Expand


Go Back   AAPC Forum > Medical Coding > E/M
Forum Rules FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 02-18-2013, 07:52 PM
BABS37's Avatar
BABS37 BABS37 is offline
Expert
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Des Moines
Posts: 313
BABS37 is on a distinguished road
Default E/M doc with CT Quesion

When our physicians are doing their own CT's and X-Rays, they are waiting to bill them out until the patient comes back in for a follow up visit. At that visit, they will put their 'written report or interp' into the E/M documentation. I feel like they overlap the reason for the visit (HPI, ROS, PFSH...) I just feel like they are wanting to bill out higher levels of E/M visits that aren't justified... This example below is how they look and this particular provider wanted to bill out 99213 and 70486. I think 99213 is too high and as for 70486, the original date it was done was Feb. 1 and the follow up was Feb. 11. I would have billed 70486-TC on Feb. 1 and 70486-26 on Feb. 11th... Am I wrong? I really feel like it would be most appropriate to do a separate CT report showing the actual date of the CT, a reason, The actual CT name (CT with or without contrast and location), then the report and their impression/conclusion. Any one else see a problem with this??? Or am I over-reacting?


History of Present Illness


CT Review He presents to discuss sinus CT imaging from last week. He has had a long-standing history of chronic sinusitis and has had a recent acute flare up requiring 2 rounds of antibiotics. He is feeling better now. He has had a trial of chemical cautery in the past without relief. Updated CT imaging was recommended to be compared from May of 2010. He denies nasal drainage or facial pain. He does have a history of trigeminal neuralgia involving the left V1.


Current Medication
omeprazole
montelukast
carvedilol
quinapril
furosemide
loratadine
potassium chloride

Allergy
lovastatin causes all statins, Statins .

Review of Systems
Constitutional Symptoms: Allergies reviewed. Denies fever.
HEENT: Denies bleeding nose, nasal congestion or nasal discharge.

Vitals
Weight:249.20 lbs. Height:77.00 inches. BMI: 30. Temperature temporal: 97.40 F

Physical Examination
General Appearance:
Patient is well-dressed and groomed and appears well in no acute distress, breathing easily.



ENT
CT - Sinus Procedure: Pella sinus CT images from 1 February were reviewed personally and were discussed with the patient. Axial and coronal images were available for review as well as those images from May of 2010. The septum appeared fairly straight. There was inferior turbinate hypertrophy which was mild to moderate. The middle turbinates were normally developed. There was moderate mucosal thickening the lining the left maxillary sinus with obstruction of the left osteomeatal complex area. There was opacification of debris in the midportion of the left maxillary sinus. There was progressive mucosal thickening compared to 2010 imaging in the left maxillary sinus. The right maxillary ostiomeatal complex areas patent. There was some patchy mucosal thickening in the left anterior ethmoid cells. No air-fluid levels were seen. There was scant mucosal thickening in the floor of both sphenoid sinuses. The frontal sinuses were patent.


Assessment and Plan
ICD: Other Chronic Sinusitis (473.8)
ICD: Turbinate Hypertrophy (478.0)


We reviewed his imaging together. I demonstrated the progressive changes in the left maxillary sinus. I pointed out the opacified elements which could represent fungal debris or chronic staph infection. I advised him to consider an endoscopic left maxillary antrostomy with removal of tissue in the sinus as well as left anterior ethmoidectomy. We could also consider radiofrequency inferior turbinoplasties at the same time. I discussed the procedures and reviewed a handout with him. We discussed the risks. At this time he would like to consider our discussions as he is not sure if he would like to proceed with surgery. He will need a preoperative clearance for surgery. We will need to consider this past medical history to determine if he is a candidate for a surgery center procedure.
__________________


Brooke Bierman, CPC, CPB
Coding & Billing Manager
2014 President AAPC Des Moines Chapter
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-22-2013, 09:44 AM
CoderGirl CoderGirl is offline
True Blue
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 511
CoderGirl is on a distinguished road
Default

This is a great question and can not wait to see some responses....but,
In my opinion you can not bill the 7XXXX-26 after you have billed it the first time. If you are billing your CT's globally they need to be billed with the correct date of service. You can not change the DOS just to please the documentation in the E/M.
Are you looking at this from the Data points section of the MDM?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-22-2013, 09:48 AM
CoderGirl CoderGirl is offline
True Blue
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 511
CoderGirl is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BABS37 View Post
When our physicians are doing their own CT's and X-Rays, they are waiting to bill them out until the patient comes back in for a follow up visit. At that visit, they will put their 'written report or interp' into the E/M documentation. I feel like they overlap the reason for the visit (HPI, ROS, PFSH...) I just feel like they are wanting to bill out higher levels of E/M visits that aren't justified... This example below is how they look and this particular provider wanted to bill out 99213 and 70486. I think 99213 is too high and as for 70486, the original date it was done was Feb. 1 and the follow up was Feb. 11. I would have billed 70486-TC on Feb. 1 and 70486-26 on Feb. 11th... Am I wrong? I really feel like it would be most appropriate to do a separate CT report showing the actual date of the CT, a reason, The actual CT name (CT with or without contrast and location), then the report and their impression/conclusion. Any one else see a problem with this??? Or am I over-reacting?


