Sarahp941
Networker
I have 2 questions regarding AKs. I just want to be sure I am understanding the new guidelines and not just having my Providers say everything is now chronic and surprise- 99214 visit. How are auditors assessing documentation if a Provider classifies a diagnosis being chronic but the AMA verbiage does not match? Is an auditor questioning the Provider to have them clarify why they felt the dx was chronic? Any advise or thoughts are greatly appreciated! Thanks!
Actinic Damage - A Provider wants to classify Actinic Damage as "chronic" whenever a patient has AKs. Their logic is that they go hand in hand being chronic, which also conveniently populates a 99214, for having 2 chronic conditions. I know they are classifying this differently (now) because they are no longer getting 99214 for FBSE or AK focused visits. Actinic damage has no MDM, only counseling to wear sunscreen, which (to me) makes it a non-active dx.
AKs - Patient comes in once a year for FBSE. LN2 for AKs. Provider wants to classify this as chronic since dx has been present over 1 year.
Actinic Damage - A Provider wants to classify Actinic Damage as "chronic" whenever a patient has AKs. Their logic is that they go hand in hand being chronic, which also conveniently populates a 99214, for having 2 chronic conditions. I know they are classifying this differently (now) because they are no longer getting 99214 for FBSE or AK focused visits. Actinic damage has no MDM, only counseling to wear sunscreen, which (to me) makes it a non-active dx.
AKs - Patient comes in once a year for FBSE. LN2 for AKs. Provider wants to classify this as chronic since dx has been present over 1 year.