Part B billing

[ZakMeister]

---

Members don't see this ad.

So I am on rotation at this community pharmacy and learnt that for DMEs you need to have an actual signature on the rx (escripts won't be ok) for medicare part B reimbursement. While I know that dx codes are needed and it makes sense to have them, why can't CMS just be happy with an electronic signature and save us the trouble of faxing back the offices asking for a signed rx? What is the rationale behind an "inked" signature in this regard?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[pharmdit]

the rationale is that the more stringent the requirements, the more likely they'll ding you on an audit and take back money.


Sent from my iPad using SDN mobile

 

[owlegrad]

I agree, there is no "logic" or "rationale". They just have a crazy list of requirements, many of which go against industry standards and are the opposite of progressive, the only purpose of which can be to deny claims and recover payments. And perhaps to discourage Part B participation to begin with?

 

[lord999]

Because that wet signature part of the old CMS law for orders where the electronic process pertains to prescriptions, and DME are not legend products under FD&C. DME are prescribed through an order, not a prescription. Its a *#(@ing stupid distinction, but it's still there. There's a bunch of states that have legal distinctions on that where DME is regulated by a separate Board than the Board of Pharmacy where DME has a lot less stringent control about registering (which leads to the fly-by-night companies). So you are not asking for a prescription, but an order. However, certain states do not make that distinction, but the stricter (more PITA rule) applies!

 

[RPh Who]

So I am on rotation at this community pharmacy and learnt that for DMEs you need to have an actual signature on the rx (escripts won't be ok) for medicare part B reimbursement. While I know that dx codes are needed and it makes sense to have them, why can't CMS just be happy with an electronic signature and save us the trouble of faxing back the offices asking for a signed rx? What is the rationale behind an "inked" signature in this regard?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Your preceptor is behind the times, this was issued in CMS in March of this year. Electronic is acceptable.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Z_L-VdwcUjD9ZESRA&sig2=CO_u0E9YPLbZ00pMEEnRHg

 

[Lnsean]

So I am on rotation at this community pharmacy and learnt that for DMEs you need to have an actual signature on the rx (escripts won't be ok) for medicare part B reimbursement. While I know that dx codes are needed and it makes sense to have them, why can't CMS just be happy with an electronic signature and save us the trouble of faxing back the offices asking for a signed rx? What is the rationale behind an "inked" signature in this regard?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Digital signature is fine. My medicare department for Walgreens said it was okay.