SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 6
CONFIDENTIAL SAMPLE
CBR No. CBR027-1111111111 The contents of this document contain sensitive, personally identifiable Page 1 of 6
information intended for listed provider’s view
only Page 1 of
6
Comparative Billing Report on Hospice Services per Care Setting
Provided by NPI 1111111111
Introduction
Healthcare providers have a front line role in assisting the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in
effectively managing Medicare resources. CMS acknowledges the daily challenges providers face in serving Medicare
beneficiaries and the complexity of accurate billing for those services. The information contained in Comparative
Billing Reports (CBRs) is provided as a collaborative effort between the Medicare provider community and the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to support best billing practices and effective management of Medicare
program resources. This report is not intended to be punitive or sent as an indication of fraud.
The Medicare hospice benefit allows a beneficiary with terminal illness to forgo curative treatment for the illness and
instead receive palliative care. Hospice services rely on the combined knowledge and skills of an interdisciplinary team
of professionals (e.g.,physicians, nurses, social workers, therapists, counselors, hospice aides, and volunteers). To be
eligible for Medicare hospice care,a beneficiary must be entitled to Part A and be certified as having a terminal illness
with a life expectancy of 6 months or less if the illness runs its normal course. The Medicare beneficiary can receive
hospice care at home, or in a facility such as a nursing facility, a hospice inpatient facility, or a hospital.
This is a follow up CBR on Hospice Services that you received in January 2011. This report uses the same billing
comparisons and is based on January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012 data. The billing data and references in this
report can assist you in performing a self-audit in assessing your compliance with Medicare guidelines for hospice
services. The report also provides an opportunity for comparing your billing practices to other providers billing for
these services. We encourage you to conduct an audit of your own claims and refund any overpayments to the
appropriate Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC). To access the contact information for your MAC as well as
CMS’ other review contractors,please access the Provider Compliance Interactive Map at http://go.cms.gov/IMap.
Your MAC can explain how to submit a voluntary refund. We hope you find this information helpful and that it will
provide insights into your current and future billing practices. Listed below are website references pertinent to this
CBR:
IOM, Pub. 100-02,Medicare Benefit Policy Manual, Chapter 9
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/manuals/Downloads/bp102c09.pdf
IOM, Pub. 100-04,Medicare Claims Processing,Chapter 11
http://www.cms.gov/manuals/downloads/clm104c11.pdf
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
https://www.cms.gov/RegionalOffices/99_RegionalMap.asp#TopOfPage.
Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) Hospice Care Regulations (42 CFR Section 418)
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node=42:3.0.1.1.5&idno=42
Office of Inspector General Work Plan Fiscal Year 2010 (page 14)
http://oig.hhs.gov/publications/docs/workplan/2010/Work_Plan_FY_2010.pdf
Hospice Association ofAmerica, Hospice Facts and Statistics, November 2010
http://www.nahc.org/assets/1/7/HospiceStats10.pdf
National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, NHPCO Facts and Figures: Hospice Care in America, 2012
edition
http://www.nhpco.org/sites/default/files/public/Statistics_Research/2012_Facts_Figures.pdf
Methodology
The analysis for this CBR encompassed all Medicare Part A hospice final claims data with claim dates of service from
CONFIDENTIAL SAMPLE
CBR No. CBR027-1111111111 The contents of this document contain sensitive, personally identifiable Page 2 of 6
information intended for listed provider’s view
only Page 2 of
6
180+ days
10.70%
90-179
days
6.50%
30-89 days
15.20%
8-29 days
25.00%
≤7 days
42.60%
Figure 2. Distribution of Beneficiaries
by the Range of Days Billed per
Beneficiary for Routine Home Care
for Your Regional Peers, 2012
January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012 that were retrieved from the Integrated Data Repository on March 29,
2013. Four utilization measures will be analyzed within four hospice care sites of service between you and your
regional and national peers. The four hospice care sites of service are based on the HCPCS codes Q5001-Q5008 and
are grouped as follows Home (Q5001, Q5002), Nursing Facility (Q5003, Q5004), Hospice Inpatient Facility (Q5006),
and Hospital (Q5005, Q5007, Q5008). The four utilization measures,based on four revenue codes 0651, 0652, 0655,
and 0656, are 1) the average number of days billed per beneficiary for routine home care (0651), 2) the average
number of hours billed per beneficiary for continuous home care (0652), 3) the average number of days billed per
beneficiary for inpatient respite care (0655), and 4) the average number of days billed per beneficiary for general
inpatient care (0656). These measures will be statistically compared to the average of your Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services (CMS) Region and national peers and the results will be displayed in Tables 1-4 for their applicable
sites of service. For each of the revenue codes a pie chart will display the distribution of beneficiaries by the range of
hours or days billed per beneficiary for you and your regional peer group, respectively. CMS Regions are defined on
the CMS website.
Medicare regulations do not permit continuous home care (CHC) to be provided in an inpatient facility. Medicare
policy allows CHC to be provided in the home (Q5001, Q5002) and to patients residing in long term care nursing
facilities (Q5003). General inpatient care (GIP) can only be provided in a Medicare-participating hospital, SNF, or
hospice inpatient unit. Inpatient respite care can be provided in a Medicare or Medicaid participating hospital, nursing
facility, or hospice inpatient unit.
Results
Figure 1 below displays the distribution of beneficiaries by the range of days billed per beneficiary for routine home
care for you in 2012. Figure 2 displays the distribution of beneficiaries by the range of days billed per beneficiary for
routine home care for your regional peer group in 2012.
Table 1 below shows the results of the statistical comparison of the average number of days you billed per beneficiary
for routine home care to those of your regional and national peer group by care setting. A statistical test was used to
determine if there was significant difference between the average number of days you billed per beneficiary and those
of your regional and national peer group.
Figure 1. Distribution of Beneficaries
by the Range of Days Billed per
Beneficiary for Routine Home Care
for You, 2012
N/A
CONFIDENTIAL SAMPLE
CBR No. CBR027-1111111111 The contents of this document contain sensitive, personally identifiable Page 3 of 6
information intended for listed provider’s view
only Page 3 of
6
Table 1. Statistical Comparison of the Average Number of Days You Billed per Beneficiary for
Routine Home Care to Those of Your Regional and National Peers by Care Setting in 2012
You
2009*
You
2012
CMS Region 1 National
Hospice Care
Site of
Service
Average
Days
Average
Days
Average
Days Difference Significance**
Average
Days Difference Significance**
Home 215.0 N/A 195.0 N/A N/A 180.0 N/A N/A
Nursing Facility 175.0 N/A 154.0 N/A N/A 160.0 N/A N/A
Hospice
Inpatient
Facility
187.0 N/A 170.0
N/A
N/A 150.0
N/A
N/A
Hospital 86.0 N/A 87.0 N/A N/A 90.0 N/A N/A
