Department of Health and Human Services
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
INAPPROPRIATE MEDICARE
PAYMENTS FOR
TRANSFORAMINAL EpIDURAL
INJECTION SERVICES
~, SERVICEs
Daniel R. Levinson
 E Inspector General
0(
'~"'o :;
"'~';~~"J'UJ''1
August 2010
"'..
DEI -05-09-00030
""Jp;l1I1ifJa Office of Inspector General
http://oig.hhs.gov
The mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452, as
amended, is to protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) programs, as well as the health and welfare of beneficiaries served b'y those
programs. This statutory mission is carried out through a nationwide network of audits,
investigations, and inspections conducted by the following operating components:
Offce of A udit Services
The Offce of Audit Services (OAS) provides auditing services for HHS, either by conducting
audits with its own audit resources or by overseeing audit work done by others. Audits
examine the performance of HHS programs and/or its grantees and contractors in carrying
out their respective responsibilities and are intended to provide independent assessments of
HHS programs and operations. These assessments help reduce waste, abuse, and
mismanagement and promote economy and effciency throughout HHS.
Offce of Evaluation and Inspections
Evaluation and Inspections COEI) conducts national evaluations to provide
The Offce of 
HHS, Congress, and the public with timely, useful, and reliable information on significant
issues. These evaluations focus on preventing fraud, waste, or abuse and promoting
economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of departmental programs. To promote impact, OEI
reports also present practical recommendations for improving program operations.
Office of Investigations
The Office of Investigations (OI) conducts criminal, civil, and administrative investigations
of fraud and misconduct related to HHS programs, operations, and beneficiaries. With
investigators working in all 50 States and the District of Columbia, 01 utilizes its resources
by actively coordinating with the Department of Justice and other Federal, State, and local
law enforcement authorities. The investigative efforts of 01 often lead to criminal
convictions, administrative sanctions, and/or civil monetary penalties.
Office of Counsel to the Inspector General
legal services to
The Offce of Counsel to the Inspector General (OCIG) provides general 
OIG, rendering advice and opinions on HHS programs and operations and providing all
legal support for OIG's internal operations. OCIG represents OIG in all civil and
administrative fraud and abuse cases involving HHS programs, including False Claims Act,
program exclusion, and civil monetary penalty cases. In connection with these cases, OCIG
also negotiates and monitors corporate integrity agreements. OCIG renders advisory
opinions, issues compliance program guidance, publishes fraud alerts, and provides other
guidance to the health care industry concerning the anti-kickback statute and other OIG
enforcement authorities. .. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OBJECTIVE
1. To determine the extent to which Medicare Part B payments for
transforaminal epidural injections met Medicare requirements.
2. To determine what safeguards existed to ensure Medicare Part B
payments for transforaminal epidural injections met Medicare
requirements.
BACKGROUND
Medicare Part B physician payments for transforaminal epidural
injections increased from $57 milion in 2003 to $141 milion to 2007.
This represents an increase of almost 150 percent.
i pain
Transforaminal epidural injections are a type of  inter  ventiona 
management technique used to diagnose or treat pain. Transforaminal
epidural injections may be used to treat pain that starts in the back and
radiates down the leg, such as that from a herniated disc pressing on a
nerve. Two primary codes, 64479 and 64483, are used to bil a single
injection in the cervical/thoracic or lumbar/sacral areas of the spine,
respectively. Each primary code has an associated add-on code for use
levels.
when injections are provided at multiple spinal 
Medicare Part B contractors are responsible for implementing program
safeguards to reduce payment error. To safeguard payments,
contractors may create local coverage determinations (LCD), implement
electronic edits (hereinafter referred to as edits), or conduct medical
review.
We conducted a medical record review of a stratified random sample of
433 transforaminal epidural injection services performed in 2007. In
addition, we reviewed documents and conducted structured interviews
with contractor staff about program safeguards for transforaminal
epidural injections.
FINDINGS
Thirty-four percent of transforaminal epidural injection services
allowed by Medicare in 2007 did not meet Medicare requirements,
resulting in approximately $45 milion in improper payments.
Medicare allowed an additional $23 millon in improper facility
payments associated with physician services in error. Nineteen percent
oftransforaminal epidural injection services had a documentation error.
OEI.05.09.000JO INAPPROPRIATE MEDICARE PAYMENTS FOR TRANSFORAMINAL EpIDURAL INJECTION SERVICES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Documentation errors were more likely to occur in office settings.
Thirteen percent of transforaminal epidural injection services had a
medical necessity error. Eight percent had a coding error. Seven
percent had an overlapping error.
In 2007, 9 of 14 contractors had an LCD for transforaminal epidural
injection services, but reported limited use of other safeguards.
Nine of the fourteen contractors had an LCD for transforaminal
epidural injections. However, only one contractor enforced all LCD
requirements through edits.
reported performing a mep.ical review.
No contractor staff 
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of our review, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services (CMS) should:
Conduct provider education, directly and through contractors, about
proper documentation.
Strengthen program safeguards to prevent improper payment for
transforaminal epidural injection services. To improve program
safeguards, CMS could encourage contractors to examine
services provided in offces. CMS
transforaminal epidural injection 
could also encourage contractors to develop LCDs for transforaminal
epidural injections and develop additional edits enforcing LCD
requirements. Finally, CMS could encourage contractors to use medical
review to identify improper payments for transforaminal epidural
injection services.
Take appropriate action regarding the undocumented, medically
unnecessary, and miscoded services identified in our sample. We
wil forward information on these services to CMS under separate cover.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
RESPONSE
CMS concurred with our recommendations and outlined steps to
payments for transforaminal epidural injection
improve its oversight of 
services. We did not make any changes to the report based on CMS's
comments.
OEI.05.09.00030 INAPPROPRIATE MEDICARE PAYMENTS FOR TRANSFORAMINAL EpIDURAL INJECTION SERVICES 11 ~ TABLE
CONTENTS
o F
EXECUTIVE SUMMARy...... .............................. 1
INTRODUCTION ..............".............................1
FIN DIN G S . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12
Thirty-four percent of transforaminal epidural injection services
allowed by Medicare in 2007 did not meet Medicare requirements,
resulting in approximately $45 milion in improper payments. .. 12
In 2007, 9 of 14 contractors had an LCD for transforaminal
epidural injection services, but reported limited use of other
safeguards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14
R E COM MEN D A T ION S ..................................... 18
Agency Comments and Office ofInspector General Response. . .. 19
A P PEN D I XES ............................................. 20
A: Detailed Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20
B: Confidence Intervals for Selected Estimates. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23
C: Agency Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25
A C K NOW LED G MEN T S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27 ..
NTRODUCTION
OBJECTIVE
1. To determine the extent to which Medicare Part B payments for
transforaminal epidural injections met Medicare requirements.
2. To determine what safeguards existed to ensure Medicare Part B
payments for transforaminal epidural injections met Medicare
requirements.
