DMERC Advisory Committee Meeting
May 4, 2000 - 5:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.


Present: Providers/Member
Chuck Gunther Carlos Reyes
Maureen Hanna Laura McIlvaine
Doug Thole Kim Frushon
Kimberlie Rogers Bowers Wade Hendrickson
Allen Newsom Reid Bellis
Celia Hansen Lisa Hettinger
July Runyon Douglas Wankier
Krista Rodriguez Miriam Lieber
Bill McCullough Anne Bloodsworth
Jane Thomas Len Mandaro
David Williams Richard Pozesky
Greg Lord
CIGNA Staff
Carla Cerchione Tricia Luna
Ellen Edenfield Dolly Baughman
Dina Reynolds Mary Rheinecker
Dr. Robert Hoover
HCFA Staff
Jim Underhill
The meeting began with introduction of all attendees.
Spring Seminars
The change to the Spring Seminar schedule and location was discussed. Jim Underhill clarified
the reason for the change was due to a directive issued by Nancy-Ann Min DeParle stating that
no contractor, including the DMERC, may charge for provider seminars effective June 1, 2000.
HCFA is currently reviewing contractor budgeting issues that may be impacted by this change.
CIGNA is planning to have day long seminars in 25 locations from October to December. HCFA
is also currently considering the possibility of Internet conferencing.
CIGNA clarified that there are no plans to post conference handouts on the Internet site.
Maintenance and Service Issue Update
CIGNA staff reviewed a written outline of the M&S project update prepared for this meeting.
There were 5,497 beneficiaries identified that had denied claims on the initial reports. There are
419 remaining beneficiaries that still require review by CIGNA. The review was anticipated to be
complete by May 12, 2000.
As a result of a consensus reached the previous day of DAC MS subcommittee meeting, the DAC
will be requesting additional information from other providers impacted by claim denials related to
the M&S issue. The determination to gather additional information from other Region D providers
2
was made by the subcommittee to allow further evaluation of the scope of the issue. CIGNA staff
and Jim Underhill requested that the subcommittee only gather information directly related to the
issue, and ensure unrelated items are not included in the information gathered. It was clarified by
DAC members that the MS subcommittee intends to evaluate information gathered only as a
preliminary step in assisting the subcommittee to develop a better understanding of the extent
providers within Region D have been impacted by this issue. A request was made to the DAC to
allow CIGNA and HCFA to review a draft of the form that will be sent to providers to collect the
data.
Providers were reminded that any MS claims denied prior to April 1998 cannot be related to this
issue because that is prior to the implementation of the system edit which is causing claim
denials. The Spring 2000 DMERC Dialogue includes information on ANSI message revisions that
will be used for M&S claim denials and the steps providers may take to correct claims.
A Team Questions
Several A-Teams had follow up questions after reviewing the written responses provided by
CIGNA.
Question 3: The statement regarding Proof of Delivery came from the Anti-Fraud unit. Providers
wishing to send comments related to the unique delivery requirements of external infusion and
PEN supplies may send them to the attention of Dr. Hoover or Mary Rheinecker.
Question 8: CIGNA indicates the examples submitted did not include information required by
policy. The HA0 field is 281 characters long, which may not be enough for some of the required
information. The response referred to the surgical dressing policy for clarification of information
necessary to process claims. CIGNA did not respond to examples submitted for ostomy supplies.
In a related matter: the OMB is currently reviewing The CMNs. Comments must be submitted to
the appropriate address by June 16. There is no current activity related to review of the possibility
of extending the 90-day time frame for physician signature requirement.
Question 12: CIGNA clarifies that the medical record may include all records relating to the
beneficiaries’ condition. It is not expected the exact wording referenced in the DMERC policy to
be found in the beneficiaries’ record. However, information contraindicating the medical policy
requirements should not be found. Medications and other collaborating information will be
considered during the review to determine if the medical records submitted support the medical
need.
Question 15: There should be a clear change in the medical needs of the beneficiary to begin a
new capped rental period for a particular beneficiary. The December 1997 DMERC Dialogue
includes an article titled "Starting a New Capped Rental Period" outlining the current policy.
Question 16: Providers remain concerned that the implementation of this requirement for testing
is in effect a change in the actual policy and providers were not given the opportunity for
comment.
