2023 CPT Guideline Changes

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

tempcool

New Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2022
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
What is your facility doing to prepare for the 2023 guideline changes? Any changes to your ED provider notes like adding a template to your MDMs? We’re also trying to figure out how we’re going to incorporate our scribes into the new workflow which is much more subjective than simply checking enough boxes of the HPI/ROS and PE.

Members don't see this ad.
 
What is your facility doing to prepare for the 2023 guideline changes? Any changes to your ED provider notes like adding a template to your MDMs? We’re also trying to figure out how we’re going to incorporate our scribes into the new workflow which is much more subjective than simply checking enough boxes of the HPI/ROS and PE.
New mdm templates. To be seen.

Going to have a meeting with our coding company about how to maximize things

I've never understood the benefit of scribes. Checkbox templates are easy even in the most terrible emrs. I wouldn't trust them to do my mdm in general. With the new changes, I find their value to be even more questionable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
I let the scribes do everything but the MDM. HPI, pmh, times/ names for consults are pretty easy for them.
I always do a quick review before I grab the dragon and dictate the MDM.
Our coding company is holding a couple web meetings as well to discuss what the expectations are.
With epic I did have a few simple mdm smat texts with some hard stops that made things super easy like pediatric head injury w/o ct, chest pain with low heart score going home, chest pain getting admitted for r/o acs, sepsis going home, sepsis getting admitted etc. Populated the hard stops with the patient specific info like the trop or ekg findings etc.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
New mdm templates. To be seen.

Going to have a meeting with our coding company about how to maximize things

I've never understood the benefit of scribes. Checkbox templates are easy even in the most terrible emrs. I wouldn't trust them to do my mdm in general. With the new changes, I find their value to be even more questionable.

Every place I have worked that had scribes fired their scribes while I was there.

Now, I guarantee that it won't be long before someone on here jumps in and says: "But hurr durr, I was a scribe and I wuz good lolz."

No, you weren't. You just didn't know it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Every place I have worked that had scribes fired their scribes while I was there.

Now, I guarantee that it won't be long before someone on here jumps in and says: "But hurr durr, I was a scribe and I wuz good lolz."

No, you weren't. You just didn't know it.
To be fair I have worked with some scribes who have made my day easier. Key word some. Not worth it across the board. Would hire some of the ones I’ve worked with but now they are all in Med school. Scribe agencies are a scam
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
I wouldn't say that but having been a scribe has made me super specific about how I like my notes to look. I'm one of the very nit picky docs with the scribes, I like them very specific and clean.
I am very specific about HPI format, things that should never go in an hpi like 10/10 headache etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Be careful with the MDM templates. If you choose the level of service as "high" and it results in upcoding your chart, you could be liable. If a coding company takes your information and determines it, then you aren't liable... the coding company is.
 
I have limited experience w/ scribes, just one of the sites I did moonlighting at.

I found the rule of threes applied to them, as is often the case.

1/3 were good/helpful; they’d been doing it 2+ years, were almost going to leave for MD/PA school, and knew all the details of how this complex medical center operated. So yes, they actually made reasonable HPIs on most patients, but more importantly they rapidly queued up my notes with the exam, ROS, and labs/imaging imported. They multitasked as we moved between patients w/ a COW. They worked like super-unit-coordinators, keeping a list of consultants called/answered, and helped gopher equipment and suture stuff, etc. I actually think they improved my productivity a bit, and certainly made my work environment more pleasant.

1/3 were net neutral. Their HPI/MDM typing couldn’t be trusted and they didn’t really speed me up, but hey they opened charts and generally were helpful and pleasant to be around. I would not have paid for the service if it directly came out of my pocket…

1/3 hindered me. They would open 7 charts, keep them all open so I couldn’t get into them, type ridiculous things into the HPIs, and actively slowed my charting. I would try and give them $20 to go get us all coffee every 2hr and let them take a LOOOOONG lunch break whenever they wanted it…
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
What is your facility doing to prepare for the 2023 guideline changes? Any changes to your ED provider notes like adding a template to your MDMs? We’re also trying to figure out how we’re going to incorporate our scribes into the new workflow which is much more subjective than simply checking enough boxes of the HPI/ROS and PE.

