Wiki Level 5 Education

jhaleycoder

Networker
Messages
42
Location
Norton, Massachusetts
Best answers
0
Hi Everyone-

I wanted to reach out for help. I want to educate my providers on when TO and NOT to use a level 5. I am finding some providers are using cloned statements adding time when decision of surgery is made. They are adding a cloned statement for risk factors of surgery. How can I explain that a level 5 isn't warranted for every surgery and time needs to be justified. Below is an example:

I had a long discussion with the patient regarding the natural history of knee degenerative joint disease. I used the patient's own imaging as well as bone models to aid in our discussion. We discussed conservative treatment options including OTC medications/NSAIDs, physical therapy and intra-articular corticosteroid injections. We also discussed surgical treatment options in the form of joint replacement. At this point he has failed conservative management and his left knee pain and function are severely impacting his overall quality of life. Through shared decision making, decision was made to proceed with left total knee arthroplasty

The patient and I reviewed their chief complaint, history of present illness, radiology findings, differential diagnosis and the pros, cons, alternatives, risks, and benefits of further conservative treatment versus operative intervention. Educational tools including implant model and patient x-rays were used to discuss implant type and function. The patient remains symptomatic. They clearly understand that there is no guarantee of improvement with either treatment option, both carry risks including worsening pain. They also understand the indications and limitations of surgery and the need for post operative rehabilitation / recovery. Healing times vary greatly among patients and this was discussed. All patient questions were answered satisfactorily. Risks, benefits, and alternatives to surgery have been discussed with the patient including but not limited to bleeding and need for blood transfusion, infection, intraoperative or postoperative fracture, hardware failure, neurovascular injury, thigh or knee numbness, chronic pain and scarring, chronic tendonitis or swelling, dislocation, leg-length discrepancy, the potential need for future surgery, DVT, PE, heart attack, stroke and death. The patient demonstrates understanding and wishes to proceed. After our long discussion the final decision for surgery was made today and final paperwork including signing of the surgical consent was performed.

Greater than 1 hour was spent on direct patient care including reviewing imaging and discussing treatment options

We will schedule him for a left total knee arthroplasty. He will obtain all necessary preoperative lab work, clearances, CT scan
 
Greater than 1 hour was spent on direct patient care including reviewing imaging and discussing treatment options

This is a major problem if it is on one record and I am willing to bet no auditor will let it slide. Someone gave great guidance for documenting time here: https://www.aapc.com/discuss/threads/time-based-coding.204257/?view=date#post-559426

If it is on every chart combined with cloned notes an auditor is going to roll up their sleeves and ask for the provider's schedule. There are only so many hours in a day and "Impossible time" is an easy win for auditors. Investigators like it too.

Some other thoughts:
1. Providers are doing themselves a disservice if they won't count the time before and after the face-to-face encounter on the date of the visit. That's not relevant here because of the blanket statement.
2. That "greater than one hour" might be enough time to justify a prolonged add-on code, but you'll never know from blanket statements like this.
3: Always remember medical liability. A patient with a lot of comorbidities might need a 90 minute visit, but if the chart says "more than one hour" (61 minutes? 75?) and that patient has a complication, now it could look like the provider rushed the visit.
 
This is a major problem if it is on one record and I am willing to bet no auditor will let it slide. Someone gave great guidance for documenting time here: https://www.aapc.com/discuss/threads/time-based-coding.204257/?view=date#post-559426

If it is on every chart combined with cloned notes an auditor is going to roll up their sleeves and ask for the provider's schedule. There are only so many hours in a day and "Impossible time" is an easy win for auditors. Investigators like it too.

Some other thoughts:
1. Providers are doing themselves a disservice if they won't count the time before and after the face-to-face encounter on the date of the visit. That's not relevant here because of the blanket statement.
2. That "greater than one hour" might be enough time to justify a prolonged add-on code, but you'll never know from blanket statements like this.
3: Always remember medical liability. A patient with a lot of comorbidities might need a 90 minute visit, but if the chart says "more than one hour" (61 minutes? 75?) and that patient has a complication, now it could look like the provider rushed the visit.
Thank you so much for your response. I am actually following the same thread you sent for ideas! I am trying to compose an email from them to understand the risk needs to be an individual risk and canned statements should not be used. I also am explaining that it needs to also warrant medical necessity. If they are documenting spending 60 minutes for carpal tunnel-- then why?
 
Right, at the end of the day it still has to make clinical sense. I'm going to guess the standard of care is not 60+ minutes of face-to-face time for every patient for every surgical procedure.

I'm not a provider, but it also seems like a really inefficient use of time.

One suggestion - Remove any identifying data and the time and have your providers assess each other's charts with an eye toward how much time they would spend on the visit. Sometimes it can help them realize there's a problem without it feeling like personal criticism.
 
Last edited:
Top