Postpayment Service-Specific Probe Results for Surgical Services: Extracapsular Cataract Removal with Insertion for January through March 2021

Published 05/07/2021

Palmetto GBA performed service-specific post payment probe review on CPT 66984, Extracapsular Cataract Removal with Insertion. This edit was set in Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee. The results for the probe review for claims processed from January through March 2021 are presented here.

Cumulative Results 
A total of 1,188 claims were reviewed in Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee combined. Of the claims reviewed, 119 of the claims were either completely or partially denied, resulting in an overall claim denial rate of 10.02 percent. The total dollars reviewed was $686,673.03 of which $68,855.90 was denied, resulting in a charge denial rate of 10.03 percent. Overall, there were a total of 170 auto-denied claims in the region.

Alabama Results
A total of 242 claims were reviewed in Alabama, with 26 of the claims either completely or partially denied. This resulted in a claim denial rate of 10.74 percent. The total dollars reviewed was $139,252.45 of which $15,776.43 was denied, resulting in a charge denial rate of 11.33 percent. The top denial reasons identified, and number of occurrences based on dollars denied are:  

Percent of Total Denials

Denial Code

Denial Description

Number of Occurrences

65.38%

NOTML

Per Applicable LCD, Payer Deems the Information Submitted Does Not Support the Medical Necessity of the Services Billed

17

23.08%

WRONG

Documentation Received Contains an Incorrect, Incomplete, or Illegible Patient Identification or Date of Service

6

3.85%

NOSIG

Documentation Lacks the Necessary Provider’s Signature

1

3.85%

NODOC

Documentation Requested for This Date of Service Was Not Received or Was Incomplete; Therefore, We Are Unable to Make a Reasonable and Necessary Determination (as defined under section 1862(a) (1) (a) of the Act) for the Service Billed and This Service Has Been Denied

1

3.85%

ISIGN

Information Submitted Contains and Invalid or Illegible Provider Signature

1

Georgia Results
A total of 624 claims were reviewed in Georgia, with 53 of the claims either completely or partially denied. This results in a claim denial rate of 8.49 percent. The total dollars reviewed was $368,306.17 of which $31,726.91 was denied, resulting in a charge denial rate of 8.61 percent. The top denial reasons identified, and numbers of occurrences based on dollars denied are:  

Percent of Total Denials

Denial Code

Denial Description

Number of Occurrences

67.92%

NOTML

Per Applicable LCD, Payer Deems the Information Submitted Does Not Support the Medical Necessity of the Services Billed

36

18.87%

NOSIG

Documentation Lacks the Necessary Provider’s Signature

10

9.43%

WRONG

Inconsistent Information; Wrong Patient or Wrong Docs

5

1.89%

ISIGN

Information Submitted Contains an Invalid or Illegible Provider Signature

1

1.89%

SIGST

Documentation Contains a Signature Stamp

1

Tennessee Results
A total of 322 claims were reviewed in Tennessee, with 40 of the claims either completely or partially denied. This resulted in a claim denial rate of 12.42 percent . The total dollars reviewed was $179,114.41 of which $21,352.56 was denied, resulting in a charge denial rate of 11.92 percent. The top denial reasons identified, and number of occurrences based on dollars denied are:  

Percent of Total Denials

Denial Code

Denial Description

Number of Occurrences

82.50%

NOTML

Per Applicable LCD, Payer Deems the Information Submitted Does Not Support the Medical Necessity of the Services Billed

33

5.00%

 

NOSIG

Documentation Lacks the Necessary Provider’s Signature

2

5.00%

BILER

Claim Billed in Error per Provider

2

2.50%

ISIGN

Information Submitted Contains an Invalid or Illegible Provider Signature

1

2.50%

DNSRP

Documentation Not Signed by the Billing Provider

1

2.50%

NODOC

No or Partial Documentation Received

1

Denial Reasons and Prevention Recommendations

NOTML — Per Applicable LCD, Payer Deems the Information Submitted Does Not Support the Medical Necessity of the Services Billed

  • Ensure that all documentation to support medical necessity of the service billed is submitted for review. This includes original chart notes and any diagnostic, radiological or laboratory results.
  • Verify that documentation to support the level of service billed is included. Please refer to our website for documentation requirements.

WRONG — Documentation Received Contains an Incorrect, Incomplete, or Illegible Patient Identification or Date of Service

  • Review all documentation prior to submission to ensure that it is for the correct patient and date of service
  • Ensure that patient identifiers are legible and complete
  • Ensure that the complete date of service is clearly and legibly noted on all documentation
  • Prior to billing claims, review the information to determine that the correct patient identifier and the correct date of service are listed in the appropriate field

NOSIG — Documentation Lacks the Necessary Provider’s Signature

NODOC — Documentation Requested for This Date of Service Was Not Received or Was Incomplete

  • Submit all documentation related to the services billed within 45 days of the date on the ADR letter
  • Review documentation prior to submission to ensure that the documentation is complete and that all dates of service requested are included
  • Include any additional information pertinent to the date of service requested to support the services billed, e.g., original chart notes, diagnostic, radiological or laboratory results
  • For claims denied with a M127 or N29 code listed on the remittance advice, be sure to submit all documentation for all dates of service on that claim with a reopen/redetermination request form by fax to (803) 699–2427

ISIGN — Information Submitted Contains an Invalid or Illegible Provider Signature

BILER — Claim Billed in Error per Provider

  • Prior to billing claims, review the information to determine that the correct information is listed in the appropriate fields
  • For all claims previously billed and denied by medical review, do not re-submit the claims. If you disagree with the decision from Medical Review, you must submit the appropriate documentation with a completed redetermination request form to the Appeals Department. This information can be sent by fax to (803) 699–2427.
  • If documentation indicates that both an NPP and a physician performed the service, and the claim is billed under the physician’s NPI, the billing physician must sign the record. Additionally, the documentation must include a statement that the billing provider had face-to-face contact with the patient and performed a substantive portion of the E/M visit. (A substantive portion of the E/M visit includes at least one of the three key components: history, exam, or medical decision-making.)
  • If documentation occurs in a teaching environment, review the documentation to ensure that the billing provider has provided a teaching attestation and a signature

DNSRP — Documentation Not Signed by the Rendering Provider

SIGST — Documentation Contains a Signature Stamp

The Next Step
The service-specific postpayment medical review edits for Surgical Services — CPT 66984, Extracapsular Cataract Removal with Insertion in Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee will be continued based on moderate charge denial rates and medium to high impact severity errors. If significant billing aberrancies are identified, provider-specific review may be initiated.

If you are dissatisfied with a claim determination you have the right to request an appeal. Palmetto GBA encourages you to review the documentation originally submitted, and if you believe you have additional supporting documentation you may include this information with your appeal.  For more information related to the appeals process please refer to the Redetermination: 1 Level Appeal Form (PDF, 405 KB). Questions regarding this medical review can be directed to the Palmetto GBA Provider Contact Center at 877–567–7271.