So a lot of the new changes you are already charting (or… probably you are!) but aren’t putting them in the MDM. I think the best practice, as far as ensuring easy and accurate coding, is to move all of the relevant stuff into the area of the chart titled MDM.

A scribe absolutely could help check off a lot of these, as they are NOT subjective they simply document factual things—
Discussion w. Other providers
Review of old/outside records
Discussion w. Radiologist
History from non-patient source (family, EMS).

Check a box yes, free text a couple words of detail, bob’s your uncle.

The real game, so to speak, is to identify ALL of the things that can get you points in your MDM, verify with your coders the verbiage they want to see to ensure you earn said points in their eyes, and put them ALL in an MDM template of sorts as a memory-jog when you’re charting until it becomes second nature. For example, you don’t want to say “I reviewed the EKG”. You would to say “my INDEPENDENT INTERPRETATION of the EKG is that it showed rapid atrial fib”. You don’t want to say “patient and I discussed options, will d/c home with PCP follow up”… you want to say “Escalation of care including admission/observation considered, however after shared decision making patient will go home with strict return precautions”. Remove ambiguity from your statements, unless it has a real medicolegal purpose.

The list of things that can get you points is long and includes some things you likely didn’t purposefully chart previously…
DDX, considering admission/obs, all the different discussions w/ consultants, SW, also separately discussion w/ radiologists, all the independent interpretations of EKG, imaging, rhythm, strips, all of the various OTHER sources of history EMS/family, all of OUTSIDE records (meaning outside to today’s ED visit, not just OSH), and the real fun one CONSIDERING a diagnostic test but NOT doing it, along with the same for prescriptions, and the laundry list of chronic conditions that impacted your care / MDM AND the social determinates that did the same…
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
ACEP has a really good and in-depth FAQ about the new changes.

2023 Emergency Department Evaluation and Management Guidelines

I think it will make scribes less useful and there will be less "note bloat"

Not finished yet but this is my free text note I'm probably going to use. Its a lot shorter than the current one.
FYI the [] are where dragon/m-modal will jump to when you say "next field"



ED Provider Note
Provider:
TIME/DATE:

CC: Urgent ER evaluation for []

HPI: []

ROS: As documented in HPI


RECORDS REVIEWED:

Relevant PSFH HX: []

PHYSICAL EXAM:

Vitals:

Exam:
[]

RESULTS:

Labs: Results were reviewed by myself. Interpretation - []

Xray/CT/US: Summary - []

Imaging independently interpreted by myself prior to radiology read - N/A

EKG: Time: Rate: Interpretation: no STE, no ectopy, normal P/QRS/QT intervals. Cannot exclude ischemia. Interpreted by MD.

DDX: []

MDM: []

SDH: []

RE-EVALUATIONS:
[]

PROCEDURES:
[]

CALLS/CONSULTS:
[]

DIAGNOSIS: []

DISPOSITION: []

I had an extensive discussion with the patient and/or family about their disposition and they agreed with the plan.
 
Last edited:
How do you time stamp using m modal? Not the best thread to ask, but I really need to know for those pesky sepsis re assessments
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Keep in mind that CMS is going to adopt this, but it'll be a few years before most major insurers adopt it. Some may not ever adopt it? Why? Docs will document to CMS standards, but not to UnitedHealth or Anthem standards to qualify for a 99285. The insurers will use it as a way to cut costs because you will only be documenting to a 99283 by their standards. CMS documentation standards are not enforced upon the private insurers, and we all know they will look for every reason to not pay what is due.

My interpretation of this is that it will add more documentation than it will reduce for the first few years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Keep in mind that CMS is going to adopt this, but it'll be a few years before most major insurers adopt it. Some may not ever adopt it? Why? Docs will document to CMS standards, but not to UnitedHealth or Anthem standards to qualify for a 99285. The insurers will use it as a way to cut costs because you will only be documenting to a 99283 by their standards. CMS documentation standards are not enforced upon the private insurers, and we all know they will look for every reason to not pay what is due.

My interpretation of this is that it will add more documentation than it will reduce for the first few years.
Also cms has said they will follow CPT for the 81-85 e/m codes. There is concern about them making obs tougher to bill. Also come worry about them changing critical care.

the insurers got their hands slapped with the last guidance on 2023 documentation.
 
