Minnesota Department of Human Services audit of medication therapy management programs

Stephanie Smith, Penny Cell, Lowell J Anderson, Tom A Larson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: To inform medication therapy management (MTM) providers of findings of the Minnesota Department of Human Services review of claims submitted to Minnesota Health Care Programs (MHCP) for patients receiving MTM services and to discuss the impact of the audit on widespread MTM services and future audits. Methods: A retrospective review was completed on MTM claims submitted to MHCP from 2008 to 2010. The auditor verified that the Current Procedural Terminology codes billed matched the actual number of medications, conditions, and drug therapy problems assessed during an encounter. Results: 190 claims were reviewed for 57 distinct pharmacies that billed for MTM services from 2008 to 2010, representing 4.5% of all claims submitted. The auditor reported that generally, the documentation within the electronic medical record had the least "up-coding" of all documentation systems. A total of 18 claims were coded at a higher level than appropriate, but only 10 notices were sent out to recover money because the others did not meet the minimum $50 threshold. Conclusion: The auditor expressed concerns that a number of claims billed at the highest complexity level were only 15 minutes long. Providers will need to be cautious of the conditions that they bill as complex and of how they define drug therapy problems. Everything for which is being billed must be clearly assessed or rationalized in the documentation note. The auditor expressed that overall, documentation was well done; however, many MTM providers are now asking how to internally prepare for future audits.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)248-253
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of the American Pharmacists Association
Volume53
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2013

Fingerprint

Medication Therapy Management
Documentation
Drug therapy
Health care
Current Procedural Terminology
System program documentation
Insurance Claim Review
Delivery of Health Care
Electronic medical equipment
Drug Therapy
Electronic Health Records
Pharmacies
Terminology

Keywords

  • Audits
  • Coding
  • Current procedural terminology codes
  • Documentation
  • Medicaid
  • Medication therapy management
  • Minnesota
  • Pharmacists

Cite this

Minnesota Department of Human Services audit of medication therapy management programs. / Smith, Stephanie; Cell, Penny; Anderson, Lowell J; Larson, Tom A.

In: Journal of the American Pharmacists Association, Vol. 53, No. 3, 01.01.2013, p. 248-253.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e636c5d12875404a84cc2bf20ef310bc,
title = "Minnesota Department of Human Services audit of medication therapy management programs",
abstract = "Objectives: To inform medication therapy management (MTM) providers of findings of the Minnesota Department of Human Services review of claims submitted to Minnesota Health Care Programs (MHCP) for patients receiving MTM services and to discuss the impact of the audit on widespread MTM services and future audits. Methods: A retrospective review was completed on MTM claims submitted to MHCP from 2008 to 2010. The auditor verified that the Current Procedural Terminology codes billed matched the actual number of medications, conditions, and drug therapy problems assessed during an encounter. Results: 190 claims were reviewed for 57 distinct pharmacies that billed for MTM services from 2008 to 2010, representing 4.5{\%} of all claims submitted. The auditor reported that generally, the documentation within the electronic medical record had the least {"}up-coding{"} of all documentation systems. A total of 18 claims were coded at a higher level than appropriate, but only 10 notices were sent out to recover money because the others did not meet the minimum $50 threshold. Conclusion: The auditor expressed concerns that a number of claims billed at the highest complexity level were only 15 minutes long. Providers will need to be cautious of the conditions that they bill as complex and of how they define drug therapy problems. Everything for which is being billed must be clearly assessed or rationalized in the documentation note. The auditor expressed that overall, documentation was well done; however, many MTM providers are now asking how to internally prepare for future audits.",
keywords = "Audits, Coding, Current procedural terminology codes, Documentation, Medicaid, Medication therapy management, Minnesota, Pharmacists",
author = "Stephanie Smith and Penny Cell and Anderson, {Lowell J} and Larson, {Tom A}",
year = "2013",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1331/JAPhA.2013.12165",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "53",
pages = "248--253",
journal = "Journal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhA",
issn = "1544-3191",
publisher = "American Pharmacists Association",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Minnesota Department of Human Services audit of medication therapy management programs

AU - Smith, Stephanie

AU - Cell, Penny

AU - Anderson, Lowell J

AU - Larson, Tom A

PY - 2013/1/1

Y1 - 2013/1/1

N2 - Objectives: To inform medication therapy management (MTM) providers of findings of the Minnesota Department of Human Services review of claims submitted to Minnesota Health Care Programs (MHCP) for patients receiving MTM services and to discuss the impact of the audit on widespread MTM services and future audits. Methods: A retrospective review was completed on MTM claims submitted to MHCP from 2008 to 2010. The auditor verified that the Current Procedural Terminology codes billed matched the actual number of medications, conditions, and drug therapy problems assessed during an encounter. Results: 190 claims were reviewed for 57 distinct pharmacies that billed for MTM services from 2008 to 2010, representing 4.5% of all claims submitted. The auditor reported that generally, the documentation within the electronic medical record had the least "up-coding" of all documentation systems. A total of 18 claims were coded at a higher level than appropriate, but only 10 notices were sent out to recover money because the others did not meet the minimum $50 threshold. Conclusion: The auditor expressed concerns that a number of claims billed at the highest complexity level were only 15 minutes long. Providers will need to be cautious of the conditions that they bill as complex and of how they define drug therapy problems. Everything for which is being billed must be clearly assessed or rationalized in the documentation note. The auditor expressed that overall, documentation was well done; however, many MTM providers are now asking how to internally prepare for future audits.

AB - Objectives: To inform medication therapy management (MTM) providers of findings of the Minnesota Department of Human Services review of claims submitted to Minnesota Health Care Programs (MHCP) for patients receiving MTM services and to discuss the impact of the audit on widespread MTM services and future audits. Methods: A retrospective review was completed on MTM claims submitted to MHCP from 2008 to 2010. The auditor verified that the Current Procedural Terminology codes billed matched the actual number of medications, conditions, and drug therapy problems assessed during an encounter. Results: 190 claims were reviewed for 57 distinct pharmacies that billed for MTM services from 2008 to 2010, representing 4.5% of all claims submitted. The auditor reported that generally, the documentation within the electronic medical record had the least "up-coding" of all documentation systems. A total of 18 claims were coded at a higher level than appropriate, but only 10 notices were sent out to recover money because the others did not meet the minimum $50 threshold. Conclusion: The auditor expressed concerns that a number of claims billed at the highest complexity level were only 15 minutes long. Providers will need to be cautious of the conditions that they bill as complex and of how they define drug therapy problems. Everything for which is being billed must be clearly assessed or rationalized in the documentation note. The auditor expressed that overall, documentation was well done; however, many MTM providers are now asking how to internally prepare for future audits.

KW - Audits

KW - Coding

KW - Current procedural terminology codes

KW - Documentation

KW - Medicaid

KW - Medication therapy management

KW - Minnesota

KW - Pharmacists

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84890071867&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84890071867&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1331/JAPhA.2013.12165

DO - 10.1331/JAPhA.2013.12165

M3 - Article

VL - 53

SP - 248

EP - 253

JO - Journal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhA

JF - Journal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhA

SN - 1544-3191

IS - 3

ER -