BACKGROUND
Chronic pain affects more adults in the United States than diabetes,
heart disease, and cancer combined.1 Several organizations, including
Veterans Mfairs and the Joint Commission, have
the Department of 
recommended that physicians routinely assess pain in their patients.
pain and can range from
Treatment varies depending on the type of 
noninvasive to invasive, or interventional, techniques.2
Medicare paid over $2 bilion in 2007 for interventional pain
i pain management
management services.3 Examples of  inter  ventiona 
services include injections, nerve blocks, and spinal cord stimulation.
for transforaminal
From 2003 to 2007, Medicare physician payments 
epidural injections, a type of interventional pain management service,
increased by almost 150 percent.4 Physician payments for
transforaminal epidural injections increased from $57 milion in 2003 to
$141 milion in 2007.5 These payments represent approximately
i 1 percent of all Medicare physician payments for interventional pain
management services.6
1 American Pain Foundation, Pain Facts & Figures, July 8, 2009. Accessed at
http://www.painfoundation.org/ on February 1, 2010,
2 Noninvasive pain management techniques may include physical therapy; invasive, or
interventional, techniques may include injections near the source of pain,
3 Estimate based on Offce ofInspector General (OIG) analysis of  physician claims for
interventional pain management procedure codes in a I-percent sample of the
2007 National Claims History (NCH) outpatient and physician/supplier fie,
4 Estimate based on OIG analysis of physician claims for transforaminal epidural
injection procedure codes in the following Medicare claims fies: (1) 2003 -percent sample
ofNCH physician/supplier file and (2) 2007 IOO-percent NCH physician/supplier file,
5 Ibid,
6 Estimate based on OIG analysis of  physician claims in the following Medicare claims
files: (i 2007 100-percent NCH physician/supplier fie and (2) I-percent sample of the
2007 NCH physician/supplier fie.
OEI.05.09.00030 INAPPROPRIATE MEOICARE PAYMENTS FOR TRANSFORAMINAL EplOURAL INJECTION SERVICES 1 NTRODUCTION
Medicare physician claims for transforaminal epidural
The number of 
injection services increased by 130 percent from 2003 to 2007.7 Over
295,000 Medicare beneficiaries received transforaminal epidural
injection services in 2007.8
In addition, a number of investigations by OIG and the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI) have found fraudulent activity related to
transforaminal epidural injections. In one joint OIG-FBI case, an Ohio
physician was convicted of multiple counts of health care fraud for
fraudulent interventional pain management procedures, including
transforaminal epidural injections.9 In a separate case in 2008, a
Maryland physician pled guilty to health care fraud after submitting
$1.75 millon in false claims to Medicare and other insurers. The false
claims were for transforaminal epidural injections and other
10
interventional pain management services. 
Transforaminal Epidural Injections
Transforaminal epidural injections may be used to treat back and leg
pain, including pain that starts from the back and radiates down the
leg, such as that from a herniated disc pressing on a nerve. For some
patients with chronic pain, transforaminal epidural injections of
medication into the back help to reduce inflammation and relieve pain.
A transforaminal epidural injection is given through the foramen
(plural "foramina") of the spinal column. The foramen is an opening in
a vertebra where the spinal cord nerve roots exit the spine. The spinal
column includes 24 levels of movable vertebrae that are divided, from
11 Each level
top to bottom, into cervical, thoracic, and lumbar regions. 
vertebrae has a pair offoramina, one on the left side and one on the
of 
right side.12
7 Estimate based on OIG analysis of physician claims for transforaminal epidural
injection procedure codes in the following Medicare claims files: (1) 2003 I-percent sample
of NCH physician/supplier fie and (2) 2007 100-percent NCH physician/supplier file,
8 Based on OIG analysis of physician claims for transforaminal epidural injection
procedure codes in the 2007 100-percent NCH Medicare Part B physician/supplier fie.
9 D,S, Department of Justice, D,S, Attorney's Offce, Northern District of Ohio, Press
Release, June 9.2006. Accessed at http://www.usdoj,gov/on November 24,2009.
10 Sara Taylor, Doctor with Waldorf offce guilty offraud, Southern Maryland
Newspapers Online, February 27,2008. Accessed at http://www.somdnews.com/on
June 12,2009.
11 Henry Gray, Anatomy  the Human Body, II.,3. Accessed at http://www.bartleby.com
of 
on July 28, 2010.
12 Ibid.
OEI.05.09.00030 INAPPROPRIATE MEDICARE PAYMENTS FOR TRANSFORAMINAL EpIDURAL INJECTION SERVICES 2 NTRODUCTION
During a transforaminal epidural injection, the physician injects
medication through the foramen close to the affected nerve root in the
patient's back. This technique may enable the physician to inject the
pain as possible, reducing
medication as close to the source of 
inflammation and relieving the patient's pain. See Figure 1 for an
example of the target point, through the foramen, for a transforaminal
epidural injection.
Figure 1:
Trans-
foraminal
Epidural
Injections
Source: The Pain Clinic, "Selective Transforaminal Nerve Root Blocks," Accessed at http://ww.painclinic.org/on
September 2. 2009,
Radiographic guidance. To reduce patient risk, many physicians use
radiographic guidance (such as live x-ray) to establish the placement of
the needle and avoid puncturing the spinal cord and vertebral arteries
that are located near the injection point. Some physicians perform the
procedure without radiographic guidance, which is referred to as a
"blind" injection. One study concluded that physicians "blindly"
performing epidural injections failed to correctly perform the injections
for 25 percent of cases.13 Even in cases where transforaminal epidural
injections have been administered with radiographic guidance,
13 G, El- Khoury, et al. Epidural Steroid Injection: A Procedure Ideally Performed with
Fluoroscopic Control Radiology, voL. 168 (2), pp. 554-557,
OEI.05.09.00030 INAPPROPRIATE MEDICARE PAYMENTS FOR TRANSFORAMINAL EpIDURAL INJECTION SERVICES 3 NTRODUCTION
complications resulting in stroke, paralysis, and death have been
14
documented. 
Frequencv of injections. The appropriate frequency oftransforaminal
epidural injections varies by patient. Typically, a patient receives an
initial injection, referred to as a diagnostic injection, which helps
pain and determine whether the
confirm the suspected source of 
transforaminal injection is successful at relieving the pain. If a patient
responds well and demonstrates pain relief, the patient receives a
second injection, referred to as a therapeutic injection, at a subsequent
visit. Therapeutic injections could continue at subsequent visits if a
patient continues to demonstrate sustained pain relief.
Setting and specialtv. Transforaminal epidural injections may be
performed in a variety of settings. Approximately 43 percent of the
injections were performed in offce settings, 29 percent in ambulatory
surgical centers (ASC), and 27 percent in hospital outpatient
departments.15 Less than 1 percent of transforaminal epidural
injections were performed in other settings.