New mdm templates. To be seen.

Going to have a meeting with our coding company about how to maximize things

I've never understood the benefit of scribes. Checkbox templates are easy even in the most terrible emrs. I wouldn't trust them to do my mdm in general. With the new changes, I find their value to be even more questionable.

Scribes do everything except my MDM. I dictate my MDM. Occasionally I'll tell them "omit that pt said they have a HA" or "omit that chest pain or SI remark."

They write up d/C instructions, pull in rad reports, copy EKGs over, take phone calls for me.

Totally 100% make my life easier. I spend about 20 seconds per chart after shift signing them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
How do you time stamp using m modal? Not the best thread to ask, but I really need to know for those pesky sepsis re assessments
I have a phrase that is "insert time" and it is the kind of command that literally acts like I typed "...time" which is my dot phrase to add the current time token. I literally types "SPACE-PERIOD-PERIOD-PERIOD-T-I-M-E"
 
Scribes do everything except my MDM. I dictate my MDM. Occasionally I'll tell them "omit that pt said they have a HA" or "omit that chest pain or SI remark."

They write up d/C instructions, pull in rad reports, copy EKGs over, take phone calls for me.

Totally 100% make my life easier. I spend about 20 seconds per chart after shift signing them.
Gah, most of my scribes can't spell much less put in discharge instructions. We're so short staffed right now I only get a scribe every third shift anyways.
 
We should bump this.

Anybody done anything in particular to prepare for this? Are there any good resources out there to review? Free or Paid? Our group has talked about it but haven't done that much yet.
 
Envision made us take a training course on the "New Documentation Guidelines" but nowhere shows us how to use the charting system to actually implement the changes in a way that will lead to reimbursement. Envision corporate states that they "Don't know how the coders will code the charts". Weird, since they employ the coders.
 
Why can't there be a universal template that billers, coders, and insurers all accept? It can't be hard to do. Should work in 95% of charts
 
Why can't there be a universal template that billers, coders, and insurers all accept? It can't be hard to do. Should work in 95% of charts
Any reason they can find to pay you less
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
I made a new website last week to help with all this. Nowhere near done but if y'all are planning on doing free text stuff, especially procedures, it may be helpful. I've got a ton more MDMs, base notes, etc... to add I just haven't had time yet. I'm working on some more stuff in the "2023 Guidelines" section that hopefully I will update tomorrow or the next day. I'm by no means a web development expert but I thought it would be worth sharing some insights I have. DM me with feedback if you find anything that is lacking or something that you think I should add.

Home - ERNotes
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
I think it is shocking that these changes are coming tomorrow and my group has received minimal to no education on it.
 
I made a new website last week to help with all this. Nowhere near done but if y'all are planning on doing free text stuff, especially procedures, it may be helpful. I've got a ton more MDMs, base notes, etc... to add I just haven't had time yet. I'm working on some more stuff in the "2023 Guidelines" section that hopefully I will update tomorrow or the next day. I'm by no means a web development expert but I thought it would be worth sharing some insights I have. DM me with feedback if you find anything that is lacking or something that you think I should add.

Home - ERNotes

This is fantastic. Thank you so much for your efforts.

I used it to familiarize myself better with the 2023 CPT stuff. Once I have some motivation on a slow shift I'll make dot phrases with the other stuff.

I am totally looking forward to the ****show tomorrow as admin has given us almost nothing to orient us to this new system, and the usual clueless types were too lazy to take the initiative on their own to educate themselves.
 
Well so far kind of chitty. Really having a hard time trying to find the verbiage, and the right verbiage to get the proper coding in a chart.

I think a resource that has helped me is 2023 (here) and

I like the idea of coming up with a SMART macro that all it takes is a handful of clicks which results in a LOS/Code and verbiage to support that LOS/Code.
 
Well so far kind of chitty. Really having a hard time trying to find the verbiage, and the right verbiage to get the proper coding in a chart.

I think a resource that has helped me is 2023 (here) and

I like the idea of coming up with a SMART macro that all it takes is a handful of clicks which results in a LOS/Code and verbiage to support that LOS/Code.

