• Register to Access the Free Forums and 3 Free CEUs!

    To view the content for the 3 free CEUs, please sign up today.

    CLICK HERE TO REGISTER
  • Missing Access To A Course, Blitz or Exam? Have Technical Issues? Open a Help Desk Ticket
    Please Do Not Post in the Community About Access or Technical Issues
    CCO Business Hours for Help Desk and Coaching: Mon-Fri 9am-4pm Eastern

Resource HCC-Hierarchical Condition Categories

Yearly Reporting Requirement​

A major component of the HCC models is that the individual HCCs are only valid for one year. Regardless of the HCC’s fundamental chronicity, on January 1 the patient’s HCC listing is blank. For example, a patient with diabetes with complications would need to have a face-to-face encounter with a provider where diabetes is discussed and documented for the appropriate HCC to be reported in the new base year. This doesn’t mean that the HCC model assumes that the diabetes is cured. Rather, this requirement encourages traditional managed care concepts such as continuity of care, disease management, and case management. With such an emphasis on yearly code capture, provider education becomes a higher priority early in the year to prevent the loss of HCC diagnoses. Providers should be educated to understand that while chronic conditions continually impact the patient’s health status, they are not implied under the HCC models. Risk adjustment coding professionals should identify the documentation gaps and guide providers on how to eliminate the gaps. Another strategy employed by Medicare Advantage Organizations to assist with recapturing valid patient conditions each year is to manage and monitor annual wellness programs. Providers and risk adjustment professionals work together to ensure quality and thorough documentation of patient conditions to support both risk adjustment and quality reporting initiatives.

As evident throughout this description of HCC models structure and reporting, the models rely on a patient’s reported ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes to establish the patient’s health status annually. Therefore, thorough clinical documentation and complete and accurate diagnosis coding are critical to compliant HCC reporting.

There are three steps involved in capturing and reporting HCCs:

  • Validation of medical record eligibility
  • Assignment of appropriate ICD-10-CM codes
  • Submission of ICD-10-CM codes to CMS or HHS for reporting
Validation of medical record eligibility includes patient identification in the record, ensuring the provider is an eligible provider, and verifying that the record has been authenticated. For a provider to be eligible, the provider must be a qualified clinician who is present for the face-to-face encounter. Qualified clinicians include medical doctors (MD), nurse practitioners (NP), and physician assistants (PA). However, not all clinicians are considered eligible providers under HCC models. Non-eligible clinicians include registered nurses (RN) and medical assistants (MA). Furthermore, the collection of a specimen by a pathologist meets the face-to-face requirement, whereas a radiologist reading an imaging study is not considered a face-to-face encounter.

There are two important aspects of HCC coding:
  1. Analyzing health record documentation to identify reportable conditions
  2. Accurately assigning ICD-10-CM codes to these conditions
ICD-10-CM coding for HCC reporting is different from traditional ICD-10-CM coding because the intent is to report all conditions that affect the individual’s health status concurrently across the continuum of care. Similar to traditional coding practices—used for reimbursement, statistics, and research—all the conditions for a particular episode of care (inpatient admission, clinic visit, same-day surgery, etc.) are reported. In HCC coding, the risk adjustment coding professional codes all conditions for the episode of care like traditional coding. However, continuous review of the health record documentation throughout the year is necessary to ensure all conditions have been considered and abstracted by the end of the year.

To support an HCC, clinical documentation in the patient’s health record must support the presence of the condition and indicate the qualified provider’s assessment and/or plan for management of the condition. Organizations employ different strategies for reviewing clinical documentation. Some organizations use the “MEAT” approach:

  • Monitoring
  • Evaluation
  • Assessment
  • Treatment
Others use “TAMPER™”:

  • Treatment
  • Assessment
  • Monitor/Medicare
  • Plan
  • Evaluate
  • Referral