A physician in any specialty can perform a transforaminal epidural
injection. However, in 2007, three types of specialists performed
86 percent of the transforaminal epidural injections.16 They are
anesthesiologists, pain management specialists, and rehabilitation
physicians. A variety of other physician specialists performed the
remaining 14 percent, including orthopedic surgeons, neurologists,
radiologists, and family practice physicians.
Medicare Requirements for Transforaminal Epidural Injections
General provisions of the Social Security Act (the Act) govern Medicare
reimbursement for all services, including transforaminal epidural
injections. Section 1862(a)(i)(A) ofthe Act states that Medicare wil
cover only services that are considered to be reasonable and necessary.
Reasonable and necessary services are those used in the diagnosis or
treatment of ilness or to improve the functioning of a malformed body
part.
14 Graham C. Scanlon, et aL. Cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections: more
dangerous than we think? Spine, voL. 32 (l1), p. 1249.
15 OIG analysis of  physician claims for transforaminal epidural injection procedure codes
in the 2007 100-percent NCH Medicare Part B physician/supplier fie,
16 Ibid.
OEI.05.09.00030 INAPPROPRIATE MEDICARE PAYMENTS FOR TRANSFORAMINAL EpIDURAL INJECTION SERVICES 4 NTRODUCT
o N
Providers must properly document medical care to support that it is
the Act prohibits payment for a
medically necessary. Section 1833(e) of 
claim that is missing necessary information. Further, Medicare
requires that providers keep documentation in the medical record to
support the claim submitted, including, but not limited to, provider
notes and test reports,1 Providers must submit this information to
Medicare upon request to support medical necessity.18
Providers must use uniform procedure codes to report all services,
including transforaminal injection services.19 The CPT codes and
descriptions for transforaminal epidural injections are listed in
Table 1,0 Two primary codes, 64479 and 64483, are used for a single
injection in the cervical/thoracic or lumbar/sacral regions of the spine,
respectively. Each primary code has an associated add-on code for use
when more than one level is injected. The add -on codes are 64480
(cervical/thoracic) and 64484 (lumbar/sacral).
Table 1: Transforaminal Epidural Injection CPT Codes and
Descriptions
CPT Code Description
Injection; anesthetic agent and/or steroid, transforaminal epidural;
64479
cervical or thoracic, single level
Injection; anesthetic agent and/or steroid, transforaminal epidural;
64480 (add on)
cervical or thoracic, each additional level
Injection; anesthetic agent and/or steroid, transforaminal epidural;
64483
lumbar or sacral, single level
Injection; anesthetic agent and/or steroid, transforaminal epidural;
64484 (add on) lumbar or sacral, each additional  level
Source: American Medical Association CPT descriptions, 2007,
17 CMS, Medicare Program Integrity ManuaL, Pub, No, 100-08. ch.3,  11.1. The Manual
does not provide examples of the types of test reports required, Test reports for
transforaminal epidural injection services would likely include reports from diagnostic tests
that may identify whether the patient has a condition that is appropriately treated with
transforaminal epidural injections.
18 CMS, Medicare Program Integrity ManuaL, Pub. No. 100-08, ch.3,  11.1.
19 Section 1848(c)(5) of the Act requires the Secretary of Health & Human Services to
develop a uniform coding system for all physician services, The American Medical
Association's Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes are a numeric coding system
consisting of descriptive terms that are used primarily to describe medical services and
procedures performed by physicians and other health care practitioners,
20 Although physicians may refer to transforaminal epidural injections as diagnostic or
therapeutic, both types of injections are reported using the same procedure code, Procedure
codes do not distinguish between diagnostic and therapeutic.
OEI.05.09.00030 INAPPROPRIATE MEDICARE PAYMENTS FOR TRANSFORAMINAL EpIDURAL INJECTION SERVICES 5 NTRODUCTION
Medicare Part B Payments for Transforaminal Epidural Injections
Medicare reimburses physicians for transforaminal epidural injections
according to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule.21 Medicare
reimburses ASCs and hospital outpatient departments for their facility
expenses separately from the payments made to physicians.
Physician Payments. The Medicare Physician Fee Schedule includes two
types of rates, based on setting: those paid to physicians for services
rendered in nonfacilities, such as their offices; and those paid to
physicians for services rendered in facilities, such as ASCs or hospitals.
Physician Fee Schedule rates for office services are generally higher
than those for facility services because they include payment for
practice expenses, such as building costs, administrative salaries, and
equipment. Medicare Physician Fee Schedule rates are adjusted to
account for geographic location. The base rates for physician payments
for transforaminal epidural injections in 2007 are listed in Table 2.22
Table 2: Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Base Rates, 2007
CPT code Office Facility
64479 $327.81 $112.56
64480 $151,21 $73,52
64483 $328.95 $99,67
64484 $156.90 $62.15
Source: Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. 2007,
Reimbursements for primary codes 64479 and 64483 are higher because
they include presurgical and postsurgical expenses related to the
procedure that the add-on codes, 64480 and 64484, do not.
Physician payments also vary based on the modifiers23 biled with the
CPT. For example, bilateral transforaminal epidural injections, which
are performed on both the right side and the left side of a vertebral
level, should be biled using modifier 50, which increases
reimbursement to 150 percent of the base rate.
21 Section 1848(a)(i) of  the Act established the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule as the
basis for Medicare reimbursement for all physician services beginning in January 1992,
22 Base rates are national Medicare Physician Fee Schedule amounts with no adjustment
for geographic variation by locality,
23 Modifiers are two-digit codes biled in conjunction with the appropriate CPT code,
OEI.05.09.00030 INAPPROPRIATE MEDICARE PAYMENTS FOR TRANSFORAMINAL EpIDURAL INJECTION SERVICES 6 INTRODUCTION
Facilty Payments. Medicare reimburses ASCs and hospital outpatient
departments based on ASC payment groups and the hospital outpatient
prospective payment system, respectively. The base rates for facility
payments for transforaminal epidural injections in 2007 were $333 in
an ASC and $390,95 in a hospital outpatient department.24
Claims Processing and Program Safeguards
CMS is in the process oftransitioning its contracts with the private
organizations that process and pay Medicare claims, formerly known as
carriers. CMS is replacing carriers with Medicare Administrative
Contractors (MAC). MACs will process all Part A and Part B claims
within new jurisdictions covering all States. By 2011, MACs should be
operational in every State and the District of Columbia.
Carriers and MACs (hereinafter referred to as contractors) are
payment
responsible for implementing program safeguards to reduce 
errors. To safeguard payments, they may create local coverage
determinations (LCD)25, implement electronic edits (hereinafter
referred to as edits), or conduct medical review.
Leos. Contractors may develop their own coverage guidelines called
LCDs when no National Coverage Determination (NCD) exists.26 LCDs
vary by contractor and may result in different coverage in different
the country.
parts of 
LCDs help to safeguard Medicare services by defining whether services
are reasonable and necessary and therefore covered by Medicare.