*2009 data forcomparison only. **A t-test was usedin this analysis; a p value ≤ 0.05indicates that we are at least 95% confident that the differenceis significant.
If a peer group has less than 30providers, a t-test comparison was not performed andyour significance will be listedas “N/A.” Alternately,if your significance is
“N/A” andyour average is also “N/A,” a t-test was not performedbecause youdidnot bill any services andare not part of thepeergroup.
Figure 3 below displays the distribution of beneficiaries by the range of hours billed per beneficiary for continuous
home care for you in 2012. Figure 4 displays the distribution of beneficiaries by the range of hours billed per
beneficiary for continuous home care for your regional peer group in 2012.
Table 2 below shows the results of the statistical comparison of the average number of hours you billed per beneficiary
for continuous home care to those of your regional and national peer group by care setting. A statistical test was used
> 75 hours
7.00%
>50-75
hours
35.00%
>20-50
hours
26.00%
8-20 hours
25.00%
< 8 hours
7.00%
Figure 3. Distribution of Beneficiaries
by the Range of Hours Billed per
Beneficiary for Continuous Home
Care for You, 2012
> 75 hours
7.00%
>50-75
hours
35.00%
>20-50
hours
26.00%
8-20 hours
25.00%
< 8 hours
7.00%
Figure 4. Distribution of Beneficiaries
by the Range of Hours Billed per
Beneficiary for Continuous Home Care
for Your Regional Peers, 2012
CONFIDENTIAL SAMPLE
CBR No. CBR027-1111111111 The contents of this document contain sensitive, personally identifiable Page 4 of 6
information intended for listed provider’s view
only Page 4 of
6
180+ days
12.75%
90-179
days
8.50%
30-89 days
15.20%
8-29 days
21.30%
≤ 7 days
42.25%
Figure 6. Distribution of Beneficiaries
by the Range of Days Billed per
Beneficiary for Inpatient Respite Care
for Your Regional Peers, 2012
to determine if there was significant difference between the average number of hours you billed per beneficiary and
those of your regional and national peer group.
Table 2. Statistical Comparison of the Average Number of Hours You Billed per Beneficiary for
Continuous Home Care to Those of Your Regional and National Peers by Care Setting in 2012
You
2009*
You
2012
CMS Region 1 National
Hospice Care
Site of
Service
Average
Hours
Average
Hours
Average
Hours Difference Significance**
Average
Hours Difference Significance**
Home 125.0 121.0 195.0 36.0 higher 180.0 51.0 higher
Long Term
Care Nursing
Facility
115.0 105.0 154.0 31.0 higher 160.0 25.0 higher
Hospice
Inpatient
Facility
100.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Hospital 98.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
*2009 data forcomparison only. **A t-test was usedin this analysis; a p value ≤ 0.05indicates that we are at least 95% confident that the differenceis significant.
If a peer group has less than 30providers, a t-test comparison was not performed andyour significance will be listedas “N/A.” Alternately,if your significance is
“N/A” andyour average is also “N/A,” a t-test was not performedbecause youdidnot bill any services andare not part of thepeergroup.
Figure 5 below displays the distribution of beneficiaries by the range of days billed per beneficiary for inpatient respite
care for you in 2012. Figure 6 displays the distribution of beneficiaries by the range of days billed per beneficiary for
inpatient respite care for your regional peer group in 2012.
Figure 5. Distribution of Beneficiaries
by the Range of Days Billed per
Beneficiary for Inpatient Respite
Care for You , 2012
N/A
CONFIDENTIAL SAMPLE
CBR No. CBR027-1111111111 The contents of this document contain sensitive, personally identifiable Page 5 of 6
information intended for listed provider’s view
only Page 5 of
6
180+ days
12.25%
90-179
days
9.25%
30-89 days
13.50%
8-29 days
23.20%
≤ 7 days
41.80%
Figure 7. Distribution of Beneficiaries
by the Range of Days Billed per
Beneficiary for General Inpatient Care
for You, 2012
180+ days
12.75%
90-179
days
10.25%
30-89 days
12.75%
8-29 days
21.00%
≤ 7 days
43.25%
Figure 8. Distribution of Beneficiaries
by the Range of Days Billed per
Beneficiary for General Inpatient Care
for Your Regional Peers, 2012
Table 3 below shows the results of the statistical comparison of the average number of days you billed per beneficiary
for inpatient respite care to those of your regional and national peer group by care setting. A statistical test was used to
determine if there was significant difference between the average number of days you billed per beneficiary and those
of your regional and national peer group.
Table 3. Statistical Comparison of the Average Number of Days You Billed per Beneficiary for
Inpatient Respite Care to Those of Your Regional and National Peers by Care Setting in 2012
You
2009*
You
2012
CMS Region 1 National
Hospice Care
Site of
Service
Average
Days
Average
Days
Average
Days Difference Significance**
Average
Days Difference Significance**
Home 10.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Nursing Facility 15.2 N/A 10.5 N/A N/A 11.0 N/A N/A
Hospice
Inpatient
Facility
11.5
N/A
11.0
N/A N/A
9.0
N/A N/A
Hospital 16.5 N/A 12.5 N/A N/A 13.0 N/A N/A
*2009 data forcomparison only. **A t-test was usedin this analysis; a p value ≤ 0.05indicates that we are at least 95% confident that the differenceis significant.
If a peer group has less than 30providers, a t-test comparison was not performed andyour significance will be listedas “N/A.” Alternately,if your significance is
“N/A” andyour average is also “N/A,” a t-test was not performedbecause youdidnot bill any services andare not part of thepeergroup.
Figure 7 below displays the distribution of beneficiaries by the range of days billed per beneficiary for general
inpatient care for you in 2012. Figure 8 displays the distribution of beneficiaries by the range of days billed per
beneficiary for general inpatient care for your regional peer group in 2012.
Table 4 below shows the results of the statistical comparison of the average number of days you billed per beneficiary
for general inpatient care to those of your regional and national peer group by care setting. A statistical test was used
to determine if there was significant difference between the average number of days you billed per beneficiary and
those of your regional and national peer group.
CONFIDENTIAL SAMPLE
CBR No. CBR027-1111111111 The contents of this document contain sensitive, personally identifiable Page 6 of 6
information intended for listed provider’s view
only Page 6 of
6
Table 4. Statistical Comparison of the Average Number of Days You Billed per Beneficiary for
General Inpatient Care to Those of Your Regional and National Peers by Care Setting in 2012
You
2009*
You
2012
CMS Region 1 National
Hospice Care
Site of
Service
Average
Days
Average
Days
Average
Days Difference Significance**
Average
Days Difference Significance**
Home 37.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Skilled Nursing
Facility***
62.5 60.0 55.0 5.0 higher 50.0 10.0 higher
Hospice
Inpatient
Facility
45.0 41.0 40.0 1.0 within the norm 43.0 -2.0 within the norm
Hospital 56.5 54.0 49.0 5.0 higher 45.0 9.0 higher
*2009 data forcomparison only. **A t-test was usedin this analysis; a p value ≤ 0.05indicates that we are at least 95% confident that the differenceis significant.
If a peer group has less than 30providers, a t-test comparison was not performed andyour significance will be listedas “N/A.” Alternately,if your significance is
“N/A” andyour average is also “N/A,” a t-test was not performedbecause youdidnot bill any services andare not part of thepeergroup. ***Inthe 2009 study,
this number includedall nursingfacilities includingskillednursingfacilities.
Contact Information
Please direct all questions on the CBR content or any suggestions to the CBR Producer at (530) 896-7080. For
additional information, see www.cbrservices.com.
Please direct all mailing address changes for the CBR Disseminator at (888) 313-9666 or www.cbrcontactupdate.com.