Question 17: Dr. Hoover clarified that any change made to the estimated length of need of any
therapy automatically qualifies as a major change in the beneficiary’s condition from a clinical
perspective. Therefore, a recertification for a beneficiary with a length of need of less than lifetime
on an original CMN will require retesting.
In a related matter, Dr. Hoover clarified that no additional consideration has been given regarding
the physician evaluation to document the on-going need for oxygen therapy required to be in the
supplier file. During the last meeting, Dr. Hoover stated that he would provide additional
3
clarification as to what information should be requested by suppliers to maintain in their files to
support claim submission in the event of a post payment audit. Dr. Hoover will follow up on this
item.
Question 23: If the equipment was purchased by a local carrier prior to the transition to the
DMERCs, the provider may submit proof of payment from the previous carrier allowing the
coverage to be grandfathered by the DMERC.
Item number 6 on the agenda was tabled, as the information was not available at the meeting due
to a shipping error.
The next DAC meeting is scheduled for August 14, 2000 in the executive dining room at the
Boise office of CIGNA. A-Team meetings will not be scheduled in Boise.
Dr. Hoover made several announcements:
Dr. Doran Edwards has been hired as an associate Medical Director.
The Supplier manual is currently being revised. Anticipates the new manual to be issued in
January 2001.
Action Items
Question numbers 9 (2A), 10, 15, included on the original submission to CIGNA note that
additional follow up is required by CIGNA.
DAC Members wishing to comment on the delivery requirements for PEN items should send them
to the attention of Mary Rheinecker.
DAC Members wishing to comment on the CMN’s must submit them to HCFA at the appropriate
address by June 16, 2000.
Dr. Hoover to follow up on clarification of information needed on the physician evaluation required
to be in supplier files (Question 17).
The following information was subsequently provided by CIGNA in follow up to several issues
discussed during the meeting:
May 9, 2000
DAC QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOLLOW-UP
16. What is the reference for the authority to require retesting of oxygen recipients when the
length of need is less than lifetime?
Coverage Issues Manual § 60-4 states "A repeat arterial blood gas or oximetry study is
normally necessary only when evidence indicates that an oxygen recipient has undergone
a major change relevant to home use of oxygen." If upon initial certification a physician
determines that a patient will only need oxygen for a finite period of time (i.e. less than
4
lifetime), we assume there has been a major change (or he anticipated a change that
didn’t occur) in the patient’s status for the physician to consider recertifying this patient
for a subsequent period of treatment. This major change would necessitate a repeat
determination of blood oxygen saturation to ascertain if the patient needed extended
treatment.
17. What is involved in the "re-evaluation" of patients placed on oxygen (see DMERC
Dialogue
article, Winter 1999, page 4)?
The DMERC does not specify what is involved in the treating physician’s re-evaluation
of a patient and their need for oxygen therapy. This is determined by the treating
physician’s clinical judgement and the medical standard-of-care for that community.
The re-evaluation may or may not involve a repeat arterial blood gas or oximetry test
unless required by Medicare coverage guidelines. The DMERC will be looking for
evidence that the physician saw the patient, considered the benefit received from the
oxygen and assessed the continued need for the oxygen therapy.
Carlo’s question on the scenario of a COPD patient, placed on a BiPAP ST (K0533) prior to
Medicare eligibility, and now wishes to continue on the K0533 once Medicare eligible. How can
this be accomplished without undergoing the trial period on a K0532 as specified in the
Respiratory Assist Device Regional Medical Review Policy?
As a general rule, patients that become eligible for Medicare benefits must meet the initial
coverage criteria outlined in the DMERC RMRPs. However, those patients on a RAD prior
to eligibility may have met the initial coverage criteria at the time they were placed on the
device but, through the use of the device, have shown improvement in their pulmonary gas
exchange such that they would no longer meet eligibility requirements.
For those patients placed on a K0533 prior to Medicare eligibility, we would consider them
similar to those placed on the device prior to the effective date of the policy who request
continued coverage. In other words, the supplier should obtain:
1. A signed and dated statement from the treating physician declaring that the patient
continues to compliantly use the device (an average of 4 hours per 24 hour period) and
that the patient is benefiting from its use, and
2. A Medicare beneficiary statement completed by the patient.
The supplier may add the ZX modifier to the claim after obtaining the above documentation.

