Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

New problem to the examiner

  1. Smile
    Exam Training Packages
    Quote Originally Posted by rebeccawoodward View Post
    This has nothing to do with the 3yr rule...New v/s Est. We are referring to the medical decision making that is credited to a provider to build the level of his E/M code. As auditors, this is one, very important area for us when we review charts for medical necessity and documentation. The link I provided earlier, gives a decent explanation.
    Apart from the 3 yr rule... Just to clairify, a patient that we have "never" seen in this office before schedules a "new patient" appointment with one of our providers. Then returns to the office, let's say two months later for a follow up for the same problem and sees a different provider in our office. Would it be accurate to say that this follow up would be an established patient visit with a different provider? All of our providers practice under one roof, one building. So in this case for MDM this would be a "1" or "2" (Number of diagnosis or Treatment Options under the table of risk) for an established pt visit if the condition is stable or worsening...

    Thank you,

    dscoder74

  2. Default Allison Wickham, CPC, CPC-E/M
    If I were auditing this scenario I would consider to problem to be established.
    Here's a question asked and the answer from an Ohio Medicare provider, PalmettoGBA.com

    Question -
    Must a condition be "new" to the patient or "new" to the provider in order for it to be consider a "new problem" when determining diagnosis/management options for scoring an E/M?

    Answer:
    The term "new problem" is one that is identified yet undiagnosed and may or may not require an additional work up. A patient presenting to a new provider with a diagnosed problem is scored the same as presentation to a provider familiar with the patients problem. Therefore, for the purpose of scoring E/M documentation, a new problem is one that is new to the patient not to the provider.

    This is the rule auditors in Ohio follow when scoring an established vs new problem.

  3. #13
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,126
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by dscoder74 View Post
    Apart from the 3 yr rule... Just to clairify, a patient that we have "never" seen in this office before schedules a "new patient" appointment with one of our providers. Then returns to the office, let's say two months later for a follow up for the same problem and sees a different provider in our office. Would it be accurate to say that this follow up would be an established patient visit with a different provider? All of our providers practice under one roof, one building. So in this case for MDM this would be a "1" or "2" (Number of diagnosis or Treatment Options under the table of risk) for an established pt visit if the condition is stable or worsening...

    Thank you,

    dscoder74
    Assuming that the different provider is of the same specialty, the visit would be established. Personally speaking, if the patient had to see a different provider and this provider was seeing this patient for the condition for the first time, I would probably credit the physician with...
    New problem, with no additional work-up planned
    OR)
    New problem, with additional work-up planned

    They are not familiar with the patient's condition; therefore, this allows the physician to receive credit for the complexity of the thought process. This idiology is the Marshfield's Clinic Audit. If you have any audit forms from CMS, their audit forms allow for this. I have, personally, asked our Medicare carrier and they do allow credit for this. This link also provides some good information regarding MDM.

    http://www.aafp.org/fpm/980900fm/coding.html

    For the record...I am aware of Palmetto's guideline. Our carrier does not follow this guideline; therefore, we are within the guidelines to practice this method.
    Last edited by RebeccaWoodward*; 11-07-2008 at 12:39 PM.

  4. Default Allison Wickham
    The only problem with this format of answering questions is the answers can vary from state to state. As you can see we have 2 correct answers that are completely different. Because we are quoting the medicare carriers from two different states. My piont is you can not always count on the answers you are receiving to be correct. You must research the carriers you are dealing with.

  5. #15
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,126
    Default
    I agree Allison. But, I must say; I don't find the majority of states follow Palmetto's standard; just the complete opposite. I am on many other forums and on these forums are individuals spread across the United States. This topic has come up more than once on these forums and the majority of these seasoned coders and their Medicare carrier allow the Marshfields Clinic auditing method. As far as using this platform for coding issues and discussion...many coding issues will be carrier driven. This is why many coders struggle with the day to day issues. What they are taught isn't what is necessarily billable/payable. I utilize this forum to give me direction when I am uncertain about a issue;take it from there and begin my own research.
    Last edited by RebeccaWoodward*; 11-07-2008 at 08:43 PM.

  6. Default Allison Wickham
    Thank you.

    The question and answer that I shared was published on the Palmetto web-site in January of 2008. I enjoy reading the threads but I would not change my auditing based on the answers.

