June 2010 – Page 2 – MedicalCodingNews.Org

Anesthesia Coding: Find the Missing EGD Reimbursement Link

Warning: Just including EGD diagnosis with your claim doesn’t guarantee reimbursement — here’s help.

Question: Our anesthesiologist provided anesthesia during an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) procedure, at the request of the attending physician. We coded the anesthesia portion with 00810. A note in the documentation mentions the request was due to the patient’s symptoms, but no other details were provided. The claim we submitted was denied, but we followed all of the other guidelines provided by the payer, including proof that the anesthesiologist administered Propofol. What did we do wrong?

Answer: One key to the denial might be found in the lack of coding for the patient’s condition. Your diagnosis code should indicate the co-existing medical condition that justifies your anesthesiologist’s involvement in the case, not the gastrointestinal condition leading to the endoscopy.

You may want to consult with your anesthesiologist to verify that the patient had a condition such as:

Parkinson’s disease (332.0)
Heart conditions (such as 410.xx, Acute myocardial infarction or 427.41, Ventricular fibrillation)
Mental retardation (318.x)
Seizure disorders (such as 780.39, Other convulsions)
Anxiety (such as 300.0x, Anxiety states)
Pregnancy
History of drug or alcohol abuse.

These are just some of the conditions that payers may require to justify the presence of an anesthesiologist at a colonoscopy. ICD-9 2010 also has two codes to describe failed sedation attempts: 995.24 (Failed moderate sedation during procedure) and V15.80 (Personal history of failed moderate sedation).

If your anesthesiologist’s documentation confirms one of these conditions, 995.24 or V15.80 would also justify an anesthesiologist’s involvement to most payers. The conditions listed above constitute the medical necessity of anesthesia with the procedure. If you used a screening diagnosis or treatment of commonly found conditions instead of the clinical condition requiring anesthesia, payers will not pay you for these services.

Also note the...

Comments Off

June 7, 2010

Provider News

Lawsuit Pushes Red Flags Rule Back — Again

Amidst an AMA lawsuit, the FTC appears to take a wait-and-see approach.

After a year’s worth of extensions of the Red Flags Rule, medical practices were ready to buckle down and ensure that their plans were in place, because the rule was set to take effect on June 1.

However, just days shy of that deadline, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it would be delaying enforcement until Dec. 31, 2010, “at the request of several Members of Congress,” according to a May 28 FTC news release.

Under the Red Flags Rule, “certain businesses and organizations — including many doctor’s offices, hospitals, and other health care providers — are required to spot and heed the red flags that often can be the telltale signs of identity theft,” according to an article on the Federal Trade Commission’s Web site.

To comply with the Red Flags Rule, covered entities are expected to create a written red flags program to prevent and detect potential identity theft cases.

According to the FTC, the rule applies to businesses that qualify as creditors or financial institutions, and the FTC’s broad definition indicates that it applies to many medical practices. “Health care providers are creditors if they bill consumers after their services are completed,” the FTC Web site says. “Health care providers that accept insurance are considered creditors if the consumer ultimately is responsible for the medical fees.”

However, simply “accepting credit cards as a form of payment does not make you a creditor under the rule.”

Congress requested the delay in part to “pass legislation that will resolve any questions as to which entities are covered by the Rule,” the FTC press release indicated. “Congress needs to fix the unintended consequences of the legislation establishing the Red Flags Rule — and to...

Comments Off

June 7, 2010

Tips

Medical Coding: 4 Tips To Eliminate Your Breast Implant Coding Challenges

Don’t lose 19342 pay for delayed insertion.

Your general surgeon may perform breast reconstruction following cancer, infection, trauma, or burns, or in some cases, strictly for cosmetic reasons. Make sure you capture appropriate implant pay, when that’s part of the surgical scheme, by following our experts’ tips.

Tip 1: Prosthesis’ Purpose Drives Coding

Breast implants commonly serve two functions — cosmetic breast enhancement or breast reconstruction following a disfiguring event such as mastectomy for cancer or a traumatic injury.

CPT divides implant codes based on the function, so that’s the first distinction you need to make when selecting the proper code.

Differentiate augmentation: Use 19325 (Mammoplasty, augmentation; with prosthetic implant) when the surgeon implants a breast prosthesis for breast enlargement. “Code 19325 describes cosmetic implants only,” emphasizes John F. Bishop, PA-C, CPC, MS, CWS, president of Tampa, Fla.-based Bishop and Associates.

When the surgeon implants a prosthesis to reconstruct the breast following mastectomy, you need to look elsewhere for a code. For silicone or saline implants involved in reconstruction, CPT provides the following two codes:

19340 — Immediate insertion of breast prosthesis following mastopexy, mastectomy or in reconstruction
19342 — Delayed insertion of breast prosthesis following mastopexy, mastectomy or in reconstruction.