History of Present Illness


CT Review He presents to discuss sinus CT imaging from last week. He has had a long-standing history of chronic sinusitis and has had a recent acute flare up requiring 2 rounds of antibiotics. He is feeling better now. He has had a trial of chemical cautery in the past without relief. Updated CT imaging was recommended to be compared from May of 2010. He denies nasal drainage or facial pain. He does have a history of trigeminal neuralgia involving the left V1.


Current Medication
omeprazole
montelukast
carvedilol
quinapril
furosemide
loratadine
potassium chloride

Allergy
lovastatin causes all statins, Statins .

Review of Systems
Constitutional Symptoms: Allergies reviewed. Denies fever.
HEENT: Denies bleeding nose, nasal congestion or nasal discharge.

Vitals
Weight:249.20 lbs. Height:77.00 inches. BMI: 30. Temperature temporal: 97.40 F

Physical Examination
General Appearance:
Patient is well-dressed and groomed and appears well in no acute distress, breathing easily.



ENT
CT - Sinus Procedure: Pella sinus CT images from 1 February were reviewed personally and were discussed with the patient. Axial and coronal images were available for review as well as those images from May of 2010. The septum appeared fairly straight. There was inferior turbinate hypertrophy which was mild to moderate. The middle turbinates were normally developed. There was moderate mucosal thickening the lining the left maxillary sinus with obstruction of the left osteomeatal complex area. There was opacification of debris in the midportion of the left maxillary sinus. There was progressive mucosal thickening compared to 2010 imaging in the left maxillary sinus. The right maxillary ostiomeatal complex areas patent. There was some patchy mucosal thickening in the left anterior ethmoid cells. No air-fluid levels were seen. There was scant mucosal thickening in the floor of both sphenoid sinuses. The frontal sinuses were patent.


Assessment and Plan
ICD: Other Chronic Sinusitis (473.8)
ICD: Turbinate Hypertrophy (478.0)


We reviewed his imaging together. I demonstrated the progressive changes in the left maxillary sinus. I pointed out the opacified elements which could represent fungal debris or chronic staph infection. I advised him to consider an endoscopic left maxillary antrostomy with removal of tissue in the sinus as well as left anterior ethmoidectomy. We could also consider radiofrequency inferior turbinoplasties at the same time. I discussed the procedures and reviewed a handout with him. We discussed the risks. At this time he would like to consider our discussions as he is not sure if he would like to proceed with surgery. He will need a preoperative clearance for surgery. We will need to consider this past medical history to determine if he is a candidate for a surgery center procedure.
Let me retract my last statement after reading your question again.... so the pt is coming back to go over the results of hte CT with the Doctor?
Yes there is a billable E/M code there but what you are saying is he is billing the interp the day the follow up is being done?
Sorry if I confused this more...LOL
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-03-2013, 09:58 AM
BABS37's Avatar
BABS37 BABS37 is offline
Expert
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Des Moines
Posts: 313
BABS37 is on a distinguished road
Default

Sorry AlwaysSunny! I just saw your comments on this. Yea, I was disagreeing with the physicians on this one... and any others that were similar. What had happened was an E/M was billed out along with a CT- The CT was also billed out on the date it was originally done. I said they had to split it and bill the tc/26 on the appropriate dates. But then I said if they were just going over the results of the CT with those patients, then that was included with the E/M and that they can't bill for another CT interp since the first CT charge was billed out globally. Anyhow, this particular situation was either a clerical error or system error, depending on who/how the charges got entered.
__________________


Brooke Bierman, CPC, CPB
Coding & Billing Manager
2014 President AAPC Des Moines Chapter
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-03-2013, 10:48 AM
mitchellde's Avatar
mitchellde mitchellde is offline
True Blue
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Columbia, MO
Posts: 10,359
mitchellde will become famous soon enoughmitchellde will become famous soon enough
Default

In order to bill the CT global, there must be a separately documented CT interpretation report. If your provider provides this then fine you can bill global if he send it out then he may bill the TC if you own the equipment, If you own the equipment and no separate interp is provided you may bill only the TC. If there is an official interp provided then you may bill going over the results as part of the MDM.
__________________

Debra A. Mitchell, MSPH, CPC-H
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off




Disclaimer: Although AAPC staff members will monitor these forums periodically, we cannot be responsible for the information posted herein, nor guarantee its accuracy. Our members may discuss various subjects related to medical coding, but none of the information should replace the independent judgment of a physician for any given health issue. Please note that the opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of AAPC.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ?2015, AAPC