Among other reasons, contractors may develop LCDs to address
problems presenting a significant risk to the Medicare Trust Fund or a
patient's access to care.27
LCDs typically cover the following topics: (1) indications and
limitations of coverage and/or medical necessity, (2) covered diagnosis
codes supporting medical necessity, (3) documentation requirements,
and (4) utilization requirements.
24 Ambulatory Surgical Center Approved Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System
(HCPCS) Codes and Payment Rates, 2007, and Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment
Rates,  2007,
25 CMS, Medicare Program Integrity ManuaL, Pub, No, 100-08, ch,13,  1.3.
26 NCDs, issued by CMS, govern how Medicare wil cover specific services, procedures, or
technologies at a national  leveL.
27 CMS, Medicare Program Integn'ty ManuaL, Pub, No. 100-8, ch, 13,  4,
OEI.05.09.00030 INAPPROPRIATE MEOICARE PAYMENTS FOR TRANSFORAMINAL EplOURAL INJECTION SERVICES 7 INTRODUCTION
Edits. Contractors may implement edits to prevent improper payments.
These edits are part ofthe claims-processing system that automatically
pays all or part of a claim, denies all or part of a claim, or suspends all
the claim for manual review.
or part of 
CMS encourages contractors to develop edits to enforce criteria in an
LCD.28 Once a contractor develops an edit, it must annually evaluate
the edit for effectiveness. CMS considers an edit effective when it has
a reasonable rate of denials, a reasonable dollar return on the cost of
operation, or potential to avoid significant risk to beneficiaries.29
Medical review. Contractor staff may request and review medical
records to address program vulnerabilities related to coverage and
coding. CMS requires contractors to analyze data in order to target
medical review activities at identified problem areas and prioritize
medical review resources.
Related Report
A recent OIG study found problems with another type of interventional
pain management service, facet joint injections. OrG found that
63 percent of facet joint injection services allowed by Medicare in
2006 did not meet Medicare requirements, resulting in approximately
$96 million in improper payments. 30
METHODOLOGY
To determine the extent to which payments for transforaminal epidural
injections met Medicare requirements and what safeguards existed, we
Medicare claims
(1) conducted a medical record review ofa sample of 
from 2007, (2) reviewed CMS and contractor policies related to
safeguarding transforaminal epidural injection services, and
(3) conducted structured telephone interviews with contractor staff.
Scope
We focused our review on Medicare physician claims for transforaminal
epidural injections. Unless otherwise stated, all estimates refer to
physician payments.
28 CMS, Medicare Program Integrity ManuaL, Pub. No. 100-08, ch, 13,  5.3 and 10.
29 CMS, Medicare Program Integrity ManuaL, Pub, No. 100-08, ch.3,  5.1.1.
30 OIG, Medicare Payments for Facet Joint Injection Services, OEI 05-07-00200,
September 2008.
OEI.05.09.00030 INAPPROPRIATE MEOICARE PAYMENTS FOR TRANSFORAMINAL EplOURAL INJECTION SERVICES 8 INTRODUCTION
Sample Selection
2007 allowed
The population from which we sampled consisted of all 
physician servces in the NCH physician/supplier file for transforaminal
epidural injection CPT codes 64479,64480,64483, and 64484. We
restricted our population to Medicare physician services biled in offces,
ASCs, or hospital outpatient departments as 99 percent oftransforaminal
injection servces were biled in these settings,s1 We excluded claims that
were less than $15 to avoid performing medical record review on low dollar
claims,s2 The population consisted of approximately 800,000 claims and
$141 milion in allowed physician payments. From this population, we
selected a stratified random sample of 440 Medicare physician line item
claims,33 stratifying by place of service reported on the claim (offce or
facility) and the Medicare-allowed amount. See Appendix A for further
details on the sample selection, data collection, and data analysis.
Data Collection
Afer excluding 2 services from the 440 in our sample because of
ongoing OIG investigations, we requested, by mail, complete medical
records from physicians for 438 sampled services. We classified
providers for five services as nonresponders,s4 Thus, we based our
analysis on the remaining 433 line items. This represents a 99.percent
response rate.
In June and July 2009, we conducted structured telephone intervews
with staff at the 11 contractors that were processing Medicare Part B
claims at that time. Between 2007 and 2009, the number of contractors
processing Medicare Part B claims was reduced from 14 to 11. These
11 contractors that we interviewed covered the entire country at the
time ofthe interviews.
for information about
During each interview, we asked contractor staff 
frame associated with our
program safeguards in place in 2007, the time 
the LCDs and
analysis. Specifically, we clarified our understanding of 
31 Based on OIG analysis of  physician claims for transforaminal epidural injection
procedure codes in the 2007 IOO.percent NCH Medicare Part B physician/supplier fie.
32 These claims represented less than I percent of the population.
33 Multiple line items may be biled within a single claim, Hereinafter, line items wil be
referred to as services,
34 A nonresponder is defined as a provider with whom no successful contact was made
after at least three written contacts and two phone calls. Providers with whom successful
contact was made who did not return the requested medical records were not counted as
nonresponders, but rather as having a documentation error.
OEI.05.09.00030 INAPPROPRIATE MEDICARE PAYMENTS FOR TRANSFORAMINAL EpIDURAL INJECTION SERVICES 9 INTRODUCTION
inquired about what edits they had in place associated with the LCDs.
Because CMS requires the outgoing contractors to inform the incoming
contractors of edits on LCDs, we were able to obtain written
confirmation from the 11 contractors that we interviewed about the
14 contractors operating in 2007. Thus,
program safeguards used by all 
we report on information from all  14 contractors operating in 2007.
We collected and reviewed all 30 LCDs for transforaminal injections in
place in 2007. LCDs are published on the CMS Web site. We requested
and received from contractor staff written confirmation of the correct
LCDs in all States for 2007.
To understand how program safeguards may have changed since 2007,
we also consulted with all contractors about 2009 safeguards, including
LCDs and edits.
Medical Record Review. We used a medical record review contractor to
conduct the medical record review. The reviewers included three
board -certified physicians with interventional pain management and
transforaminal epidural injection experience and one certified
the
professional coder. One physician and the coder reviewed each of 
medical records.
The reviewers determined whether the service was adequately
documented and medically necessary and whether the appropriate CPT
"
code and modifier(s) were used. Reviewers based their determination
on a review of the medical record and their professional judgment.
Data Analysis
To determine the extent to which payments for transforaminal epidural
injections met Medicare requirements, we analyzed the results of the
physician services
medical review. We determined the percentage of 
did not meet Medicare requirements. We also calculated the
that 
projected physician 'dollars associated with these services. We then
compared physician office error rates to facility (ASC and hospital
outpatient department) error rates. Finally, we used the NCH files,
containing ASC and hospital outpatient department facility payments,
to match to the associated physician service found to be in error and
then projected the identified facility dollars paid .in error.
