Advanced Search

Urology Coding Alert

Case Study:

50230 vs. 50546: This Nephrectomy Coding Challenge Points You in the Right Direction

Published on Sun Jan 16, 2011

Key: Your secondary diagnosis will help get your claim paid. Any number of reasons can cause a urologist to decide that he must abort a planned laparoscopic nephrectomy in favor of an open nephrectomy. But that conversion can throw a real wrench in your coding. Do you report the laparoscopic code? The open code? Maybe both the laparoscopic and the open codes? Take a look at this case study and determine how you would code it. Then review the expert guidance to see if you would have received the money your urologist deserved or if you would be facing a denial. Scenario: A patient has a renal tumor. The urologist brings the patient to the operating room to perform a laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. During the procedure, however, the patient experiences excessive blood loss. As a result, the urologist decides to convert to an open approach to control the bleeding and [...]
You’ve reached your limit of free articles. Already a subscriber? Log in.
Not a subscriber? Subscribe today to continue reading this article. Plus, you’ll get:
  • Simple explanations of current healthcare regulations and payer programs
  • Real-world reporting scenarios solved by our expert coders
  • Industry news, such as MAC and RAC activities, the OIG Work Plan, and CERT reports
  • Instant access to every article ever published in your eNewsletter
  • 6 annual AAPC-approved CEUs*
  • The latest updates for CPT®, ICD-10-CM, HCPCS Level II, NCCI edits, modifiers, compliance, technology, practice management, and more
*CEUs available with select eNewsletters.

Other Articles in this issue of

Urology Coding Alert

View All