Wiki Insurance Down coding

kshipp

New
Messages
1
Location
Munfordville, KY
Best answers
0
Insurance plans are down coding level 4 and 5 office visits with little to no guidance. Can someone please offer guidance (definition) on Prescription drug management which is under the risk portion of Coding based on medical decision making?
 
Insurance plans are down coding level 4 and 5 office visits with little to no guidance. Can someone please offer guidance (definition) on Prescription drug management which is under the risk portion of Coding based on medical decision making?
Hi there, CGS has a brief discussion at this link: https://www.cgsmedicare.com/partb/dyk/medaffairs.html#.

Noridian: https://med.noridianmedicare.com/we...n-and-management-prescription-drug-management

Essentially, as with all parts of MDM-based documentation the provider must show their mental work.
 
Insurance plans are down coding level 4 and 5 office visits with little to no guidance. Can someone please offer guidance (definition) on Prescription drug management which is under the risk portion of Coding based on medical decision making?
I would add that some insurances may downcode for a variety of reasons, even WITHOUT medical record review. In fact, Cigna just announced a new policy starting 10/01/2025 stating this exact scenario.
I read the policy a dozen times. No where does it state they may downcode after review of record, simply the "criteria on the claim does not support" without explaining the criteria. Maybe by diagnosis code??? My impression is that Cigna will be downcoding based on whatever criteria they determine, and then you can appeal for the correct payment, knowing full well that many claims will not be appealed for a variety of reasons (insufficient staff, past timely, didn't realize, etc.) other than they were originally overcoded.
"Cigna may adjust the E/M CPT ® code 99204- 99205, 99214-99215, 99244-99245 to a single level lower when the encounter criteria on the claim does not support the higher-level E/M CPT ® code reported. For example, a claim may be adjusted as follows: 99215 to 99214, or 99214 to 99213.
When a code level has been adjusted and, subsequently, medical records are submitted that substantiate the complexity and Medical Decision Making (MDM) or time associated with the reported E/M CPT ® code level, the code will be reimbursed at the level initially submitted."

In my opinion, every incorrect denial should be appealed, even if it takes $20 to recoup $15. Make it cost the payor to spend time reviewing incorrectly downcoded claims. As long as your level 4 and level 5 visits are correctly coded, create form letters where you can fill in the blanks to quickly get the appeals back to the payor.
 
A number of carriers are doing this. It's a major problem for optometry practices and they're receiving the same "lack of explanation" you cite. They're basically saying they can down code "because they can get away with it" without any type of record review. I've encouraged all of my colleagues to appeal every down coded claim. However, as you state, many will not due to lack of time/resources and the improperly deducted fees go directly to the insurers bottom line billion dollar profits!!! This is nothing more than simple theft just like insurers going back years in recoupments with little explanation and little recourse for the providers.
 
Considering they're supposed to support their denial rationale with a Reason Code, maybe there needs to be a new code for "Because we want to"?
:ROFLMAO:
That denial code should have existed for as long as I've been involved in medical billing & coding (which might be longer than some of you are alive). Or a "Let's see if we can get away with this." I understand from the payor perspective there are problem providers, and specific areas of concern. However, to make a blanket policy without reviewing records first is not in anyone's best interest. Like - maybe do an audit of "suspicious" providers first and if the findings don't support the codes a minimum percentage, then THAT provider has this implemented. But for practices that code compliantly, this creates unnecessary work on both sides. It has a huge impact to small practices that run lean staffing and can cause a practice to go under financially if consistently underpaid. To me, it's the equivalent of your employer taking your salary and breaking it into 2 separate checks. 90% of your pay can be easily cashed or direct deposited. The remaining 10%, you have to go to a specific bank 3 hours away and can only cash on Tuesdays between 10a-10:30a. For some employees, it will cost them more than the payment to collect the rightfully due remaining 10%.
 
Top