More Related Content

What's hot

Ama prepare that claim taking an active approch to the claims management re...
Ama prepare that claim   taking an active approch to the claims management re...Ama prepare that claim   taking an active approch to the claims management re...
Ama prepare that claim taking an active approch to the claims management re...Rajinikanth Dhakshanamurthi
 
July 13 2015 Vol. 29 Issue 27
July 13 2015  Vol. 29  Issue 27July 13 2015  Vol. 29  Issue 27
July 13 2015 Vol. 29 Issue 27Michelle McKamy
 
Ehr number and characterists of providers awarded
Ehr number and characterists of providers awardedEhr number and characterists of providers awarded
Ehr number and characterists of providers awardedScott Zajkowski
 
An Analysis of Private-Sector Prices for Physician Services
An Analysis of Private-Sector Prices for Physician ServicesAn Analysis of Private-Sector Prices for Physician Services
An Analysis of Private-Sector Prices for Physician ServicesCongressional Budget Office
 
Case study - Surgery Partners
Case study - Surgery PartnersCase study - Surgery Partners
Case study - Surgery PartnersDave Chase
 
Scott Haas USI Alternative Reimbursement Case Study Dropping Medical Spend ov...
Scott Haas USI Alternative Reimbursement Case Study Dropping Medical Spend ov...Scott Haas USI Alternative Reimbursement Case Study Dropping Medical Spend ov...
Scott Haas USI Alternative Reimbursement Case Study Dropping Medical Spend ov...Dave Chase
 
Medicare Payment, WOC Nursing Services
Medicare Payment, WOC Nursing ServicesMedicare Payment, WOC Nursing Services
Medicare Payment, WOC Nursing ServicesTrustRobin
 
EGWP Presentation
EGWP PresentationEGWP Presentation
EGWP PresentationLiz Weber
 
March 2011 Regulatory Webinar
March 2011 Regulatory WebinarMarch 2011 Regulatory Webinar
March 2011 Regulatory Webinarcheriwhalen
 
Global Transitional Care Investment Brief - 2015
Global Transitional Care Investment Brief - 2015Global Transitional Care Investment Brief - 2015
Global Transitional Care Investment Brief - 2015capservegroup
 
RI Medicaid Inpatient FAQ - Sep 2009
RI Medicaid Inpatient FAQ - Sep 2009RI Medicaid Inpatient FAQ - Sep 2009
RI Medicaid Inpatient FAQ - Sep 2009tom scholomiti
 
EGWP Whitepaper (2)
EGWP Whitepaper (2)EGWP Whitepaper (2)
EGWP Whitepaper (2)Liz Weber
 
Health insurance claim | Health Care Domain
Health insurance claim | Health Care DomainHealth insurance claim | Health Care Domain
Health insurance claim | Health Care DomainH2kInfosys
 
Health Care Project Overview from H2kInfosys LLC
Health Care Project Overview from H2kInfosys LLCHealth Care Project Overview from H2kInfosys LLC
Health Care Project Overview from H2kInfosys LLCH2Kinfosys
 
Chronic Care Management in Post-Acute/LTC Setting
Chronic Care Management in Post-Acute/LTC SettingChronic Care Management in Post-Acute/LTC Setting
Chronic Care Management in Post-Acute/LTC SettingPYA, P.C.
 