Region D DMERC Advisory Committee
Meeting with CIGNA
Orlando, FL
October 5, 2000
Minutes


Present
DAC Members:
Len Mandaro Rick Pozesky
Syd Gubin Keith Schwartz
Martin Szmal Allen Newsome
Derek Ng Violeta Arnobit
Traci Oswalt Tim Zipp
Anne Bloodsworth Ma. Theresa Galang
Margarita Turner Rosalie Lu Weber
Michal Ragsdah Miriam Lieber
Karl Lembke Greg Lord
Vickie Houghton Deborah Davis
Velma Goertzen Judy Thompson
Val Taylor Janna Jurovich
Leslie Rigg Any Boesl
Herb Langsam Kim Frushon
Sharon Nichelson Mike Hayden
Reid Bellis Dale Cleveland
Wade Hendrickson Kimberlie Rogers-Bowers
Chuck Gunther Que Christensen
Carlos Reyes Laura McIlvaine
CIGNA Staff:
Doran Edwards, M.D. Beki Hacker
Bonitia Greffer Robert Hoover, M.D.
Mary Rheinecker Dina Reynolds
Tricia Luna Carla Cerchione
Dolly Baughman Barbara Douglas
Nicole
Pichardo
Region B DMERC Staff:
Larry Wilson Susan Joyce
Region C DMERC Staff:
Jean Gaddy
The meeting began with introductions of CIGNA staff and DAC members present. The
DAC introduced the new executive committee and ‘A’ Team leaders elected in the
previous days meeting:
2
DAC Executive Committee:
Carlos Reyes Chair
Laura McIlvaine Vice Chair
Troy Paz Secretary
Wade Hendrickson Treasurer
Chuck Gunther Immediate Past Chair
DAC ‘A’ Team Leaders:
Kim Frushon HME
Mike Hayden IV
Sharon Nichelson Medical Supply
John Kenney O & P
Reid Bellis Rehab
Dale Cleveland Respiratory
Len Mandaro EDI
Maureen Hanna Education, Communication and Training
The DAC expressed thanks to CIGNA and each of the staff members that worked to
resolve maintenance and service (MS) denial issues over the past months. This item has
been closed from the DAC agenda.
The DAC introduced members representing the states within Region D. There was
excellent representation from member states.
Carla Cerchione gave the following updates:
The EDI Department has added three positions: a technical analyst and two
marketing representatives. Provider Relations has added a customer service
representative.
The toll free telephone number went live in August. Some providers have
experienced difficulties due to the 877 prefix not being recognized as a toll free
number. This has been especially evident for providers using a PBX system. The toll
free telephone number is 877.320.0390.
There has been a "Contact Us" option added to CIGNA’s website. Inquiries received
via this option will be responded to within 45 days (the same timeframe for response
on written inquiries received via mail). The DAC offered to support CIGNA with
assistance in replying to these inquiries when appropriate.
The CIGNA website has a Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) option available, which
includes some of the questions received from the DAC. The DAC members
requested that CIGNA consider posting all questions and answers on the website.
Two other DMERC carriers currently post all questions and answers on their
respective sites.
Dr. Hoover provided the following updates:
3
HCFA has announced coverage of clinical trials. Additional information is available
on HCFA’s website at
www.hcfa.gov
HCFA issued a program memorandum (PM AB-00-72) in August regarding
Progressive Corrective Action. It is a review of claims driven by data analysis using
system wide information as well as individual provider analyses. The carriers have
been instructed to take different levels of action based upon review of the data. The
carrier may determine that "provider community" education or individual provider
action is warranted. Dr. Hoover offered to send the DAC, and subsequently provided,
the specific memorandum information. The program memorandum may be accessed
at
www.hcfa/gov/pubforms/transmit/memos/comm_date_dsc.htm
Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT) will take the place of complex random
medical review. Dyncorp, another HCFA contractor, will perform these reviews,
which will be used to determine the claims payment error rate. Current claims will be
selected for review. In response to questions regarding application of existing policy
on current claims, such as in the case of grandfathered CMNs, etc., it was clarified
that DMERC staff is working with the new contractor for training on these types of
issues. The objective of the review is to identify payment errors, whether carrier or
provider.