Made the list of copy/paste macros to fill in at the end of your note to help suggest/direct the level of MDM. It's clunky right now but I'm working to make it streamlined.

 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
What I'm not sure I understand is, what the heck does "poses a threat to life or bodily function" really mean? Surely a fall with ankle pain, non-weightbearing that could potentially be a fracture, represents a threat to bodily function? But then that video thegenius linked to says that would be more of a "low" level problem. I just don't get the verbiage used. The official documentation isn't much better:

"Acute or chronic illness or injury that poses a threat to life or bodily function: An acute illness with systemic symptoms, an acute complicated injury, or a chronic illness or injury with exacerbation and/or progression or side effects of treatment, that poses a threat to life or bodily function in the near term without treatment. Some symptoms may represent a condition that is significantly probable and poses a potential threat to life or bodily function. These may be included in this category when the evaluation and treatment are consistent with this degree of potential severity."

So, from everything I've seen, you can basically game most things to a level 4 or 5 chart, and maybe that's the point. I just don't want to be the first one on the wall after trying to defend myself against medicaid fraud for all these high level charts when all I'm trying to do is make sure my group's billing doesn't get undercut.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Also if you can make anyone "high risk" by using parenteral therapy, it certainly seems to incentivize using IV drugs on more people. That plus a couple of labs, boom, 4 or 5 pretty easy
 
Questions about this so far:

I've read over and over that for Billing/Coding, what's in the MDM is what counts. Does that mean coders will ignore other sections of the chart? Imagine for instance someone comes in with 5 knives sticking out of their neck, chest, and belly and has a BP 80/40. So you document the exam somewhere in the PE section. Are the billers going to look there? Or do you have to write AGAIN in the MDM that "30 yo man p/w 5 knives in his head, chest, and belly. His BP is 80/40."

It's just unclear where to put all of the information for a chart. On some level we have to chart exam findings. Do you chart them only once in the MDM? Or do you chart them where it generally goes in a chart?
 
Also if you can make anyone "high risk" by using parenteral therapy, it certainly seems to incentivize using IV drugs on more people. That plus a couple of labs, boom, 4 or 5 pretty easy
*IM drugs*
 
Questions about this so far:

I've read over and over that for Billing/Coding, what's in the MDM is what counts. Does that mean coders will ignore other sections of the chart? Imagine for instance someone comes in with 5 knives sticking out of their neck, chest, and belly and has a BP 80/40. So you document the exam somewhere in the PE section. Are the billers going to look there? Or do you have to write AGAIN in the MDM that "30 yo man p/w 5 knives in his head, chest, and belly. His BP is 80/40."

It's just unclear where to put all of the information for a chart. On some level we have to chart exam findings. Do you chart them only once in the MDM? Or do you chart them where it generally goes in a chart?
That’s absolutely up to your own coders and billers but they can look at all sections of the chart to find any of the required elements.

For example we have a separate data section one could write prelim X-ray reads in, and ours know to look there not just the MDM. It is nice to package things in the MDM for them to make their jobs easier…
 
What I'm not sure I understand is, what the heck does "poses a threat to life or bodily function" really mean? Surely a fall with ankle pain, non-weightbearing that could potentially be a fracture, represents a threat to bodily function? But then that video thegenius linked to says that would be more of a "low" level problem. I just don't get the verbiage used. The official documentation isn't much better:

"Acute or chronic illness or injury that poses a threat to life or bodily function: An acute illness with systemic symptoms, an acute complicated injury, or a chronic illness or injury with exacerbation and/or progression or side effects of treatment, that poses a threat to life or bodily function in the near term without treatment. Some symptoms may represent a condition that is significantly probable and poses a potential threat to life or bodily function. These may be included in this category when the evaluation and treatment are consistent with this degree of potential severity."

So, from everything I've seen, you can basically game most things to a level 4 or 5 chart, and maybe that's the point. I just don't want to be the first one on the wall after trying to defend myself against medicaid fraud for all these high level charts when all I'm trying to do is make sure my group's billing doesn't get undercut.
This is from
The acep faq. I found it very helpful. I agree most things are 4/5

CPT has not published clinical examples for the COPA elements. In addition, the clinical examples for the E/M codes in Appendix C will be deleted from CPT in 2023. The ACEP Coding and Nomenclature Committee has reviewed available CPT guidelines, AMA clarifications published in CPT Assistant, and common practices in the emergency department to offer some guidance when assessing the Complexity of Problems Addressed.