2020 Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) Final Rule Summary - BESLER
2020 Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) Final Rule Summary - BESLER2020 Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) Final Rule Summary - BESLER
2020 Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) Final Rule Summary - BESLERBESLER
 
medical billing training notes
medical billing training notesmedical billing training notes
medical billing training noteswaqas gogan
 

What's hot (20)

FY 2014 Final Rule and MDS 3.0 Updates
FY 2014 Final Rule and MDS 3.0 UpdatesFY 2014 Final Rule and MDS 3.0 Updates
FY 2014 Final Rule and MDS 3.0 Updates
 
Ama prepare that claim taking an active approch to the claims management re...
Ama prepare that claim   taking an active approch to the claims management re...Ama prepare that claim   taking an active approch to the claims management re...
Ama prepare that claim taking an active approch to the claims management re...
 
July 13 2015 Vol. 29 Issue 27
July 13 2015  Vol. 29  Issue 27July 13 2015  Vol. 29  Issue 27
July 13 2015 Vol. 29 Issue 27
 
Ehr number and characterists of providers awarded
Ehr number and characterists of providers awardedEhr number and characterists of providers awarded
Ehr number and characterists of providers awarded
 
An Analysis of Private-Sector Prices for Physician Services
An Analysis of Private-Sector Prices for Physician ServicesAn Analysis of Private-Sector Prices for Physician Services
An Analysis of Private-Sector Prices for Physician Services
 
Case study - Surgery Partners
Case study - Surgery PartnersCase study - Surgery Partners
Case study - Surgery Partners
 
Scott Haas USI Alternative Reimbursement Case Study Dropping Medical Spend ov...
Scott Haas USI Alternative Reimbursement Case Study Dropping Medical Spend ov...Scott Haas USI Alternative Reimbursement Case Study Dropping Medical Spend ov...
Scott Haas USI Alternative Reimbursement Case Study Dropping Medical Spend ov...
 
Medicare Payment, WOC Nursing Services
Medicare Payment, WOC Nursing ServicesMedicare Payment, WOC Nursing Services
Medicare Payment, WOC Nursing Services
 
EGWP Presentation
EGWP PresentationEGWP Presentation
EGWP Presentation
 
March 2011 Regulatory Webinar
March 2011 Regulatory WebinarMarch 2011 Regulatory Webinar
March 2011 Regulatory Webinar
 
Global Transitional Care Investment Brief - 2015
Global Transitional Care Investment Brief - 2015Global Transitional Care Investment Brief - 2015
Global Transitional Care Investment Brief - 2015
 
RI Medicaid Inpatient FAQ - Sep 2009
RI Medicaid Inpatient FAQ - Sep 2009RI Medicaid Inpatient FAQ - Sep 2009
RI Medicaid Inpatient FAQ - Sep 2009
 
EGWP Whitepaper (2)
EGWP Whitepaper (2)EGWP Whitepaper (2)
EGWP Whitepaper (2)
 
Opelika MGMA June 2014
Opelika MGMA June 2014Opelika MGMA June 2014
Opelika MGMA June 2014
 
Health insurance claim | Health Care Domain
Health insurance claim | Health Care DomainHealth insurance claim | Health Care Domain
Health insurance claim | Health Care Domain
 
Health Care Project Overview from H2kInfosys LLC
Health Care Project Overview from H2kInfosys LLCHealth Care Project Overview from H2kInfosys LLC
Health Care Project Overview from H2kInfosys LLC
 
Chronic Care Management in Post-Acute/LTC Setting
Chronic Care Management in Post-Acute/LTC SettingChronic Care Management in Post-Acute/LTC Setting
Chronic Care Management in Post-Acute/LTC Setting
 
Health insurance
Health insuranceHealth insurance
Health insurance
 
2020 Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) Final Rule Summary - BESLER
2020 Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) Final Rule Summary - BESLER2020 Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) Final Rule Summary - BESLER
2020 Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) Final Rule Summary - BESLER
 
medical billing training notes
medical billing training notesmedical billing training notes
medical billing training notes
 

Viewers also liked

Sample Grant Application Complements of Michael Hershorn
Sample Grant Application Complements of Michael HershornSample Grant Application Complements of Michael Hershorn
Sample Grant Application Complements of Michael HershornMichael Hershorn
 
Grant Application2
Grant Application2Grant Application2
Grant Application2chiquishat
 
Hospice and Palliative Care Association of New York State
Hospice and Palliative Care Association of New York StateHospice and Palliative Care Association of New York State
Hospice and Palliative Care Association of New York StateDaryl Kane
 
CLH UNITED WAY Grant Application
CLH UNITED WAY Grant ApplicationCLH UNITED WAY Grant Application
CLH UNITED WAY Grant ApplicationLacie-Dawn Dearsley
 
Community grant information & application form
Community grant information & application formCommunity grant information & application form
Community grant information & application formWoburn Park
 
Help the hospices marie curie reflection room
Help the hospices marie curie reflection roomHelp the hospices marie curie reflection room
Help the hospices marie curie reflection roomHelen Sanderson
 
Jodi Dean Grant Sample
Jodi Dean Grant SampleJodi Dean Grant Sample
Jodi Dean Grant SampleJodi Dean
 
Grant Writing Sample
Grant Writing SampleGrant Writing Sample
Grant Writing Samplecck008
 
Specific Aims NIH Sample Grant Proposal
Specific Aims NIH Sample Grant ProposalSpecific Aims NIH Sample Grant Proposal
Specific Aims NIH Sample Grant ProposalLiya Brook
 
Core Funding Strategies
Core Funding StrategiesCore Funding Strategies
Core Funding StrategiesPAVO
 
Full NIH Grant Proposal with Comments
Full NIH Grant Proposal with CommentsFull NIH Grant Proposal with Comments
Full NIH Grant Proposal with CommentsLiya Brook
 
Community Foundation Grant Proposal Final Draft
Community Foundation Grant Proposal Final DraftCommunity Foundation Grant Proposal Final Draft
Community Foundation Grant Proposal Final Draftmolliefoust
 

Viewers also liked (14)

Sample Grant Application Complements of Michael Hershorn
Sample Grant Application Complements of Michael HershornSample Grant Application Complements of Michael Hershorn
Sample Grant Application Complements of Michael Hershorn
 
