Dave Fee, MBA, identifies updates to CMS' programming logic for comprehensive APCs and provides a step-by-step approach to determine whether a complexity adjustment will be applied.
Drug administration coding and billing remains a challenge despite no code changes in six years. Jugna Shah, MPH, and Valerie RInkle, MPA, examine how to apply the new -X{EPSU} modifiers with drug administration codes and review other common questions they receive about injections and infusions.
Since CMS introduced comprehensive APCs in January, the agency has continued to tweak the logic and codes included in the process. Dave Fee, MBA, and Judith L. Kares, JD, describe those changes in CMS’ April quarterly updates and review code and edit updates.
Q: I am auditing a note for a fusion. The note lacks detail, therefore is hard to justify. The patient had a prior hardware placement. The note describes dissecting down, debridement of necrotic bone, and tissue work done. This is the entire note, after describing dissection, “Vigorous irrigation with 10 liters of saline and antibiotics was carried out. Hemostasis was maintained. The right S1 screw and rod portion was removed as it was notably loose. Additional decortication and onlay bone grafting was performed at L1-S1. Drains were placed…” They coded: 22612 (arthrodesis, posterior or posterolateral technique, single level; lumbar) Add-on code 22614 (each additional vertebral segment) x4 22852 (removal of posterior segmental instrumentation) In the procedures performed area of the note, they state: Hardware removal, lumbar Revision fusion L1-S1 with onlay bone graft Irrigation and debridement of lumbar spine wound Since there is nothing in the note regarding autografting, I assume this is an allograft? Should this be coded? Also is that documentation enough to justify arthrodesis? Modifier -GC (this service has been performed in part by a resident under the direction of a teaching physician) was appended, although the language was not added for this. I can only assume a resident dictated this.
Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) coding may be a foreign concept for some coders, but making sure documentation for Medicare Advantage patients supports it can be critical. Holly J. Cassano, CPC , discusses what criteria needs to be met for complete documentation.
Packaging still causes confusion amongst healthcare providers and the number of packaged services will greatly expand if CMS finalizes certain parts of the 2014 OPPS proposed rule. Valerie A. Rinkle, MPA, and Kimberly Anderwood Hoy Baker, JD, CPC , discuss what changes could come in 2014 and how to avoid common packaging errors.
Physicians and facilities use the same codes to report evaluation and management (E/M) levels for emergency department (ED) services, but follow different rules. Caral Edelberg, CPC, CPMA, CAC, CCS-P, CHC, and Raemarie Jimenez, CPC, CPMA, CPC-I, CANPC, CRHC, explain how to correctly choose the most appropriate E/M code for ED services.
In January 2013, CMS introduced 42 therapy functional reporting G codes (nonpayable), but instituted a six-month trial period. That grace period ended July 1. Denise Williams, RN, CPC-H, Dave Fee, MBA, and Debbie Mackaman, RHIA, CHCO, explain how to report these G codes and their related functional modifiers.
Jugna Shah, MPH, and Valerie A. Rinkle, MPA, examine the 2014 OPPS Final Rule and explain which services are now packaged, including drugs and biological that function as supplies when used in diagnostic or surgical procedures, clinical diagnostic lab tests, and device removal procedures.
Shelley C. Safian, PhD, CCS-P, CPC-H, CPC-I, reviews which diagnosis codes, in both ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM, Medicare recently approved to provide medically necessary for inserting pacemaker systems.