To determine what safeguards existed for transforaminal epidural
injections, we analyzed all documentation of program safeguards and
reviewed information collected during the contractor interviews. We
analyzed the number and type of LCD requirements that the contractor
OEI.05.09.00030 INAPPROPRIATE MEDICARE PAYMENTS FOR TRANSFORAMINAL EpIDURAL INJECTION SERVICES 10 INTRODUCTION
had in 2007. In addition, we analyzed the number and type of edits
each contractor had in 2007. We considered a contractor to have an
LCD or edit if it covered at least one State within the contractor's
jurisdiction at any time in 2007. To determine whether any safeguards
changed, we analyzed the LCDs and edits in 2009 and compared those
to the ones in place in 2007. Finally, we reviewed information collected
during the interviews to assess what other program safeguards
contractors had in place.
Comprehensive Error Rate Testing
CMS established the Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT) to
calculate the Medicare fee-for-service paid claims error rate. As of 2009,
the CERT has not reported any specific information about
transforaminal epidural injections. This review was not designed to
reproduce or to review CERT findings.
Limitations
We were not able to calculate medical review error rates by contractor
to assess whether the contractor safeguards had an impact on error
rates. We were unable to do this because we did not stratify our sample
by contractor, so our sample size per contractor was too small to project
or compare error rates across contractors.
Standards
This study was conducted in accordance with the Quality Standards for
Inspections approved by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity
and Efficiency.
OEI-05.09.00030 INAPPROPRIATE MEDICARE PAYMENTS FOR TRANSFORAMINAL EpIDURAL INJECTION SERVICES 11 .. FINDINGS
Thirty-four percent of transforaminal epidural Medicare allowed approximately
injection services allowed by Medicare in $45 million in improper payments
2007 did not meet Medicare requirements, to physicians for transforaminal
epidural injections in 2007. These
resulting in approximately $45 milion in
improper payments represent
improper payments
the $141 milion in
32 percent of 
physician payments for
transforaminal epidural injections in 2007.
Thirty-four percent oftransforaminal epidural injection services did not
meet Medicare requirements. Table 3 shows the error rates and
associated payments for physician claims by error type. Confidence
intervals for projected error rates and payments are in Appendix B.
Injection
Table 3: Improperly Paid Medicare Transforaminal Epidural 
Services-Physician Claims, 2007
Sample Projected
Allowed Allowed
Type of Error Services Services
Amount Amount
Documentation 87 $19,504 19% $29 milion
Medical Necessity 56 $12.109 13% $19 millon
Coding 35 $3.626 8% $6 milion
(Overlapping Errors) (30) ($6,161) (7%) ($9 milion)
Total 148 $29,078 34%" $45 milion
Source: OIG analysis of medical review results, 2009,
.Numbers do not always sum to total because of rounding,
Medicare allowed an additional $23 milion in associated facility claims
for transforaminal epidural injections in error in ASCs and hospital
outpatient departments. See Appendix A for further discussion of
this
estimates for associated facility claims. Although the focus of 
review is on physician claims, we also analyzed facility claims that were
submitted for the physician claims paid in error to provide additional
context. The remaining analyses focus on physician claims only.
Nineteen percent of transforaminal epidural injection services had a
documentation error
Medicare allowed approximately $29 milion for physician services that
were undocumented or insuffciently documented. Although some
OEI.05.09.00030 INAPPROPRIATE MEDICARE PAYMENTS FOR TRANSFORAMINAL EpIDURAL INJECTION SERVICES 12 FINDINGS
documentation errors may be the result of recordkeeping problems,
others may represent services not rendered. Records lacking
documentation to show that care was provided do not meet Medicare
requirements.
Ten percent of transforaminal epidural injection services were undocumented.
Medicare allowed approximately $14 milion for undocumented
transforaminal epidural injection services. For the majority ofthese
services, a record was submitted but contained no documentation of the
sampled service. In all other cases, the requested record was never
submitted.
Nine percent of transforaminal epidural injection services were insufficientlv
documented. Medicare allowed approximately $15 milion for
insufficiently documented transforaminal epidural injection services.
Most records were missing a description ofthe procedure as biled.
Some other records had a procedure note, but were missing details of
the procedure, such as the location and frequency of the injection. In
each case, the reviewer concluded that there was insufficient
documentation to support the service.
Documentation errors were more likelv to occur in office settngs.
Twenty-seven percent of transforaminal epidural injection services
provided in offices had a documentation error, compared to 13 percent of
transforaminal epidural injection services provided in facilities. See
Table 4 for error rates by setting and error type.
Table 4: Error Rates by Setting and Error Type for
Medicare Transforaminal Epidural Injection Services-
Physician Claims, 2007
Type of Error Office Facility
Documentation' 27% 13%
Medical Necessity 18% 9%
Coding 8% 9%
Any Error 41%" 28%
Source: OIG analysis of medical review results, 2009,
'Statistically significant difference at the 95-percent confidence leveL.
'.Numbers do not sum to total because of overlapping errors,
OEI.05.09.00030 INAPPROPRIATE MEDICARE PAYMENTS FOR TRANSFORAMINAL EpIDURAL INJECTION SERVICES 13 FINDINGS
Thirteen percent of transforaminal epidural injection services had a medical
necessity error
Medicare allowed approximately $19 millon to physicians for
transforaminal epidural injection servces that medical reviewers
determined were medically unnecessary. In most instances, the record
contained no evidence of a condition that required a transforaminal
epidural injection. In some instances, the procedure was repeated at
close intervals with no evidence that it was relieving the patient's pain.
Eight percent of transforaminal epidural injection services had a coding
error
Medicare allowed $6 million to physicians in overpayments, net of
underpayments, for transforaminal epidural injection services that were
miscoded. The reviewer found primarily that physicians improperly
used add 'on codes and bilateral modifiers. In some instances, the
physicians performed less intensive procedures, but biled for
transforaminal epidural injections.
All but one ofthe miscoded services resulted in overpayment. The one
underpayment was a bilateral transforaminal epidural injection service
for which the provider biled only a unilateral service.
Contractors used LCDs primarily
In 2007, 9 of 14 contractors had an LCD for
to safeguard Medicare payments
transforaminal epidural injection services, but
for transforaminal epidural
reported limited use of other safeguards
injections. However, only one
contractor enforced all LCD requirements through edits. No contractors
performed medical reviews to safeguard services in 2007.
Nine contractors had an LCD for transforaminal epidural injections
Nine of the fourteen contractors had an LCD for transforaminal
epidural injection services in 2007. These LCDs covered 30 States.
Most commonly, these contractors had the following requirements in
their LCDs: (1) requiring that the procedure be performed only on
patients with acceptable diagnoses codes, (2) requiring that providers
use radiographic guidance for the procedure, (3) prohibiting multiple
pain management services on the same day, and (4) limiting the
the procedure. Less common requirements included
frequency of 
requiring more conservative treatments (such as physical therapy) prior
i epidural injections and allowing only experienced
to trans  foramina 
providers to perform the procedure.