Grant Application2
Grant Application2Grant Application2
Grant Application2
 
Hospice and Palliative Care Association of New York State
Hospice and Palliative Care Association of New York StateHospice and Palliative Care Association of New York State
Hospice and Palliative Care Association of New York State
 
CLH UNITED WAY Grant Application
CLH UNITED WAY Grant ApplicationCLH UNITED WAY Grant Application
CLH UNITED WAY Grant Application
 
Community grant information & application form
Community grant information & application formCommunity grant information & application form
Community grant information & application form
 
Help the hospices marie curie reflection room
Help the hospices marie curie reflection roomHelp the hospices marie curie reflection room
Help the hospices marie curie reflection room
 
Jodi Dean Grant Sample
Jodi Dean Grant SampleJodi Dean Grant Sample
Jodi Dean Grant Sample
 
Grant Writing Sample
Grant Writing SampleGrant Writing Sample
Grant Writing Sample
 
Katherine Harper sample grant proposal
Katherine Harper sample grant proposalKatherine Harper sample grant proposal
Katherine Harper sample grant proposal
 
Specific Aims NIH Sample Grant Proposal
Specific Aims NIH Sample Grant ProposalSpecific Aims NIH Sample Grant Proposal
Specific Aims NIH Sample Grant Proposal
 
Core Funding Strategies
Core Funding StrategiesCore Funding Strategies
Core Funding Strategies
 
Full NIH Grant Proposal with Comments
Full NIH Grant Proposal with CommentsFull NIH Grant Proposal with Comments
Full NIH Grant Proposal with Comments
 
Sample grant proposal
Sample grant proposalSample grant proposal
Sample grant proposal
 
Community Foundation Grant Proposal Final Draft
Community Foundation Grant Proposal Final DraftCommunity Foundation Grant Proposal Final Draft
Community Foundation Grant Proposal Final Draft
 

Similar to CBR027 Hospice Services Sample Draft

400 hancock and stall
400 hancock and stall400 hancock and stall
400 hancock and stallhfmadixie
 
Rhode island primary care spend final
Rhode island primary care spend finalRhode island primary care spend final
Rhode island primary care spend finalPaul Grundy
 
ACSG DIRECT TO EMPLOYER WHITE PAPER MARCH 15
ACSG DIRECT TO EMPLOYER WHITE PAPER MARCH 15ACSG DIRECT TO EMPLOYER WHITE PAPER MARCH 15
ACSG DIRECT TO EMPLOYER WHITE PAPER MARCH 15jackell
 
ACSG DIRECT TO EMPLOYER WHITE PAPER MARCH 15
ACSG DIRECT TO EMPLOYER WHITE PAPER MARCH 15ACSG DIRECT TO EMPLOYER WHITE PAPER MARCH 15
ACSG DIRECT TO EMPLOYER WHITE PAPER MARCH 15jackell
 
Policy Alternatives for Long-Term Services and Supports
Policy Alternatives for Long-Term Services and SupportsPolicy Alternatives for Long-Term Services and Supports
Policy Alternatives for Long-Term Services and SupportsCongressional Budget Office
 
1_Primary Care Spend_Final
1_Primary Care Spend_Final1_Primary Care Spend_Final
1_Primary Care Spend_FinalKim Paull
 
Healthcare brief
Healthcare briefHealthcare brief
Healthcare briefRoger Royse
 
KMyrvik-HI215-02 Unit 9 Assignment
KMyrvik-HI215-02 Unit 9 AssignmentKMyrvik-HI215-02 Unit 9 Assignment
KMyrvik-HI215-02 Unit 9 AssignmentKanda Myrvik
 
Medicare and medicaid
Medicare and medicaidMedicare and medicaid
Medicare and medicaidtlwhitt
 
Eric Shell - Crossing the Shaky Bridge
Eric Shell - Crossing the Shaky BridgeEric Shell - Crossing the Shaky Bridge
Eric Shell - Crossing the Shaky Bridgescorh1
 
June 8, 2013 CAPG Presentation--Medicare Advantage
June 8, 2013 CAPG Presentation--Medicare AdvantageJune 8, 2013 CAPG Presentation--Medicare Advantage
June 8, 2013 CAPG Presentation--Medicare AdvantageGalen Institute
 
Read the scenario that you will use for the Individual Projects in ea.pdf
Read the scenario that you will use for the Individual Projects in ea.pdfRead the scenario that you will use for the Individual Projects in ea.pdf
Read the scenario that you will use for the Individual Projects in ea.pdfashokarians
 
Emr And Economic Stimulus
Emr And Economic StimulusEmr And Economic Stimulus
Emr And Economic Stimulusiternalnetworks
 
WCS-1223519-WFI-EB-Market-Outlook-FNLprint
WCS-1223519-WFI-EB-Market-Outlook-FNLprintWCS-1223519-WFI-EB-Market-Outlook-FNLprint
WCS-1223519-WFI-EB-Market-Outlook-FNLprintTam Nguyen
 
Chapter 2 Billing and Coding for Health ServicesLEARNING OBJEC.docx
Chapter 2 Billing and Coding for Health ServicesLEARNING OBJEC.docxChapter 2 Billing and Coding for Health ServicesLEARNING OBJEC.docx
Chapter 2 Billing and Coding for Health ServicesLEARNING OBJEC.docxketurahhazelhurst
 
Stanislaus 2015 White Paper
Stanislaus 2015 White PaperStanislaus 2015 White Paper
Stanislaus 2015 White PaperEric Barthel
 

Similar to CBR027 Hospice Services Sample Draft (20)

R Bays - HHS Releases Physician-level Medicare Data
R Bays - HHS Releases Physician-level Medicare DataR Bays - HHS Releases Physician-level Medicare Data
R Bays - HHS Releases Physician-level Medicare Data
 
400 hancock and stall
400 hancock and stall400 hancock and stall
400 hancock and stall
 
Rhode island primary care spend final
Rhode island primary care spend finalRhode island primary care spend final
Rhode island primary care spend final
 
