8. 835 Remittance Advice • Allows for Remit delivery data to be provided when both the EFT and 835 are sent to a financial institution. • Not Required Provider • This is not widely used but serves as an opportunity for the future. Payer • Would require coordination with the bank and some programming changes to provide the destination information of the 835 to the bank.

  9. 835 Remittance Advice • Additional Clarity for Balancing • Balancing does not change Provider • If interpretations are correct of the 4010, this can be considered an enhancement. • Some have experienced invalid credit balances. • The clarification of items labeled “are and are not” may help in reconciliation issues with the payer. Payer • MUST review how they balance the 835 currently against the enhanced front matter for balancing to ensure that they are following the rules of the transaction set.

  10. 835 Remittance Advice • Claim Overpayment Recovery is Clarified Providers may still elect to negotiate specific methods in their contracts.

  11. 835 Remittance Advice Overpayment Payer • All payers should be aware of the State laws which may govern the method that must be used. • Some states require the payer to give the provider an option upon each occurrence. Provider • It does help to know that there is a reversal • It is problematic because method of recovery is left to Trading Partner Agreements. • Provider does not have a voice in recoup method.

  12. 835 Remittance Advice • Remark Code Usage • Situational • Required when reason code is insufficient to explain denial

  13. 835 Remittance Advice RARC Usage Payer • This does require programming changes for some and configuration set up for other payers. • Will reduce calls received with requests for clarification Provider • Very beneficial in reporting for the provider so that an automated determination can be applied to the claim • Will reduce call volume and the need to call for more information. The WEDI 835 SWG is creating a uniform list suggesting RARCs to be used with CARCs and CARC definitions and clear scenario-based examples. www.wedi.org

  14. 270/271 Eligibility 5010 extends the definition of the subscriber identifier to all downstream transactions. • 278, 837, 276/277, 835 Provider • Simplifies software rules needed for data capture, storage and exchange • Standardizes subscriber programming across transaction sets Payer • Some payers already assign unique IDs to each family member • May require software changes where payer uses separate systems for enrollment and claims

  15. 270/271 Eligibility Provider • This could be the single biggest advantage to the providers. Currently many providers require the subscriber DOB on the 837, but do not provider it in the eligibility response for the dependant leading to phone calls, denied claims and appeals. OR paper claims. 5010 requires eligibility response to include all subscriber/dependant patient identifiers that a payer requires on subsequent transactions Payer • This could be the most difficult to achieve requiring significant programming effort

  16. 270/271 Eligibility Patient Identifiers Con’t. Payer • May payers apply different edit sets between claims and eligibility • 4010 requires only an active or inactive response. To include more will require programming. Provider • Would require programming to enable upload and storage of data to enable its later submission on claims • Where patient has multiple coverages it could require data storage at the insurance level rather than the patient level

  17. 270/271 Eligibility New required alternate search options using member ID and DOB or member ID and name Provider • Some payers now require an exact match to patient name. Example: Mary E. Smith claims will deny if Mary Smith is submitted. The alternative search will enable providers to submit ID, patient last name and DOB. Where active coverage is found, the response will provide the name format the payer requires on subsequent transactions Payer • Compliance with the Privacy Rule would restrict response where an exact match cannot be found.

  18. 270/271 Eligibility Alternate Search Con’t. Payer • Significant software modifications would be required. Provider • As above some payers require an exact DOB match, yet may have the DOB stored incorrectly. A search using the ID, last name and first would provide the payer DOB.

  19. 270/271 Eligibility • Additional Service Type Codes and Requirements. • 45 New Service Type codes have been added. • New requirement: If information source receives a STC 30 or one they do not support, 10 codes must be returned if they are covered at the plan level. • 1 – Medical • 33 – Chiropractic • 35 – Dental • 47 – Hospital • 86 – Emergency Services • 88 – Pharmacy • 98 – Professional Office Visit • AL – Vision • MH – Mental Health • UC – Urgent Care

  20. 270/271 Eligibility Additional Service Codes Con’t Payer • Software modifications will be required in order to report the additional information. Where payers now are required to provide a minimal response (active or inactive), patient responsibility must now be reported. Provider • Important in environments where physician and hospital events are covered by different insurers. A generic STC 30 query to a payer would require a response of both 47 hospital and 98 physician if covered. Lack of response on any of the 10 could be interpreted as no coverage for the service type.

  21. 270/271 Eligibility Additional Service Codes Con’t Provider • Ambiguity remains for financial responsibility. 5010 does not mandate content on response to patient responsibility. Benefits remaining or used are still unknown Payer • It means a lot more digging into benefits to determine the various types of coverage and report them at a very high level.

  22. 270/271 Eligibility Requires the return of PCP where applicable Provider • Excellent change – Provides us with the contact needed to obtain a referral prior to the visit Payer • Same as with the requirements for additional service type reporting. Payers that in 4010 reported the minimum (active/inactive) will need software programming effort to report the additional data.

  23. 270/271 Eligibility COB Information Provider • If patients have multiple coverages, providers can query to determine who is primary. • Where the coverage is Medicare or Medicare providing the third party MCO information allows the provider to search the MCO to locate the patient in that system Payer • COB information is not always available or accurate • Programming changes are again needed to report complete information

  24. Don’t Get with 5010 DISCUSSION Contact information: Gretchen Beicher Gretchen.beicher@uwmf.wisc.edu 608-829-5215

More Related