Minimal

  • 1 self-limited or minor problem.
    • It is improbable that many patients that present to the emergency department clinically fit into this category. CPT stipulates that a problem that is normally self-limited or minor but is not resolving consistent with a definite and prescribed course is an acute, uncomplicated illness. Given this description, an illness or injury that warrants a visit to the emergency room seems to exceed what would be considered a self-limited or minor problem. Presentations in this category will most likely be limited to patients who return to the ED for uncomplicated suture removal, dressing changes, or packing removal.
Low

  • 2 or more self-limited or minor problems
    • See the above description of a self-limited or minor problem.
  • 1 stable chronic illness and
  • 1 stable, acute illness
    • The CPT definition of “Stable” makes it doubtful that patients presenting to the department fit into these categories.
"Stable" for the purposes of categorizing MDM is defined by the specific treatment goals for an individual patient. A patient who is not at their treatment goal is not stable, even if the condition has not changed and there is no short-term threat to life or function.

A patient who presents with an illness or injury to be evaluated by the emergency physician does not fit this definition of stable. Additionally, CPT indicates these are “A problem that is new or recent for which treatment has been initiated…” which is unusual in the emergency department setting.

  • Acute, uncomplicated illness or injury
    • ED presentations in this category will be limited to localized complaints that do not include additional signs or symptoms.
    • Uncomplicated injuries will be minor traumatic injuries that are appropriately evaluated without x-rays (e.g., extremity injuries with limited pain, swelling, or bruising) and can usually be managed with over-the-counter medications. Injuries that require prescription medications for more aggressive pain management or other prescription medications (e.g., antibiotics due to infection risk) are typically more consistent with an acute complicated injury.
    • Uncomplicated illnesses are minor illnesses with no associated systemic symptoms and can be evaluated without testing or imaging (e.g., isolated URI symptoms). Most of these patients can be reasonably treated with over-the-counter medications. Illnesses that have developed associated signs or symptoms, or require testing or imaging, or necessitate treatment with prescription strength medications have progressed beyond an uncomplicated illness.
    • 1 acute, uncomplicated illness or injury requiring hospital inpatient or observation level of care
For physicians and coders working in the emergency department, a patient that requires hospitalization seems out of place in the Low COPA category. AMA CPT personnel have said that this bullet was added to provide a mechanism to score Low MDM as required for the inpatient hospital/observation E/M codes. This bullet should not be used when calculating the MDM for patients in the emergency department.

Moderate

  • 2 or more stable chronic illnesses.
    • See the above explanation of stable chronic illness.
  • 1 acute complicated injury
    • As indicated by the CPT definition, these are injuries that require an evaluation of organ systems or body areas beyond just the injury site (e.g., musculoskeletal injuries where an assessment of distal neurovascular function is indicated).
    • A patient’s mechanism of injury can also be an indication of an acute complicated injury. ED presentations prompted by a fall, MVA, fight, bicycle accident, or any other accident require the physician/QHP to evaluate multiple organ systems or body areas to identify or rule out injuries.
    • Accidents and/or injuries that necessitate diagnostic imaging to rule out significant clinical conditions such as fracture, dislocation, or foreign bodies are indicative of a potentially extensive injury with multiple treatment options and risk of morbidity.
  • 1 or more chronic illnesses with exacerbation, progression, or side effects of treatment.
    • Stylistically, this element is listed as above in the MDM table, but it should be interpreted as:
      • chronic illnesses with exacerbation, OR
      • chronic illnesses with progression, OR
      • chronic illnesses with side effects of treatment.
    • 1 undiagnosed new problem with uncertain prognosis.
    • 1 acute illness with systemic symptoms.
      • There are many presenting problems, chief complaints, and associated signs and symptoms that could fit into these three categories.
In response to a reader’s question, CPT Assistant indicated that abdominal pain would likely represent “at least” Moderate COPA. This could be a patient with chronic abdominal pain, so the presentation would be considered a chronic illness with exacerbation. It may be a patient with no history of abdominal pain that would be an undiagnosed new problem with uncertain prognosis. Or it might present as abdominal pain with vomiting and diarrhea, so it would score as an acute illness with systemic symptoms.