Other Items:
The DAC requested that CIGNA accept a proposal to change the meeting schedule for
2001 to three face-to-face meetings and one meeting via conference call. In person
meetings will be held at each of the MedTrade shows and the DAC requested the third
to be scheduled for June 19 or 26 at the CIGNA office in Nashville. The conference call
meeting has been requested to take place during the week of January 8 –12. Carla will
coordinate availability with the DAC.
Due to the large number of questions submitted by the DAC for this meeting, the number
of questions submitted for future meetings will be limited.
The DAC expressed concerns with the implementation of the Home Health Agency
Prospective Payment System, effective 10/1/00. There are serious concerns with the
implementation of a system not yet clearly defined. The DMERC has not received any
additional information from HCFA to assist with the DAC concerns. Accordingly, DMERC
staff did not comment.
The DAC ‘A’ Team Leaders will join the DAC state representative members at future
meetings.
Dina Reynolds asked the DAC to assist with educating providers about the changes
anticipated with the implementation of the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act (HIPAA) electronic transmission standards. The targeted
implementation date is October 2002.
The I.V. ‘A’ Team continues to work on specialty formula claims processing and date of
delivery issues. Dolly Baughman is the CIGNA staff working with the DAC on specialty
formulas, while Jim Underhill at HCFA is handling the date of delivery issue. Information
4
has been forwarded to the HCFA Central Office. Other DMERC advisory councils have
expressed similar concerns on the date of delivery, as applied to PEN claims, and will be
joining the Region D DAC in their efforts. The I.V. ‘A’ Team will copy Dr. Hoover on
written correspondence to HCFA in order to allow him to remain aware of developments
in this area.
The following questions were asked for clarification of the written material provided:
HME:
Question 1: an example is needed in order to respond.
Question 2: There is a process in place to ensure the CMN file is updated. The claim will
not process unless a CMN update has occurred.
Question 14: Medicare reviews the amount charged, the code and description (if
available) when processing MSP claims. Therefore, different codes required by a
primary insurance company will not, by itself, cause the claim to deny.
Question 18: Examples are needed to further review the issue.
Question 19: Kim Frushon will follow up with Dolly Baughman.
Question 21: Affected physicians may call Dr. Hoover with their concerns.
Medical Supplies:
Question 2: Page 67 of the Summer 1999 DMERC Dialogue indicates that box 19 of the
HCFA 1500 form should not be used for medical necessity information.
Question 5: The information included in the Summer 2000 DMERC Dialogue was
provided in response to supplier requests for additional guidance on medical necessity
documentation. It was intended to provide information that may be helpful to providers
when gathering information that may assist in documenting medical necessity. It does
not set specific documentation requirements for medical necessity. Other types of
documentation sent with claims will be reviewed to determine if documented medical
necessity exists.
Orthotics and Prosthetics:
Question 1: A properly executed Advanced Beneficiary Notice (ABN) is required before a
beneficiary may be billed. An ABN would be appropriate if the provider knew the
beneficiary previously had the same or similar equipment.
Question 4: Dr. Hoover will accept suggestions and input from the ‘A’ Team on areas
that may be reviewed for other consideration. However, he also notes there is specific
language that incorporates the 5 Year Useful Lifetime rule referred to in the question.
5
Rehab:
Question 4: Clarification of the written response was provided: An initial date on the
CMN is required. The date can be the date of the original medical need, or the date the
repair is ordered by the physician. The information included in the Fall 2000 DMERC
Dialogue
article must be included in Section C of the CMN.
Respiratory:
Question 1: A revised CMN is required. Please see the July 2000 update of the medical
policy, page 67.3 of the provider manual. The recertification date will be based upon the
initial date of need for oxygen therapy.
Question 2: A full signature and date is required from the physician for any changes on a
CMN. Clarification of guidelines allowing only the physician initials and date may be
forthcoming. However, current guidelines require full signature.
Questions from previous DAC Meetings:
Question 2: Dr. Hoover will accept preliminary information from the group. Workload,
budget and other items will have to be determined prior to any action. Additionally, the
appropriate definition of what is "customized" will need to be determined.
Question 3: HCFA is still working on this issue.