  7. Default its not new problem
    i dont agree to the answer that when a pt is seen by dr. a and follow up with dr. b for the same problem in same specialty that it is a new problem to dr. b. the fact that they are in the same specialty assumingly sharing same chart that it would be considered new to dr. b.first time meeting probably but not new problem. And its not a reason to say they are not familiar with the pt's condition because they are sharing the same chart. that is why dr's need to have the pt's chart before they see the pt. Why would you say new when it is already diagnosed and documented in the pt's chart(that dr's are reading before seeing the pt).

  8. #18
    Location
    Woodland Hills
    Posts
    11
    Smile It should be EST to prov B
    Quote Originally Posted by adonis_laurenteCPC View Post
    i dont agree to the answer that when a pt is seen by dr. a and follow up with dr. b for the same problem in same specialty that it is a new problem to dr. b. the fact that they are in the same specialty assumingly sharing same chart that it would be considered new to dr. b.first time meeting probably but not new problem. And its not a reason to say they are not familiar with the pt's condition because they are sharing the same chart. that is why dr's need to have the pt's chart before they see the pt. Why would you say new when it is already diagnosed and documented in the pt's chart(that dr's are reading before seeing the pt).
    I have to agree with Mr. Laurente. The patient was seen by providers of the same specialty. Prov A already coded the diagnosis and patient was seen by prov b for teh same problem - should have been coded as EST not new. The problem is already pre-existing condition and was previously diagnosed by a provder of the same specialty. Thank you.

  9. #19
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,126
    Default
    Well...I can certainly understand your apprehension since everything in the coding world is not finite. I have emailed Dr Jensen; creator of E/M University for clarification but most importantly, I am emailing our Medicare carrier for clarification so that I have written confirmation; although, I have already received verbal confirmation. I am curious though; for those of you that perform chart reviews, when do you credit the provider with a new problem? Also, let's assume that the patient leaves once practice and relocates to an entirely different group and records are transfered...would you not credit this physician with a new problem?

  10. #20
    Location
    Milwaukee WI
    Posts
    4,462
    Default Let's be clear ....
    The question here is NOT about whether to code 99201-99205 (New Patient Visit) Vs. 99211-99215 (established patient visit. We are all in agreement that this second visit to the office is an established patient visit.

    The question here is whether, when counting the problem points for determining medical decision making, the problem is a NEW problem to Dr B, who has not previously seen this patient for this problem.

    I would credit this as a new problem to Dr B. Even with a shared medical record, Dr B must still come at this without any personal history of evaluating this patient's problem previously. If the two physicians were not in the same practice, even though the problem had already been diagnosed and treatment started, you'd still give Dr B the "new problem" points. (So, Rebecca, to answer your last question about a transfer to a new practice, Yes, I'd give credit in MDM for a new problem.)

    F Tessa Bartels, CPC, CPC-E/M

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-05-2015, 01:47 PM
  2. New problem to examiner?
    By AmandaW in forum Emergency Department
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-07-2015, 10:27 AM
  3. New problem or estblished problem to examiner
    By PKellogg in forum Medical Coding General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-28-2011, 01:18 PM
  4. New Problem to examiner or patient?
    By LOUISE SLACK in forum Auditing General Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-20-2010, 12:28 PM
  5. New problem to examiner
    By WEBBSURFN in forum Medical Coding General Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-08-2009, 09:50 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Enjoying Our Forums?

AAPC forums are a benefit of membership. Joining AAPC grants you unlimited access, allowing you to post questions and participate with our community of over 150,000 professionals.

Join Now Continue Reading Without Full Access

Already a Member?

Login

Close Message

In addition to full participation on AAPC forums, as a member you will be able to:

  • Access to the largest healthcare job database in the world.
  • Join over 150,000 members of the healthcare network in the world.
  • Be a part of an industry leading organization that drives the business side of healthcare.
  • Save anywhere from 10%-50% with exclusive member discounts on courses, books, study materials, and conferences.
  • Access to discounts at hundreds of restaurants, travel destinations, retail stores, and service providers. AAPC members also have opportunities to save on heath, life, and liability insurance.
  • Become a member of a local chapter and attend regular meetings.