Tip 2: Timing is Everything for Implant Placement

CPT provides 19340 and 19342 for breast prosthesis associated with mastectomy or mastopexy. You’ll decide between those two codes based on when your surgeon performs the implant procedure.

How it works: For patients whose physiology will accommodate a full-size saline- or silicone-filled prosthesis, your surgeon may place the implant immediately following the mastectomy. “If the surgeon inserts a breast implant at the same operative session as the mastectomy, you should report 19340,” Bishop says. “For our mastectomy patients who opt for reconstruction, immediate treatment is the most common...

Comments Off

June 3, 2010

Provider News

Medicare: 21% Cut Continues to Loom, With May 31 Deadline Nearing

CMS instructs MACs to hold claims for ten business days while Congress mulls bill.

Impending cuts to your Medicare pay have been a familiar story this year, but hopefully you won’t face a 21-percent payment drop while you’re trying to enjoy your summer.

Last month, Congress voted to extend freezing the conversion factor at 2009 levels so Part B practices wouldn’t have to face a 21 percent cut to the conversion factor, which was supposed to go into effect on April 1. Once the president signed the extension into law, it meant that practices didn’t have to worry about the Medicare cuts until June 1, in hopes that the government would find a more permanent solution to the pay cut crisis before the conversion factor freeze expires on May 31.

New Bill Could Put Off Cuts

The House Ways and Means Committee published the text of H.R. 4213, “The American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010,” on its website on May 20. The bill would increase your payments through the end of this year, according to the text listed on the Committee’s Web site, which states, “In lieu of the update to the single conversion factor … that would otherwise apply for 2010 for the period beginning on June 1, 2010, and ending on December 31, 2010, the update to the single conversion factor shall be 1.3 percent.” The bill also includes provisions that would ensure that additional cuts don’t take place through 2013.

The American College of Physicians posted support for the bill on its website, but the AMA expressed disappointment. “An intervention to delay a looming Medicare physician payment cut will provide temporary stability for seniors and their physicians, but the AMA is deeply disappointed that Congress will once again fail to permanently correct the...

Comments Off

June 3, 2010

Coding Challenge / modifier 53

Oncology Coding: Determine the Proper Adverse Reaction Code

Remember to describe all the circumstances surrounding a push to get full reimbursement.

Question: If a non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma patient has an adverse reaction to Rituximab less than 15 minutes into the ordered hour-long infusion, should I report a push?

Answer: Experts suggest the most appropriate way to report a discontinued infusion is to append modifier 53 (Discontinued procedure) to the appropriate chemotherapy infusion code, such as 96413 (Chemotherapy administration, intravenous infusion technique; up to 1 hour, single or initial substance/drug).

You should use modifier 53 when a physician stops a procedure “due to extenuating circumstances or those that threaten the well-being of the patient,” according to CPT.

Modifier 53 describes an unexpected problem, beyond the physician’s or patient’s control, that necessitates ending the procedure. The physician doesn’t elect to discontinue the procedure as much as he is forced to do so because of the circumstances.

Push: CPT guidelines include “an infusion of 15 minutes or less” as one definition of a push, but 96413-53 describes the ordered and provided service more accurately than a push code (such as 96409, Chemotherapy administration; intravenous, push technique, single or initial substance/drug).

HCPCS: Your documentation should describe the circumstances, the administration start and stop times, and the amount of drug delivered and discarded. If you’re coding for the drug (J9310, Injection, rituximab, 100 mg), you should be able to report the entire amount, assuming you discarded the amount not administered.

ICD-9: Remember also to report the appropriate ICD- 9 codes, such as V58.12 (Encounter for antineoplastic immunotherapy) and 202.8x (Other lymphomas), and a code to indicate why the procedure stopped, such as V64.1 (Surgical or other procedure not carried out because of contraindication) or E933.1 (Drugs, medicinal, and biological substances causing adverse effects in therapeutic use; antineoplastic and immunosuppressive drugs).

Also watch for...

Comments Off

June 3, 2010

Coding Challenge

Medical Records: 5 Reasons Your EMR Transition Will Pay Off

The hard work and hassle of ditching paper documentation is not in vain.

Question: Our office is weighing the pros and cons of transitioning to electronic medical records (EMRs). We know the process is a huge undertaking that often results in even lower productivity and more confusion. So, is making the change really worth it?