  • Document all cause-and-effect relationships.
  • Clearly link complications or manifestations of a disease process.
  • Include all current diagnoses as part of the current medical decision-making process and document them in the note for every visit.
  • Only document diagnoses as “history of” or “past medical history (PMH)” when they no longer exist and are resolved. Some examples include a history of a myocardial infarction (MI) or history of a cerebrovascular accident (CVA).
Policies might address the following risk adjustment coding principles:

  • Chronic diseases should continue to be coded and reported on an ongoing basis if the patient receives treatment and care for the condition.
  • All diagnoses that receive care and management during the encounter should be reported.
  • Conditions that are no longer active and/or not being treated should not be reported. This includes problem list diagnoses that have been resolved.
  • Report history of and status codes when pertinent and/or influential where there is an impact on current care or treatment.
  • Documentation can be found in any section of the patient record for a face-to-face encounter. For instance, a diagnosis does not have to be in the assessment portion of a SOAP (subjective, objective, assessment, and plan) note to be eligible for abstraction and reporting.

 

Application of Official Guidelines to Risk Adjustment Coding​

Coding TopicImportance for Risk AdjustmentOfficial Guidelines
Etiology/ManifestationCode both the etiology and the manifestation of certain conditions to capture all HCCs.
Example: Cardiomyopathy due to amyloidosis. Report with two codes; both are HCCs.
Reference: A.13
“Certain conditions have both an underlying etiology and… manifestations due to the underlying etiology… there is a ‘use additional code’ note at the etiology code, and a ‘code first’ note at the manifestation code.”
Excludes notesEnsure that Excludes notes are followed.
Example: The Excludes1 note for code I77.0, Arteriovenous fistula, acquired, indicates that this code is not reported for a patient with an arteriovenous shunt for dialysis.
Reporting code I77.0 for an ESRD patient on dialysis is incorrect and would add an inappropriate HCC to the patient’s health status.
Reference: A.12.a
“An Excludes1 note indicates that the code excluded should never be used at the same time as the code above the Excludes1 note.”
MalignanciesEnsure that history of malignancy coding guidelines are followed. Cancer that has been eradicated and is no longer under treatment is not an HCC, but malignancy currently receiving active treatment is an HCC.Reference: I.C.2.a. and d. and m.
“…the primary malignancy code should be used until treatment is completed.”
Injury/Poisonings 7th CharacterEnsure the correct 7th character is accurately assigned. An initial encounter for fracture care is an HCC, however subsequent encounters for routine healing are not HCCs.Reference: I.C.19.c.1
Subsequent care character is used “…for encounters after the patient has completed active treatment of the fracture….”
Code SpecificityCoding specificity can impact HCCs.
Example: Major depressive disorder unspecified is not an HCC, but major depressive disorder specified as mild, single episode is an HCC.
Reference: I.B.18
Code each condition to the highest degree of specificity supported in the health record.

Principle​

Description​

1. Clinically meaningful diagnostic categoriesEach diagnostic category is a set of ICD-10-CM codes that relate to a reasonably well-specified, clinically meaningful disease or medical condition that defines the category.
2. Diagnostic categories should predict medical (and/or drug) expendituresDiagnoses in the same HCC should be reasonably homogeneous with respect to their effect on both current year costs (for concurrent risk adjustment) or next year’s cost (for prospective risk adjustment).
3. Adequate sample size of diagnostic categoriesDiagnostic categories that will affect payments should have adequate sample sizes to permit accurate and stable estimates of expenditures.
4. Hierarchies apply only within related disease processesCosts are additive across hierarchies and disease groups, but not within hierarchies. Thus, in creating an individual’s clinical profile, hierarchies should be used to characterize the person’s illness level within each disease process, while the effects of unrelated disease processes accumulate.
5. Encourage diagnosis code specificityVague diagnostic codes should be grouped with less severe and lower-paying diagnostic categories to provide incentives for more specific diagnostic coding.
6. Repeated use of diagnoses is not rewardedThe model should not measure greater disease burden simply because more diagnosis codes are present. Predicted costs are not increased by the number of times a particular code appears or the presence of additional, closely related codes indicative of the same condition.
7. Repeated use of diagnoses is not penalizedProviders should not be penalized for recording additional diagnoses. This requires that no HCC should carry a negative payment weight and higher-ranked diseases in the hierarchy should have at least as large a payment weight as lower-ranked disease.
8. Consistency in ranking diagnostic categoriesIf diagnostic category A is higher-ranked than category B in a disease hierarchy, and category B is higher-ranked than category C, then category A should be higher-ranked than category C.
9. All ICD-10-CM codes includedBecause each diagnostic code potentially contains relevant clinical information, the model should categorize all ICD-10-CM codes.
10. Exclude discretionary diagnostic categoriesDiagnoses that are subject to discretionary coding variation, inappropriate coding, or that are not credible as cost predictors should not increase cost predictions.

