An
amount in dispute is required for an adverse determination to be
appealable. Although some amount must be in dispute for a reconsideration,
unless specifically waived (e.g., the appeal involves denial of
certification as a TRICARE authorized provider), there is no established
minimum dollar amount. If the contractor’s reconsideration determination
is less than fully favorable to the appealing party and the remaining
amount in dispute is less than $50, no further appeal rights are available
(i.e., $50 or more must be in dispute for a reconsideration to be
accepted at the TQMC contractor, or a formal review to be accepted
at DHA). The determination of “amount in dispute” affects the appealing
party’s rights and must be carefully evaluated, including, when
appropriate, multiple claims for the same service and related claims.
Under TRICARE Prime, if the beneficiary has no liability, other
than a nominal per visit copayment, there is no amount in dispute
(this does not preclude a Prime enrollee from appealing a preadmission/preprocedure
denial determination for services that have not been provided).
If the services at issue are not a benefit under TRICARE, and the
provider is a network provider, the
beneficiary
shall be held harmless by the network provider. (Refer to
Chapter 5, Section 1, paragraph 3.5 for information
regarding “hold harmless”.)
4.1 Calculating
The Amount In Dispute
The “amount
in dispute” is calculated as the actual amount the contractor would
pay if the services and/or supplies involved in the dispute were
determined to be payable.
4.1.1 Examples
Of Excluded Amounts
Example 1: Amounts
in excess of the TRICARE-determined allowable charge or cost are
excluded.
Example 2: The beneficiary’s
TRICARE deductible and cost-share amounts are excluded.
Example 3: Amounts which the TRICARE beneficiary,
parent, guardian, or other responsible person has no legal obligation
to pay are excluded.
Example 4: Amounts under the double coverage
provisions of the TRICARE Reimbursement Manual (TRM),
Chapter 4 are excluded.
4.1.2 Amounts For Preadmission/Preprocedure
Appeals
When
the dispute involves denial of a request for authorization in advance
of actual care or service, the amount in dispute shall be the estimated
allowable charge or cost for the service requested.
4.1.3 Amounts For Provider Status
Appeals
If the
dispute involves the denial of a provider’s request for approval
as an authorized TRICARE provider or the determination to terminate
a provider as an authorized TRICARE provider, there is no requirement
for an amount in dispute. Initial determinations in provider status
appeals are considered factual initial determinations (refer to
Section 5).
4.3 Related
Claims
When
the contractor receives an appeal on a claim which has been denied,
the contractor shall retrieve and examine all claims related to
the specific service or supply or EOC received by the beneficiary
to determine if the claim in dispute was properly denied and if
related claims were properly processed. All claims which relate
to the same incident of care or the same type of service to the beneficiary
shall be processed in the same manner and shall be readjudicated
and resolved along with the denied claim in the same reconsideration
determination. If one claim which relates to an excluded procedure
is denied, all claims which relate to the same procedure shall also
be denied. If a procedure is covered and one claim involving that
procedure and EOC is paid, other claims relating to the same procedure
and/or period of care which have been denied should be examined
in conjunction with the paid claim to see if the other claims may
be paid or whether all the claims should be uniformly denied. The
contractor shall take action in accordance with
paragraph 4.4.2 to determine
if any claim for the services or supplies was improperly paid or
denied. All related claims shall be made part of the appeal file.
The file shall contain full documentation pertaining to the issue
and the care in dispute, to include a record of actions taken by
the contractor on all claims involving the same issue.
Example 1: The
contractor receives claims for hospitalization, testing, physician
services, and the purchase of a cerebellar stimulator implant device
for a TRICARE beneficiary. These claims involve the surgical implant
of the cerebellar stimulator in the patient’s skull. The claims
for the hospital care, physician’s services, and the stimulator
device are denied by the contractor on the basis that the procedure
is unproven. The claims for testing are paid. Upon appeal, the contractor
shall retrieve all the claims for the EOC. The contractor shall
find that the charges for the testing were erroneously paid because they
relate to the denied unproven procedure. The contractor shall take
action in accordance with
paragraph 4.4.2.
Example 2: A beneficiary with out-of-control
diabetes is hospitalized, during which time she receives nutrition
counseling, an eye examination and insulin therapy. On the last
day of the hospitalization, an M.D. performs an abortion. The initial
determination denies cost-sharing for all services and the hospital
requests a reconsideration. All services must be reviewed to determine
which are related to the covered hospitalization for diabetes and
which are related to the noncovered abortion.
Example 3: Outpatient
psychotherapy sessions are provided to a beneficiary and cost-shared
by the contractor for a period of twelve months. All claims for
the thirteenth month are denied due to lack of an adequate treatment
plan. Upon appeal of the denial of the claim, all previously paid
claims shall be retrieved and examined to determine whether all
the claims should be paid, all denied, or whether denial is proper
for some of the claims.
Example 4: The
contractor denies a claim for physical therapy on the basis that
the services were not medically necessary. At reconsideration, the
contractor discovers that previous claims for the same services
and condition were paid in error. Because the erroneously paid claims
involve the same issue - medical necessity of the physical therapy
- the contractor shall add the erroneously paid claims to the reconsideration
and review all claims together.
4.4 Erroneous
Payments
In
considering an issue under appeal, questions may arise concerning
previous payment of services or claims not under appeal. Possible
erroneous payments will be reviewed in depth, including medical
review if necessary, to determine if, at the time the initial determination
was made, there existed any basis for the payment. If the reviewer
concludes there was a basis for payment at the time the claim was
processed, the payment may stand. When the evidence indicates a
payment was erroneous and not supported by law or regulation, the
following action will be taken.
4.4.1 Recoupment
Involving Separate Issues
The contractor may request
a refund and treat the recoupment action as an initial determination.
Appeal rights shall be offered to the next level of appeal. Any
new appeal must address itself to the benefit issue in dispute and
not the fact that a refund has been requested.
4.4.2
Recoupment
Involving Issues Under Appeal
When the contractor examines
claims which are related to the claim in dispute and determines
that one or more of the related claims were improperly paid, the
contractor shall explain the erroneous payment in detail and advise
the appealing party of any recoupment. If the contractor determines
recoupment is appropriate, the amount of the erroneously paid claim(s)
will be added to the amount in dispute, and the reconsideration
review will consider both the claim(s) in dispute and the erroneously
paid related claim(s) which involve the same issue. If the total
amount in dispute permits a higher level appeal, the appealing party
will be so advised.