Answer: If you haven’t witnessed or lead a conversion from paper records to an electronic medical record (EMR) system, it’s easy to get overwhelmed by the potential downsides. But experts agree that yes, going electronic is worth it. Here are a few reasons why:

1. You Open More Cash Inlets. Many research studies pull their data via electronic records. So, if you can’t tune in to participate, opportunities for cash perks will fly by. “Grant money and incentive programs are available, for example, and they want data in the electronic form,” points out Francine Wheelock, PT, MPA, manager of clinical systems for MaineGeneral Health.

Just look at nationwide push for value-based purchasing and outcome data, and expect to go electronic if you want to be in the loop.

Stay alert: Last year, the federal government launched the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, which plans to pay eligible healthcare professionals incentives for the “meaningful use” of certain EMRs.

“SLPs, OTs and PTs are not eligible for the incentive payment,” confirms Kate Romanow, director of health care regulatory advocacy for the American Speech-Language Hearing Association. But they may be eligible in the future, so therapists “may want to consider implementing EHRs now,” she says.

Plus, you can enhance coordination of care with healthcare providers who are eligible for HITECH incentives and are adopting EHRs, points out Sarah Nicholls, assistant director for payment policy and advocacy for the American Physical Therapy Association....

Comments Off

June 1, 2010

Hot Coding Topics / modifier 59 / NCCI

NCCI Edits: Watch Out For These Endoscopy Bundles

Code 31575 includes 92511 and 31231 except under these conditions.

Singling out the correct endoscopy code when your otolaryngologist examines multiple areas in the sinuses and throat isn’t always easy, but in most cases it’s imperative to settle on one, according to National Correct Coding Initiative (CCI) edits. You can adhere to these edits and avoid payback requests if you stick to these guidelines.

3 Rules Guide the Way

Rule #1: Never report 92511 (Nasopharyngoscopy with endoscope[separate procedure]) and 31231 (Nasal endoscopy, diagnostic, unilateral or bilateral [separate procedure]) together, says Stephen R. Levinson, MD, otolaryngologist and coding consultant based in Easton, Conn. Code 92511 is a component of Column 1 code 31231. The bundle has a modifier indicator of “0” — thus, no modifier can break this bundle.

Rule #2: Code 92511 is a component of Column 1 code 31575 (Laryngoscopy, flexible fiberoptic; diagnostic) but a modifier is allowed in order to differentiate between the services provided (that is, you may append modifier 59 [Distinct procedural services] if there are separate and identifiable services with separate medical indications). Report 92511 in conjunction with 31575 for the same encounter, says Levinson, only if the following conditions are met:

there are separate medical indications for examining each area (for instance, 784.49 for hoarseness with 31575 in an adult patient with a hyperactive gag reflex and 381.4 for a unilateral or bilateral middle ear effusion with 92511, which would be a rare occurrence), and
the ENT uses a different scope for each, separate procedure because there is a documented reason that the fiberoptic scope did not provide adequate visualization of the nasopharynx. “This would be highly unlikely,” emphasizes Levinson.

Rule #3: Code 31231 is a component of Column 1 code 31575 but a modifier is allowed in order...

Comments Off

June 1, 2010

Hot Coding Topics

Medical Coders: Here’s Your 411 on Femoral Head Resurfacing

Understand what FHR involves and when patients benefit.

An initial femoral head resurfacing (FHR) procedure involves only the femoral head and not the acetabular socket of the hip joint. The surgeon mills the femoral head and implants a metal hemisphere over the bone that exactly matches the size of the original femoral head.

FHR helps “buy time” for patients whose disease or degree of progression doesn’t merit total hip replacement (27130, Arthroplasty, acetabular and proximal femoral prosthetic replacement [total hip arthroplasty], with or without autograft or allograft).

This is especially true for younger patients because femoral head resurfacing preserves more bone stock for possible later revisions.

Judy Larson, CPC, billing manager for Rockford Orthopedic Associates in Rockford, Ill., shares a few advantages of choosing FHR:

Patients are likely to recover a natural gait
The larger size of the implant (ball) reduces the risk of dislocation
The femoral head/canal is preserved
There’s no associated femoral bone loss with future revision
Patients can experience less thigh pain because hip stress transfers in a natural way along the femoral canal and through the femur’s head and neck.

The metal head used during FHR will wear out the socket over time, however, and the patient will need total hip replacement.

Once the patient reaches the point of total hip replacement you’ll code the new procedure as a conversion with 27132 (Conversion of previous hip surgery to total hip arthroplasty, with or without autograft or allograft), says Heidi Stout, CPC, CCS-P, director of orthopedic coding services at The Coding Network.

@ Orthopedic Coding Alert. Editor: Leigh DeLozier, CPC

Be a hero. Sign up for Supercoder.com, and join the coding community at the Supercoder.com Facebook Fan Page.

Comments Off

June 1, 2010