Exploring the Growth of Medicaid Managed Care
Exploring the Growth of Medicaid Managed CareExploring the Growth of Medicaid Managed Care
Exploring the Growth of Medicaid Managed Care
 
ACSG DIRECT TO EMPLOYER WHITE PAPER MARCH 15
ACSG DIRECT TO EMPLOYER WHITE PAPER MARCH 15ACSG DIRECT TO EMPLOYER WHITE PAPER MARCH 15
ACSG DIRECT TO EMPLOYER WHITE PAPER MARCH 15
 
ACSG DIRECT TO EMPLOYER WHITE PAPER MARCH 15
ACSG DIRECT TO EMPLOYER WHITE PAPER MARCH 15ACSG DIRECT TO EMPLOYER WHITE PAPER MARCH 15
ACSG DIRECT TO EMPLOYER WHITE PAPER MARCH 15
 
Webinar: Health Care Innovation Awards Round Two - Achieving Lower Costs Thr...
 Webinar: Health Care Innovation Awards Round Two - Achieving Lower Costs Thr... Webinar: Health Care Innovation Awards Round Two - Achieving Lower Costs Thr...
Webinar: Health Care Innovation Awards Round Two - Achieving Lower Costs Thr...
 
Policy Alternatives for Long-Term Services and Supports
Policy Alternatives for Long-Term Services and SupportsPolicy Alternatives for Long-Term Services and Supports
Policy Alternatives for Long-Term Services and Supports
 
Exploring the Growth of Medicaid Managed Care
Exploring the Growth of Medicaid Managed CareExploring the Growth of Medicaid Managed Care
Exploring the Growth of Medicaid Managed Care
 
1_Primary Care Spend_Final
1_Primary Care Spend_Final1_Primary Care Spend_Final
1_Primary Care Spend_Final
 
Healthcare brief
Healthcare briefHealthcare brief
Healthcare brief
 
KMyrvik-HI215-02 Unit 9 Assignment
KMyrvik-HI215-02 Unit 9 AssignmentKMyrvik-HI215-02 Unit 9 Assignment
KMyrvik-HI215-02 Unit 9 Assignment
 
Medicare and medicaid
Medicare and medicaidMedicare and medicaid
Medicare and medicaid
 
Eric Shell - Crossing the Shaky Bridge
Eric Shell - Crossing the Shaky BridgeEric Shell - Crossing the Shaky Bridge
Eric Shell - Crossing the Shaky Bridge
 
June 8, 2013 CAPG Presentation--Medicare Advantage
June 8, 2013 CAPG Presentation--Medicare AdvantageJune 8, 2013 CAPG Presentation--Medicare Advantage
June 8, 2013 CAPG Presentation--Medicare Advantage
 
Read the scenario that you will use for the Individual Projects in ea.pdf
Read the scenario that you will use for the Individual Projects in ea.pdfRead the scenario that you will use for the Individual Projects in ea.pdf
Read the scenario that you will use for the Individual Projects in ea.pdf
 
Emr And Economic Stimulus
Emr And Economic StimulusEmr And Economic Stimulus
Emr And Economic Stimulus
 
WCS-1223519-WFI-EB-Market-Outlook-FNLprint
WCS-1223519-WFI-EB-Market-Outlook-FNLprintWCS-1223519-WFI-EB-Market-Outlook-FNLprint
WCS-1223519-WFI-EB-Market-Outlook-FNLprint
 
Chapter 2 Billing and Coding for Health ServicesLEARNING OBJEC.docx
Chapter 2 Billing and Coding for Health ServicesLEARNING OBJEC.docxChapter 2 Billing and Coding for Health ServicesLEARNING OBJEC.docx
Chapter 2 Billing and Coding for Health ServicesLEARNING OBJEC.docx
 
Stanislaus 2015 White Paper
Stanislaus 2015 White PaperStanislaus 2015 White Paper
Stanislaus 2015 White Paper
 