OEI.05.09.00030 INAPPROPRIATE MEDICARE PAYMENTS FOR TRANSFORAMINAL EpIDURAL INJECTION SERVICES 14 FINDINGS
Among the four most common LCD requirements, contractors most
frequently required that providers perform the procedure only on
patients with acceptable diagnoses codes. All nine contractors with
the
LCDs listed this requirement in their LCD. In addition, eight of 
nine contractors required radiographic guidance in their LCD. Overall,
six of the nine contractors listed all four of the most common
requirements in their LCD.
Subsequent to our analysis period, the number of contractors with LCDs
decreased. In 2009, 7 contractors had LCDs covering 23 States.
Eight contractors did not enforce all of their LCD requirements with edits
Although, in general, contractor staff reported that edits were the best
way to enforce the requirements in their LCDs, only one contractor
enforced all LCD requirements with edits. Two contractors did not have
any edits. See Table 5 for a list of the most common LCD requirements
and corresponding edits by contractor.
OEI.05.09.00030 INAPPROPRIATE MEOICARE PAYMENTS FOR TRANSFORAMINAL EpIDURAL INJECTION SERVICES 15 FINDINGS
Table 5: 2007 Common LCD Requirements and Edits by
Contractor
Edit LCD Edit LCD Edit
. .
. .
2
3
4 . .
5
6 . .
7 . . . .
8 . . . .
9
10
11
12
13
14
Source: OrG interviews and document review, 2009,
The most commonly used edits ensured that claims were paid only for
procedures performed on patients with acceptable diagnoses codes. Six
of the nine contractors listing acceptable diagnoses codes in the LCD
had corresponding edits. These edits were intended to automatically
check that physicians biled only acceptable diagnoses and deny claims
biled without acceptable diagnoses codes.
Contractors seldom used other edits to enforce requirements in their
LCDs. Only one ofthe eight contractors requiring radiographic
guidance in the LCD created a corresponding edit. Only one of the
seven contractors prohibiting multiple pain management services on the
same day had a corresponding edit. Only one of the six contractors with
frequency limits in the LCD developed a corresponding edit.
OEI.05.09.00030 INAPPROPRIATE MEDICARE PAYMENTS FOR TRANSFORAMINAL EpIDURAL INJECTION SERVICES 16 FINDINGS
Contractors did not use edits to enforce less common requirements from
LCDs.
In some instances, contractors could not create edits because claims
lacked the required information to implement the edits. For example,
several contractors had LCDs that limited the frequency of injections
levels in
per spinal  level, but claims did not capture which of  the spinal 
the back were injected. Similarly, several contractors had LCDs with
different frequency limits for diagnostic and therapeutic injections, but
claims did not capture whether an injection was diagnostic or
therapeutic.
In other instances, claims captured the required information, but
contractors did not create edits to enforce LCD requirements. Most
contractors had an LCD requiring that providers use radiographic
guidance. Providers separately bil radiographic guidance on the
claims. However, only one contractor developed an edit related to
radiographic guidance.
Subsequent to our analysis period, the number of contractors with edits
the 14 contractors had at least 1 edit covering
decreased. In 2007, 7 of 
20 States. In 2009, only four contractors had edits enforcing their LCD
requirements. These edits covered seven States.
No contractors reported performing medical reviews
No contractor staff reported performing medical reviews for
transforaminal epidural injections in 2007.
Most contractor staff reported that they analyzed data for
transforaminal epidural injections, but did not find any outliers
warranting medical review. CMS requires that contractors analyze
data to prioritize the use of limited medical review resources.
Contractors might do a medical review if they notice outliers in the
data, such as one provider that bils substantially more than his peers.
reported that it is
Despite limited use of  medical review, contractor staff 
a useful safeguard because it reveals problems not identifiable through
data analysis or edits. Staff from five contractors stated that medical
review is more comprehensive than either edits or data analysis. For
example, in 2009, one contractor performing a medical review for
transforaminal epidural injections found that providers were
administering too much steroid medication, a potentially dangerous
reported that this problem was revealed
practice. The contractor staff 
only through a detailed medical review.
OEI.05.09.00030 INAPPROPRIATE MEDICARE PAYMENTS FOR TRANSFORAMINAL EpIDURAL INJECTION SERVICES 17 .. RECOMMENDATIONS
This report identifies problems with Medicare payments for
transforaminal epidural injections. Thirty-four percent of
transforaminal epidural injection services in 2007 did not meet
Medica:re requirements, resulting in improper payments of
approximately $45 milion. Further, Medicare allowed an additional
$23 milion in associated facility claims for transforaminal epidural
injections in error. Transforaminal epidural injection services delivered
in offce settings were more likely to have a documentation error
compared to services delivered in facilities. Nine of fourteen contractors
had an LCD for transforaminal epidural injection services, but reported
limited use of other safeguards. No contractors performed medical
reviews for transforaminal epidural injection services in 2007.
This report is the second in a series on Medicare pain management
services. A 2008 OIG report found that 63 percent offacet joint
injections in 2006 did not meet Medicare requirements, resulting in
improper payments of $96 milion. The previous report found that facet
joint injections delivered in office settings were more likely to have an
error.
Based on the results of this body of work, CMS should:
Conduct provider education, directly and through contractors, about proper
documentation
Nineteen percent of transforaminal epidural injection services had a
documentation error. CMS should conduct provider education
regarding proper documentation to reduce future documentation errors.
CMS should also direct contractors to conduct provider education about
proper documentation for transforaminal epidural injection services.
Strengthen program safeguards to prevent improper payment for
transforaminal epidural injection services
program safeguards, CMS could encourage contractors to:
To strengthen 
Examine transforaminal epidural injection services provided in offices.
Both our current study and our 2008 facet joint injection study found
higher error rates for services performed in offices. Contractors could
examine services provided in offces to safeguard Medicare payments.
Develop LeOs for transforaminal epidural injections. Between 2007 and
2009, the number of States covered by an LCD for transforaminal
epidural injection services decreased from 30 to 23. Contractors that do
not have an LCD to define requirements for transforaminal epidural
OEI.05.09.00030 INAPPROPRIATE MEOICARE PAYMENTS FOR TRANSFORAMINAL EpIDURAL INJECTION SERVICES 18 RECOMMENDATIONS
injections may consider developing one. As noted in the limitations
section of this report, we were not able to assess whether contractor
safeguards, such as LCDs, had an impact on error rates. However,
LCDs may be helpful to control improper payments for other reasons,
such as establishing criteria for law enforcement action.
Develop additional edits enforcing LCD requirements for transforaminal
epidural injection services. Both our current study and our 2008 facet
joint injection study found that not all LCD requirements were enforced
by edits. In addition, between 2007 and 2009, the number of States
covered by at least 1 edit for transforaminal epidural injection services
decreased from 20 to 7. Contractors could strengthen current
safeguards for both transforaminal epidural injection services and facet
joint injection services by developing edits to enforce the requirements.