This concept can be applied to many evaluations for patient complaints that should be considered at leastModerate COPA. The following are some examples, but this is not an all-inclusive list:

Abdominal pain Psychiatric complaints
Back pain Shortness of breath
Chest pain Systemic rash
Diarrhea Vomiting
Dizziness Weakness
Headache, Neck pain Syncope
It is important to recognize that all of these presentations exist within a clinical spectrum of severity. At the moderate level, diagnostic evaluations for these would likely involve simple testing, such as plain x-rays or basic lab tests.

  • Systemic symptoms may involve a single system or more than one system. Presentations representing two or more systems seem to exceed a single acute uncomplicated illness or injury, suggesting at least a moderate COPA. CPT states, “Multiple problems of a lower severity may, in the aggregate, create higher risk due to interaction.”
  • Fever is generally considered to likely represent a systemic response to an illness. CPT states that fever associated with a minor illness that may be treated to alleviate symptoms is more typical of an uncomplicated illness. For example, an otherwise healthy patient with a fever solely associated with uncomplicated viral URI symptoms is a less concerning clinical process. However, fever or body aches not associated with a minor illness or associated with illnesses requiring diagnostic testing or prescription drug management may represent a broader complexity of problem being addressed or treated.
  • Regardless of final diagnosis, accidents and/or injuries that necessitate diagnostic imaging to identify or rule out a clinical condition such as a fracture, a dislocation, or a foreign body are indicative of a potentially extensive injury with multiple treatment options and risk of morbidity and consistent with an undiagnosed new problem with uncertain prognosis.
  • The physician/QHP ordering and/or reviewing extensive labs and/or complex imaging and/or consulting with a specialist indicates an investigation to evaluate for broader concerns with more complex clinical considerations. This would suggest that the encounter has exceeded what would reasonably be considered moderate COPA.
High

  • 1 or more chronic illnesses with severe exacerbation, progression, or side effects of treatment
    • Stylistically, this element is listed as above in the MDM table, but it should be interpreted as:
      • chronic illnesses with severe exacerbation, OR
      • chronic illnesses with severe progression, OR
      • chronic illnesses with severe side effects of treatment.
  • 1 acute or chronic illness or injury that poses a threat to life or bodily function
    • Presenting problems in these High COPA categories are high-risk presentations where the physician/QHP is evaluating or ruling out a condition with a significant risk of morbidity or one that poses a threat to life or bodily function. These are patients with symptoms that potentially represent a highly morbid condition and therefore support high MDM even when the ultimate diagnosis is not highly morbid.
The final diagnosis for a condition, in and of itself, does not determine the complexity of the MDM. The presenting problem, or diagnostic evaluation, or treatment or management, or differential diagnoses, may indicate that an extensive evaluation is required to reach the conclusion that the signs or symptoms do not represent a highly morbid condition.

The following high COPA examples may be demonstrated by the totality of the medical record as demonstrated implicitly by the presenting problem, or diagnostic evaluation, or treatment or management, or differential diagnoses, or overall medical decision making, as demonstrated in the entire record.

This is not an all-inclusive list; high COPA should be considered for evaluations of patients with presentations potentially consistent with, but not limited to:

Active labor Missed/incomplete abortion
Ectopic pregnancy Ocular emergencies
Acute intra-abdominal infection or inflammatory process Ovarian torsion
Behavioral health decompensation Pulmonary embolism
Cardiac arrhythmia Seizure
Cardiac ischemia Sepsis
Congestive heart failure Sickle cell crisis
Croup or asthma requiring significant treatment Significant blood loss
CVA, acute neurological change Significant complications of pregnancy
DKA or other significant complications of diabetes Significant eye injury
Endocrine emergencies Significant fractures or dislocations
Epiglottitis Significant infection
Exacerbation of CHF Significant metabolic disturbance
Exacerbation of COPD Significant penetrating trauma
Gastrointestinal obstruction Significant vascular disruption, aneurysm, or injury
Hypertensive crisis Solid organ injury
Intracranial hemorrhage Testicular torsion
Intra-thoracic or intra-abdominal injury due to blunt trauma Toxic ingestion
Kidney stone with potential complications
It is not necessary that these conditions be listed as the final diagnosis. An extensive evaluation to identify or rule out these or any other condition that represents a potential threat to life or bodily function is an indication of High COPA and should be included in this category when the evaluation or treatment is consistent with this degree of potential severity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
For example we have a separate data section one could write prelim X-ray reads in, and ours know to look there not just the MDM.
I sure hope our billers and coders have enough brain cells between them to figure this out. Given the kind of charts I get sent back for completion, which already has the documented information they're asking for, I'm not so sure.
 