CBR027 Hospice Services Sample Draft

  • 1. CONFIDENTIAL SAMPLE CBR No. CBR027-1111111111 The contents of this document contain sensitive, personally identifiable Page 1 of 6 information intended for listed provider’s view only Page 1 of 6 Comparative Billing Report on Hospice Services per Care Setting Provided by NPI 1111111111 Introduction Healthcare providers have a front line role in assisting the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in effectively managing Medicare resources. CMS acknowledges the daily challenges providers face in serving Medicare beneficiaries and the complexity of accurate billing for those services. The information contained in Comparative Billing Reports (CBRs) is provided as a collaborative effort between the Medicare provider community and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to support best billing practices and effective management of Medicare program resources. This report is not intended to be punitive or sent as an indication of fraud. The Medicare hospice benefit allows a beneficiary with terminal illness to forgo curative treatment for the illness and instead receive palliative care. Hospice services rely on the combined knowledge and skills of an interdisciplinary team of professionals (e.g.,physicians, nurses, social workers, therapists, counselors, hospice aides, and volunteers). To be eligible for Medicare hospice care,a beneficiary must be entitled to Part A and be certified as having a terminal illness with a life expectancy of 6 months or less if the illness runs its normal course. The Medicare beneficiary can receive hospice care at home, or in a facility such as a nursing facility, a hospice inpatient facility, or a hospital. This is a follow up CBR on Hospice Services that you received in January 2011. This report uses the same billing comparisons and is based on January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012 data. The billing data and references in this report can assist you in performing a self-audit in assessing your compliance with Medicare guidelines for hospice services. The report also provides an opportunity for comparing your billing practices to other providers billing for these services. We encourage you to conduct an audit of your own claims and refund any overpayments to the appropriate Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC). To access the contact information for your MAC as well as CMS’ other review contractors,please access the Provider Compliance Interactive Map at http://go.cms.gov/IMap. Your MAC can explain how to submit a voluntary refund. We hope you find this information helpful and that it will provide insights into your current and future billing practices. Listed below are website references pertinent to this CBR: IOM, Pub. 100-02,Medicare Benefit Policy Manual, Chapter 9 http://www.cms.hhs.gov/manuals/Downloads/bp102c09.pdf IOM, Pub. 100-04,Medicare Claims Processing,Chapter 11 http://www.cms.gov/manuals/downloads/clm104c11.pdf Centers for Medicare & Medicaid https://www.cms.gov/RegionalOffices/99_RegionalMap.asp#TopOfPage. Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) Hospice Care Regulations (42 CFR Section 418) http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node=42:3.0.1.1.5&idno=42 Office of Inspector General Work Plan Fiscal Year 2010 (page 14) http://oig.hhs.gov/publications/docs/workplan/2010/Work_Plan_FY_2010.pdf Hospice Association ofAmerica, Hospice Facts and Statistics, November 2010 http://www.nahc.org/assets/1/7/HospiceStats10.pdf National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, NHPCO Facts and Figures: Hospice Care in America, 2012 edition http://www.nhpco.org/sites/default/files/public/Statistics_Research/2012_Facts_Figures.pdf Methodology The analysis for this CBR encompassed all Medicare Part A hospice final claims data with claim dates of service from
  • 2. CONFIDENTIAL SAMPLE CBR No. CBR027-1111111111 The contents of this document contain sensitive, personally identifiable Page 2 of 6 information intended for listed provider’s view only Page 2 of 6 180+ days 10.70% 90-179 days 6.50% 30-89 days 15.20% 8-29 days 25.00% ≤7 days 42.60% Figure 2. Distribution of Beneficiaries by the Range of Days Billed per Beneficiary for Routine Home Care for Your Regional Peers, 2012 January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012 that were retrieved from the Integrated Data Repository on March 29, 2013. Four utilization measures will be analyzed within four hospice care sites of service between you and your regional and national peers. The four hospice care sites of service are based on the HCPCS codes Q5001-Q5008 and are grouped as follows Home (Q5001, Q5002), Nursing Facility (Q5003, Q5004), Hospice Inpatient Facility (Q5006), and Hospital (Q5005, Q5007, Q5008). The four utilization measures,based on four revenue codes 0651, 0652, 0655, and 0656, are 1) the average number of days billed per beneficiary for routine home care (0651), 2) the average number of hours billed per beneficiary for continuous home care (0652), 3) the average number of days billed per beneficiary for inpatient respite care (0655), and 4) the average number of days billed per beneficiary for general inpatient care (0656). These measures will be statistically compared to the average of your Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Region and national peers and the results will be displayed in Tables 1-4 for their applicable sites of service. For each of the revenue codes a pie chart will display the distribution of beneficiaries by the range of hours or days billed per beneficiary for you and your regional peer group, respectively. CMS Regions are defined on the CMS website. Medicare regulations do not permit continuous home care (CHC) to be provided in an inpatient facility. Medicare policy allows CHC to be provided in the home (Q5001, Q5002) and to patients residing in long term care nursing facilities (Q5003). General inpatient care (GIP) can only be provided in a Medicare-participating hospital, SNF, or hospice inpatient unit. Inpatient respite care can be provided in a Medicare or Medicaid participating hospital, nursing facility, or hospice inpatient unit. Results Figure 1 below displays the distribution of beneficiaries by the range of days billed per beneficiary for routine home care for you in 2012. Figure 2 displays the distribution of beneficiaries by the range of days billed per beneficiary for routine home care for your regional peer group in 2012. Table 1 below shows the results of the statistical comparison of the average number of days you billed per beneficiary for routine home care to those of your regional and national peer group by care setting. A statistical test was used to determine if there was significant difference between the average number of days you billed per beneficiary and those of your regional and national peer group. Figure 1. Distribution of Beneficaries by the Range of Days Billed per Beneficiary for Routine Home Care for You, 2012 N/A