Use medical review to identify improper payments for transforaminal
epidural injection services. Thirty-four percent of transforaminal
epidural injection services were paid in error. Thirteen percent were
medically unnecessary. Additional medical reviews may limit future
improper payments and protect beneficiaries from unnecessary services.
Take appropriate action regarding the undocumented, medically
unnecessary, and miscoded services identified in our sample
We wil forward information on these services to CMS under separate
cover.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
RESPONSE
CMS concurred with our recommendations and outlined steps to
payments for transforaminal epidural injection
improve its oversight of 
services. We did not make any changes to the report based on CMS's
comments. For the full text of CMS's comments, see Appendix C.
OEI.05.09.00030 INAPPROPRIATE MEOICARE PAYMENTS FOR TRANSFORAMINAL EpIDURAL INJECTION SERVICES 19 .. APPENDIX-A
Detailed Methodology
Sample Selection
The population from which we sampled consisted of all the allowed
physician services in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
National Claims History (NCH) file for Current Procedural Terminology
(CPT) codes 64479, 64480, 64483, and 64484 performed in 2007. We
stratified the sample by place of service and dollar amount. We
stratified by place of service to compare rates by setting (office and
facility). Previous work found significantly different error rates
between these two settings. We further stratified by the dollar amount
of the claims to improve our ability to provide an overall estimate of the
dollars in error with an acceptable confidence interval. We randomly
selected 110 claims from each stratum for review, for a total of
440 claims. Table A-I shows the sampling stratification and population
of claims for CPT codes 64479, 64480, 64483, and 64484.
Table A-1: Sampling Stratification for Transforaminal Epidural
Injection Claims
Stratum Description Population Sampled Claims
1 - Offce ~ $325 103,987 110
2 - Offce 2: $15 to:S $325 242,074 110
3 - Facility (Ambulatory
Surgical Center (ASC) and ~ $100 149.362 110
Hospital Outpatient)
4 - Facility ASC and Hospital
2: $15 to:S $100 311,278 110
Outpatient)
Total 806,701 440
Source: Ofce of Inspector General (OIG) analysis of 2007 NCH physician/supplier file,
Data Collection
Medical Record Review. We used a medical record review contractor to
conduct the medical record review. We requested, by mail, complete
medical records and documentation from physicians for the services in
our sample. We specified that providers send the following materials, if
available: initial patient evaluation and exam, test results,
radiographic evidence of needle placement, and procedure notes. For
additional context, we also requested that providers furnish all
OEI.05.09.00030 INAPPROPRIATE MEDICARE PAYMENTS FOR TRANSFORAMINAL EpIDURAL INJECTION SERVICES 20 APPENDIX~A
documentation for all services provided to the beneficiary 4 months
before and 1 month after the sampled date of servce.
We requested the beneficiary's medical record from the provider
associated with the sampled claim. We used the Unique Physician
Identification Number validation fie and the National Provider
Identifier to obtain contact information for the provider when mailing
the request.
the initial request for the
We allowed at least 7 weeks from the date of 
sampled provider to fax or mail the records to the medical review
contractor. We made at least two additional written attempts followed
by two telephone calls to obtain the records. The last written request
was mailed by signature-required certified maiL.
Our response rate for this study was 99 percent. Of the 440 services
that we originally sampled, 2 services were removed because of ongoing
OIG investigations. Then we requested records for the remaining
438 sampled services. We classified five ofthese as nonresponders. We
classified two servces as nonresponders because we were unable to
locate the sampled provider, and we classified three servces as
nonresponders because the provider returned the record too late to be
reviewed. Our analysis was based on the 433 remaining services in the
sample for which we received a response.
Test Review. To test our review instrument and ensure uniformity
among the reviewers, we conducted a preliminary medical review of
20 servces. These servces were randomly sampled from the same
population where we drew our final sample. However, the preliminary
sample was chosen separately from the sample used for the final review.
the test review and discussed them with the
We analyzed the results of 
reviewers. The reviewers resolved inconsistencies in the results and
suggested changes to the review instrument. Some of the changes were
incorporated into the final review instrument as appropriate.
Data Analysis
Calculation of improper physician payments. We calculated the total
actual and projected dollars paid in error for these services. For
services that were not medically necessary, insuffciently documented,
or not documented, we counted the entire Medicare-allowed amount as
improper and projected the amount paid in error. For services with a
coding error, we determined whether Medicare overpaid or underpaid.
We then calculated the total net difference for all services with a coding
error and projected it to the population.
OEI-05.09-00030 INAPPROPRIATE MEDICARE PAYMENTS FOR TRANSFORAMINAL EpIDURAL INJECTION SERYICES 21 APPENDIX
A
We projected dollars in error and percentage of services in error to the
population of all transforaminal epidural injection services in 2007. We
removed any overlap in sampled services that had multiple errors.
Calculation of improper faciltv payments. In addition, we calculated and
projected the facility payments associated with physician services that
were performed in facilities and did not meet documentation or medical
necessity requirements. For services performed in ASCs and hospital
outpatient departments, we used the NCH Part B file and the hospital
outpatient file, respectively, and matched facility claims to physician
claims using the dates of service, CPT, and beneficiary identification.
Afer matching the claims, we projected the facility dollars paid in error.
Our estimate of facility dollars associated with physician services in
error is conservative. First, we excluded physician services in error
'coding. It would have required a coding review of
because of  incorrect 
the facility claim to determine the amount in error on the facility claim,
which was beyond the scope of our study. Second, among the errors
that we did attempt to match, we were not able to find all matching
facility claims. We were able to match only 69 percent of sampled
physician services performed in facilities and having a documentation or
medical necessity error to their associated facility payment.
OEI.05.09.000JO INAPPROPRIATE MEDICARE PAYMENTS FOR TRANSFORAMINAL EpIDURAL INJECTION SERVICES 22 ..