I sure hope our billers and coders have enough brain cells between them to figure this out. Given the kind of charts I get sent back for completion, which already has the documented information they're asking for, I'm not so sure.
Agreed. I am pessimistic on that as well.

Another example is I typically put in the HPI-
Ems states: patient wheezy en route given 2 nebs with improvement.
Patient states: asthma trigger by cold yesterday.

So I have documented a meaningful independent historian clearly in the HPI. Hopefully they notice without me repeating that fact in the MDM…
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I think the best thing we could use now....at least until we get really good at charting...is something that can read your chart in real time and help you figure out the best way to code your chart and what it takes to legally bill higher.

This would be useful for me too because I use scribes and they fill in a bunch of stuff for me. So imagine this....
you walk into a room (with a scribe, or you remember it yourself).
- pt gives you history
- EMS or family gives additional history
- determine if pt is high risk of social determinants (homeless, substance abuse, etc).
- you come up with DDx in head
- you leave and order a bunch of labs, XR, EKGs, etc.
- you order meds

this is what we do normally. Note that it's hard to determine LOS just based on this info. You can't necessarily bill 99285 just based on initial encounter most of the time.

Anyway...leave the room and see other patients. Do the same thing.

Eventually you get back to each patient, review the tests, XRs, CTs, whatever. You determine a dispo and a diagnosis. Once you type in a diagnosis into your EMR (and I think that is key)...there needs to be a MACRO or something that pops up and says

"I have read your chart AND your diagnosis and so far (assuming that you have personally interpreted every non-lab test you ordered), you currently can bill for a {'LOS 99283', 'LOS 99284', 'LOS 99295'}. If you want to increase your level from a 99283 to a 99284, you need to do either A,B,C,D, and/or E. if you want to increase your LOS from 99284 to 99285, you need to do G,H,I,J,K."

It should also be smart and say "Your diagnosis of 'CHF Exacerbation' is typically billed at an LOS 99285, but currently you have only documented enough for 99284. You should do X,Y and/or Z to increase your billing"

The macro or program can suggest things like
- "It appears you have not given a parenteral medication. Consider giving an IM or IV medication."
- "You can consider talking to a consultant"
- "Are there other diagnoses that can be considered non-optimized stable conditions? For instance you diagnosed cellulitis. Do they have HTN and their BP is not optimized? Do you want to give clonidine 0.1 mg to address that?"
- "Do you want to talk to Radiology about the results of the xray you ordered?"
- "Did you discuss the decision to potentially hospitalize someone for their problem? (even if you didn't do it?)"
- Did you tell them to come back in 2 days because their access to health care is poor?


We need a smart macro or something that is integrated into our EHR to help us with this
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Okay sure, IM drugs too, I use those a lot.

Another question: I'm looking at some of the linked templates, as well as other places, and I'm seeing people say stuff in their notes like "HEY THIS IS A LEVEL 5 CHART HERE'S WHY," this strikes me as super weird. Should I be saying "I'm trying to chart at this level, mmk coders?" or is it just including the elements I've reviewed, my ddx, my treatments, and the patient's dispo? I guess it was easier under the old system for a coder to say "well, we got 10 ROS and enough PE elements with a cursory MDM, level 5 it is!" but it just smacks of something intangibly weird to list my own chart level recommendation in my chart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Okay sure, IM drugs too, I use those a lot.