  • 3. CONFIDENTIAL SAMPLE CBR No. CBR027-1111111111 The contents of this document contain sensitive, personally identifiable Page 3 of 6 information intended for listed provider’s view only Page 3 of 6 Table 1. Statistical Comparison of the Average Number of Days You Billed per Beneficiary for Routine Home Care to Those of Your Regional and National Peers by Care Setting in 2012 You 2009* You 2012 CMS Region 1 National Hospice Care Site of Service Average Days Average Days Average Days Difference Significance** Average Days Difference Significance** Home 215.0 N/A 195.0 N/A N/A 180.0 N/A N/A Nursing Facility 175.0 N/A 154.0 N/A N/A 160.0 N/A N/A Hospice Inpatient Facility 187.0 N/A 170.0 N/A N/A 150.0 N/A N/A Hospital 86.0 N/A 87.0 N/A N/A 90.0 N/A N/A *2009 data forcomparison only. **A t-test was usedin this analysis; a p value ≤ 0.05indicates that we are at least 95% confident that the differenceis significant. If a peer group has less than 30providers, a t-test comparison was not performed andyour significance will be listedas “N/A.” Alternately,if your significance is “N/A” andyour average is also “N/A,” a t-test was not performedbecause youdidnot bill any services andare not part of thepeergroup. Figure 3 below displays the distribution of beneficiaries by the range of hours billed per beneficiary for continuous home care for you in 2012. Figure 4 displays the distribution of beneficiaries by the range of hours billed per beneficiary for continuous home care for your regional peer group in 2012. Table 2 below shows the results of the statistical comparison of the average number of hours you billed per beneficiary for continuous home care to those of your regional and national peer group by care setting. A statistical test was used > 75 hours 7.00% >50-75 hours 35.00% >20-50 hours 26.00% 8-20 hours 25.00% < 8 hours 7.00% Figure 3. Distribution of Beneficiaries by the Range of Hours Billed per Beneficiary for Continuous Home Care for You, 2012 > 75 hours 7.00% >50-75 hours 35.00% >20-50 hours 26.00% 8-20 hours 25.00% < 8 hours 7.00% Figure 4. Distribution of Beneficiaries by the Range of Hours Billed per Beneficiary for Continuous Home Care for Your Regional Peers, 2012
  • 4. CONFIDENTIAL SAMPLE CBR No. CBR027-1111111111 The contents of this document contain sensitive, personally identifiable Page 4 of 6 information intended for listed provider’s view only Page 4 of 6 180+ days 12.75% 90-179 days 8.50% 30-89 days 15.20% 8-29 days 21.30% ≤ 7 days 42.25% Figure 6. Distribution of Beneficiaries by the Range of Days Billed per Beneficiary for Inpatient Respite Care for Your Regional Peers, 2012 to determine if there was significant difference between the average number of hours you billed per beneficiary and those of your regional and national peer group. Table 2. Statistical Comparison of the Average Number of Hours You Billed per Beneficiary for Continuous Home Care to Those of Your Regional and National Peers by Care Setting in 2012 You 2009* You 2012 CMS Region 1 National Hospice Care Site of Service Average Hours Average Hours Average Hours Difference Significance** Average Hours Difference Significance** Home 125.0 121.0 195.0 36.0 higher 180.0 51.0 higher Long Term Care Nursing Facility 115.0 105.0 154.0 31.0 higher 160.0 25.0 higher Hospice Inpatient Facility 100.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Hospital 98.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *2009 data forcomparison only. **A t-test was usedin this analysis; a p value ≤ 0.05indicates that we are at least 95% confident that the differenceis significant. If a peer group has less than 30providers, a t-test comparison was not performed andyour significance will be listedas “N/A.” Alternately,if your significance is “N/A” andyour average is also “N/A,” a t-test was not performedbecause youdidnot bill any services andare not part of thepeergroup. Figure 5 below displays the distribution of beneficiaries by the range of days billed per beneficiary for inpatient respite care for you in 2012. Figure 6 displays the distribution of beneficiaries by the range of days billed per beneficiary for inpatient respite care for your regional peer group in 2012. Figure 5. Distribution of Beneficiaries by the Range of Days Billed per Beneficiary for Inpatient Respite Care for You , 2012 N/A
  • 5. CONFIDENTIAL SAMPLE CBR No. CBR027-1111111111 The contents of this document contain sensitive, personally identifiable Page 5 of 6 information intended for listed provider’s view only Page 5 of 6 180+ days 12.25% 90-179 days 9.25% 30-89 days 13.50% 8-29 days 23.20% ≤ 7 days 41.80% Figure 7. Distribution of Beneficiaries by the Range of Days Billed per Beneficiary for General Inpatient Care for You, 2012 180+ days 12.75% 90-179 days 10.25% 30-89 days 12.75% 8-29 days 21.00% ≤ 7 days 43.25% Figure 8. Distribution of Beneficiaries by the Range of Days Billed per Beneficiary for General Inpatient Care for Your Regional Peers, 2012 Table 3 below shows the results of the statistical comparison of the average number of days you billed per beneficiary for inpatient respite care to those of your regional and national peer group by care setting. A statistical test was used to determine if there was significant difference between the average number of days you billed per beneficiary and those of your regional and national peer group. Table 3. Statistical Comparison of the Average Number of Days You Billed per Beneficiary for Inpatient Respite Care to Those of Your Regional and National Peers by Care Setting in 2012 You 2009* You 2012 CMS Region 1 National Hospice Care Site of Service Average Days Average Days Average Days Difference Significance** Average Days Difference Significance** Home 10.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Nursing Facility 15.2 N/A 10.5 N/A N/A 11.0 N/A N/A Hospice Inpatient Facility 11.5 N/A 11.0 N/A N/A 9.0 N/A N/A Hospital 16.5 N/A 12.5 N/A N/A 13.0 N/A N/A *2009 data forcomparison only. **A t-test was usedin this analysis; a p value ≤ 0.05indicates that we are at least 95% confident that the differenceis significant. If a peer group has less than 30providers, a t-test comparison was not performed andyour significance will be listedas “N/A.” Alternately,if your significance is “N/A” andyour average is also “N/A,” a t-test was not performedbecause youdidnot bill any services andare not part of thepeergroup. Figure 7 below displays the distribution of beneficiaries by the range of days billed per beneficiary for general inpatient care for you in 2012. Figure 8 displays the distribution of beneficiaries by the range of days billed per beneficiary for general inpatient care for your regional peer group in 2012. Table 4 below shows the results of the statistical comparison of the average number of days you billed per beneficiary for general inpatient care to those of your regional and national peer group by care setting. A statistical test was used to determine if there was significant difference between the average number of days you billed per beneficiary and those of your regional and national peer group.
  • 6. CONFIDENTIAL SAMPLE CBR No. CBR027-1111111111 The contents of this document contain sensitive, personally identifiable Page 6 of 6 information intended for listed provider’s view only Page 6 of 6 Table 4. Statistical Comparison of the Average Number of Days You Billed per Beneficiary for General Inpatient Care to Those of Your Regional and National Peers by Care Setting in 2012 You 2009* You 2012 CMS Region 1 National Hospice Care Site of Service Average Days Average Days Average Days Difference Significance** Average Days Difference Significance** Home 37.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Skilled Nursing Facility*** 62.5 60.0 55.0 5.0 higher 50.0 10.0 higher Hospice Inpatient Facility 45.0 41.0 40.0 1.0 within the norm 43.0 -2.0 within the norm Hospital 56.5 54.0 49.0 5.0 higher 45.0 9.0 higher *2009 data forcomparison only. **A t-test was usedin this analysis; a p value ≤ 0.05indicates that we are at least 95% confident that the differenceis significant. If a peer group has less than 30providers, a t-test comparison was not performed andyour significance will be listedas “N/A.” Alternately,if your significance is “N/A” andyour average is also “N/A,” a t-test was not performedbecause youdidnot bill any services andare not part of thepeergroup. ***Inthe 2009 study, this number includedall nursingfacilities includingskillednursingfacilities. Contact Information Please direct all questions on the CBR content or any suggestions to the CBR Producer at (530) 896-7080. For additional information, see www.cbrservices.com. Please direct all mailing address changes for the CBR Disseminator at (888) 313-9666 or www.cbrcontactupdate.com.