Characteristics​

Description​

Selected significant disease (SSD) modelModel considers serious manifestation of a condition rather than all levels of severity of a condition. Includes most body systems and conditions.
Models are additiveIndividual risk scores are calculated by adding the coefficients associated with each patient’s demographic and disease factors.
Prospective modelUses diagnostic information from a base year to predict costs for the following year.
Site neutralModels do not distinguish payment based on a site of care.
Diagnostic sourcesModels recognize diagnoses from hospital inpatient, hospital outpatient, and physician settings.
Multiple chronic diseases consideredRisk adjusted payment is based on assignment of diagnoses to disease groups, also known as Condition Categories (CCs). Model is most heavily influenced by Medicare costs associated with chronic disease.
HierarchiesCondition Categories are placed into hierarchies, reflecting the severity and cost dominance. Beneficiaries get credit for the disease with the highest severity or the one that subsumes the costs of other diseases. Hierarchies allow for payment based on the most serious conditions when less serious conditions also exist.
Disease and disabled interactionsInteractions allow for higher risk scores for certain conditions when the presence of another disease or demographic status (e.g., disabled status) is indicative of higher costs. Disease interactions are additive factors and increase payment accuracy.
Demographic variablesModels include five demographic factors: age, sex, disabled status, original reason for entitlement, Medicaid or low-income status. These factors are typically measured as of the data collection period.

CMS-HCC Model Structure​

Structure Concept​

Details​

HierarchicalIn the HCC models, HCC conditions are hierarchical, meaning diagnoses that are clinically related are ranked by severity in a hierarchy. For example, there is a hierarchy for diabetes (see Table 3). Only one of the three diabetes HCCs may be reported for a patient per year.
Additive Across HierarchiesWhen a hierarchy is not applicable, the HCCs accumulate for a patient. For example, a male with heart disease, stroke, and cancer would be assigned three separate HCCs, and his RAF would include the sum of the relative factors for all three categories (e.g., HCCs 85, 100 and 10; see Table 3). Thus, HCC models are additive across hierarchies and disease groups, but not within hierarchies.
Disease InteractionsThe CMS-HCC model also incorporates additional relative factors for disease interactions. Certain combinations of diseases have been determined to increase the cost of care. For example, a patient with diabetes and CHF has higher expected costs than a patient that has only diabetes or a patient that has only CHF. Disease interactions result in higher risk scores when the disease pairs are present. The model includes disease-disease interactions as well as disability-disease interactions. For example, in the CMS-HCC model v22, the disease interaction of diabetes and CHF adds a relative factor of 0.182.
PB_AppendixD_Graphic.ashx
 
HCC risk score & the Role of a CDI:

A significant portion of the risk score is calculated based on the number of diseases or conditions (excluding end-stage renal disease, ESRD) so in general, the higher the HCC risk score the sicker the patient is, therefore the costs are estimated to be higher, and subsequently, the higher the payment rate to the provider.

Payors became interested in how providers were documenting and coding for patient visits & out of this was born a niche market called CDI (Clinical Documentation Information). CDI is the process of reviewing medical record documentation for completeness and accuracy. CDI includes a review of disease process, diagnostic findings, and what the documentation might be missing. The ideal method for CDI would be an audit.

 
Back
Top