ACDIS Updated CCDS-O Exam Questions and Answers by fleur

RADV (Risk Adjustment Data Validation) is an audit process used to validate that risk-adjusting diagnoses submitted for payment are supported by compliant medical record documentation. A foundational requirement is that the record is properly authenticated by an acceptable provider—meaning the documentation must be attributable to the treating clinician through a valid signature. In compliant documentation standards emphasized in outpatient CDI education, acceptable authentication may be a traditional hand-written signature or an electronic signature/attestation that meets organizational and regulatory policy. Option B is not correct because diagnoses do not have to appear only on a facesheet or “final diagnosis” list; they may be supported within the body of the note (assessment/plan, problem-based charting, or other authenticated sections) as long as they are clearly documented and clinically supported. Options A and D are not reliably true statements in a general RADV context because RADV focuses on diagnoses supported by appropriate provider documentation and acceptable encounter record criteria; “technician-assigned” diagnoses are not acceptable, and radiology documentation alone may not meet all validation expectations depending on the program’s rules and encounter context.

When a CDI query references information from an externally shared note, best practice is to include enough identifying detail so the provider can locate and validate the sourceeven if access is later revokedor if the shared record becomes unavailable. From an outpatient CDI and HIPAA-aligned workflow perspective, the query should clearly cite: where the information came from (thelocationof the shared note within the EHR/external record set),whoauthored it (provider name),whenit was created (date of shared note), and thespecific clinical documentationbeing referenced (the relevant statement/findings). This supports transparency, auditability, and minimizes the risk of misattribution or relying on inaccessible information. Options B–D are missing one or more critical elements—most notably the date and/or location of the shared note—making it harder to verify the source. Including “follow-up procedure” is not the priority for HIPAA-compliant source identification; the key need is traceability of the external documentation used to support the clarification request.

Under the CMS-HCC risk adjustment methodology, the RAF is calculated primarily from two categories of inputs: (1) demographic/enrollment eligibility factors and (2) diagnosis codes that map to HCCs based on documented, reportable conditions. Eligibility status matters because Medicare models differentiate beneficiaries by factors such as aged versus disabled status and other enrollment characteristics that affect expected cost. The second major driver is the set of valid, supported ICD-10-CM codes reported for the beneficiary during the data collection period; only certain chronic, clinically significant conditions map to HCCs, and they must be documented as active and applicable to the encounter and coded correctly. In ambulatory CDI, this is why accurate condition capture, specificity, and linkage (e.g., cause/manifestation relationships) are emphasized—because reported conditions directly affect the patient’s risk profile and the expected cost benchmark. By contrast, income status is not a standard CMS-HCC input, “previous risk score” is not itself an input variable, and utilization outcomes like cost of care or readmissions are not used to compute RAF (they may be evaluated separately in quality/cost programs).

When documentation states “metastatic uterine cancer,” the most important missing element for complete, accurate outpatient coding iswhere the cancer has metastasized(the secondary site[s]). In ambulatory CDI, identifying secondary sites best clarifies the full scope of disease being monitored and treated because metastatic disease coding relies on documenting both the primary malignancy and the specific metastatic location(s) (e.g., lung, liver, bone, peritoneum, lymph nodes). This supports correct severity representation, risk capture, treatment intent, and medical necessity for ongoing chemotherapy follow-up. While tumor morphology can be clinically relevant, it is usually established earlier in the diagnostic pathway and does not, by itself, define current metastatic burden. Likewise, reviewing labs or MRI results may provide supportive indicators, but they do not replace provider documentation of theconfirmed metastatic sitesbeing managed. A compliant query focused on secondary sites prompts the provider to document the current metastatic disease status (active, responding, progressing) and specific locations, which most directly identifies the conditions under treatment.