APPENDIX
B
Confidence Intervals for Selected Estimates
Table B-1: Estimates of All Errors
Estimate Description Point Estimate 95-Percent Confidence Interval
Percentage of services with any error 33.9% 29.1 %-38,7%
Percentage of services with any documentation error 19,2% 15.4%-23.0%
Percentage of services with no documentation' 9,8% 6.8%-12,7%
Percentage of services with insuffcient documentation 9.4% 6.6%-12.4%
Percentage of services that were not medically necessary 12,9% 9,6%-16,3%
Percentage of services coded incorrectly 8.3% 5.5%-11,2%
Percentage of services with overlapping errors 6.6% 4.1%-9.0%
Percentage of amount allowed in error among all allowed 31.7% 27.0%-36.4%
amounts for transforaminal epidural injection services
Source: Ofice of Inspector General (OIG) analysis of medical review results, 2009,
Table B-2: Estimates of Improper Physician Payments Associated With All Errors
Estimate Description Point Estimate 95-Percent Confidence Interval
Amount allowed for services with any error $44,833,417 $38,188,484-51,478,349
Amount allowed for services with any documentation error $28,895,365 $22,934,192-$34,856,538
Amount allowed for services with no documentation $14,005,827 $9,505,141-$18,506,513
Amount allowed for services with insuffcient documentation $14,889,538 $10,360,675-$19,418,401
Amount allowed for services that were not medically
$18,831,045 $13,779,543-$23,882,548
necessary
Amount allowed for services coded incorrectly $6,248,458 $3,829,614-$8,667,303
Amount allowed for services with overlapping errors $9,141,452 $5,352,508-$12,930,395
Source: OIG analysis of medical review results, 2009,
23
o E 1.0 5-09.00030 INAPPROPRIATE MEDICARE PAYMENTS FOR TRANSFORAMINAL EpIDURAL INJECTION SERVICES A P PEN D
x B
Table B-3: Estimate of Improper Facilty Payments Associated With Any Error
Source: OIG analysis of medical review results, 2009,
Table B-4: Estimates of Errors by Setting and Type
Point
Error Type Setting 95-Percent Confidence Interval
Estimate
,
Offce 27.0% 20.5%-33,5%
Docum entation
Facilty 13.3% 8.6%-18,0%
Offce 17.7% 12.1 %-23,3%
Medical Necessity
Faciliy 9,3% 5,1%-13.4%
Offce 8.0% 4.0%-12,0%
Coded Incorrectly
Facility 8.6% 4.6%-12,6%
Offce 41.3% 34.1 %-48.4%
Any Error
Facility 28,3% 22.0%-34.7%
Source: OIG analysis of medical review results, 2009,
OEI.05.09.00030 INAPPROPRIATE MEOICARE PAYMENTS FOR TRANSFORAMINAL EpIDURAL INJECTION SERVICES 24 ..
A P PEN 0
x c
Agency Comments
,pVICea"lf
Centers for Medicare & Mediceid Servces
l4 DEPARTM DF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
Off!iof the Alministrator
wasl\ton. d~c 2 %.~91  ':'~\
C~\~, . ~_~  ~'')'
i;~ e,"
i: ~ \ '\
-i ~ ('
DATE: MAY 1 02010 ~ 0
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT: Offce of Inspector General (OIG) Draf Report: "Inappropriate Medicare
Payments for Transforaminal Epidural Injection Services" (OEI-05-09-00030)
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Offce of Inspector General's
(OIG) draft report, "Inappropriate Medicare Payments for Transforaminal Epidural Injection
Services." The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) appreciates the time and
resources the OIG has invested to determine the extent to which Medicare Par B payments for
transforaminal epidural injections met Medicare requirements.
diagnose or treat
Transforaminal epidural injections are a pain management technque used to 
pain. The OIG conducted a medical record review of a stratified random sample of 433
transforainal epidural injections performed in 2007. The OIG determined that thirty-four
i epidural injection services allowed by Medicare in 2007 did not meet
percent of trans  foraina 
Medicare requirements. In addition, OIG reported that nine out offoureen CMS contractors had
a Local Coverage Determination (LCD) for transforaminal epidural injection services but only
one contractor enforced all LCD requirements with edits.
The CMS appreciates the work of OIG on this issue and wi1 work to improve our oversight of
its findings,'the om made the following
these payments in the future. As a result of 
recommendations:
OIG Recommendation
Conduct provider education, directly and though contrctors, about proper documentation.
eMS Response
The CMS concurs with ths recommendation. CMS wil direct contractors to conduct provider
education about proper documentation for transforaminal epidural injections especially provided
in offces. CMS wil issue a Medicare Learing Network Matters Arcle on this topic related to
documentation requirements and expectations.
25
o E I. 05-09.000 30 INAPPROPRIATE MEDICARE PAYMENTS FOR TRANSFORAMINAL EpIDURAL INJECTION SERVICES A P PEN 0
x c
Page 2 - Daniel R. Levinson
OIG Recommendation
Strengthen progr safeguards to prevent improper payment for tranforaminal epidural
injection services.
CMS Response
Examine transforaminal epidural injection services provided in offices.
The CMS concurs. To strengten program safeguards, CMS wil instrct the appropriate
Medicare contractors to review their claims data for transforaminal epidural injection servces
paricularly in the offce, due to higher error rates in that setting.
Develop LCDs for transforaminal epidural injection services.
The responsibilty to determine whether or not to develop an LCD lies with the Medicare
the OIG report with the
Administrative Contractors (MACs). CMS wil shar the results of 
Medicare contractors, who may develop policies under their own authority and based on CMS
manual instrctions.
Develop additional edits enforcing LCS requirements for trasforamnal epidural injection
services.
contractors to examine whether sufficient edits are in
The CMS concurs. CMS wil instrct 
place to enforce LCDs.
Use medical review to identify improper payments for tranforaminal epidural injection services.
consistent with their
The CMS concurs. CMS will instruct the MACs to tae appropriate action 
individual prioritized medical review strategy. MACs use their medical review strtegies to best
focus their resources relative to other vulnerabilties.
OIG Recommendation
Take appropriate action regarding the undocUIented, inedically unnecessar, and miscoded
services identified in our sample.
CMS Response
The CMS concurs. CMS wil share the OIG report and any additional claim information received
with the appropriate Medicare contractors. CMS will instruct them to consider the issues
identifed in this report and the additional claim information when prioritizing their Medicare
review strategies.
The CMS requests that OIG fuish the necessary data, including Medicare contractor numbers,
provider numbers, claims inormation including the paid date, HlC numbers, etc. to accomplish
our review. In addition, CMS requests that Medicare contractor-specific data be wrtten to
separate CD-ROMs or separate hardcopy worksheets to better faciltate the transfer of
information to the appropriate contractors,
The CMS appreciates the O!G's effort and insight on this report. CMS looks forward to
continualy working with OIG on issues related to waste, fraud and abuse in the Medicare
program.
OEI.05.09.00030 INAPPROPRIATE MEDICARE PAYMENTS FOR TRANSFORAMINAL EpIDURAL INJECTION SERVICES 26 .. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was prepared under the direction of Ann Maxwell, Regional
Inspector General for Evaluation and Inspections in the Chicago
regional office, and Thomas Komaniecki, Deputy Regional Inspector
General.
Laura Kordish served as the team leader for this study and Beth
McDowell served as the lead analyst. Other principal Offce of
from the Chicago regional offce who
Evaluation and Inspections staff 
contributed to the report include Lisa Minich and Lauren Rosapep;
who contributed include Sandy Khoury and Megan
central  offce staff 
Ruhnke.
OEI.05.09.00030 INAPPROPRIATE MEDICARE PAYMENTS FOR TRANSFORAMINAL EpIDURAL INJECTION SERVICES 27