Another question: I'm looking at some of the linked templates, as well as other places, and I'm seeing people say stuff in their notes like "HEY THIS IS A LEVEL 5 CHART HERE'S WHY," this strikes me as super weird. Should I be saying "I'm trying to chart at this level, mmk coders?" or is it just including the elements I've reviewed, my ddx, my treatments, and the patient's dispo? I guess it was easier under the old system for a coder to say "well, we got 10 ROS and enough PE elements with a cursory MDM, level 5 it is!" but it just smacks of something intangibly weird to list my own chart level recommendation in my chart.

I've seen this too...and I think one reason why it is done is to help the coders understand what's going on in the chart. Major fears are that coders will miss stuff or not interpret what we are doing and chart a 99283 when in fact we have done enough for a 99285. But yes I agree it's weird
 
So guys and gals....is it possible to get 99284 on a 1 yo with a routine, simple URI?

Here's how you get it, I believe:
- COPA (Complexity of Problems Addressed) will always be Low (not sure how you get 'Moderate' from a simple URI with a runny nose and cough)
- Data can be Moderate. Review a prior, non-ER note like from PCP. Order a respiratory viral swab. Get history from Mom or Dad.
- Risk can be Moderate. Write Rx for tylenol.

Boom! Because you pick any two of the three highest levels, you get a Moderate chart which is 99284.

Do I have this right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
So guys and gals....is it possible to get 99284 on a 1 yo with a routine, simple URI?

Here's how you get it, I believe:
- COPA (Complexity of Problems Addressed) will always be Low (not sure how you get 'Moderate' from a simple URI with a runny nose and cough)
- Data can be Moderate. Review a prior, non-ER note like from PCP. Order a respiratory viral swab. Get history from Mom or Dad.
- Risk can be Moderate. Write Rx for tylenol.

Boom! Because you pick any two of the three highest levels, you get a Moderate chart which is 99284.

Do I have this right?
Ok, so for the sake of argument, why shouldn't this be a 5? I considered the possibility of an atypical or early presentation of pneumonia, bacteremia, deep space neck infection or meningitis, all highly morbid procedures. I considered performing labs, blood cultures, a CXR and a viral respiratory panel. I considered an Rx for empiric antibiotics or antipyretics. Hospitalization, for monitoring of progression or development of compliations was considered. This was discussed with the parents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Make sure you're documenting to BOTH standards currently. Not all private insurers are adopting the new guidelines. I feel like a lot of people are gonna be sloppy with the HPI/physical exam and concentrate on MDM, but the majority of private insurers are going to downcode that because they are still looking for the old level 5 charting.

This has created more work for us for the next few years until private insurers adopt the new changes. Currently, this only applies to CMS/Medicaid and a few smaller insurers (I forget which ones).
 
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: 1 users
Make sure you're documenting to BOTH standards currently. Not all private insurers are adopting the new guidelines. I feel like a lot of people are gonna be sloppy with the HPI/physical exam and concentrate on MDM, but the majority of private insurers are going to downcode that because they are still looking for the old level 5 charting.

This has created more work for us for the next few years until private insurers adopt the new changes. Currently, this only applies to CMS/Medicaid and a few smaller insurers (I forget which ones).
Is this a georgia thing?

Note that insurers follow CPT and not medicare guidelines. Of course some insurers like united just create their own wish list. That being said Medicare agreed to follow CPT so there is one standard. I heard this from others about some insurers not following along but our billing company (LogixHealth) who does 12M+ ED visits a year says this is BS.

Others I have heard this from are *****s but southern I know you know what you are talking about.. please provide more info.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Ok, so for the sake of argument, why shouldn't this be a 5? I considered the possibility of an atypical or early presentation of pneumonia, bacteremia, deep space neck infection or meningitis, all highly morbid procedures. I considered performing labs, blood cultures, a CXR and a viral respiratory panel. I considered an Rx for empiric antibiotics or antipyretics. Hospitalization, for monitoring of progression or development of compliations was considered. This was discussed with the parents.
I "consider" quite frequently 😉
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Based on my understanding of reviewing the new MDM guidelines, it is NOT possible to bill a level 5 chart on a patient that is discharged without independently reviewing imaging or talking to a consultant. Is that right?
 
Make sure you're documenting to BOTH standards currently. Not all private insurers are adopting the new guidelines. I feel like a lot of people are gonna be sloppy with the HPI/physical exam and concentrate on MDM, but the majority of private insurers are going to downcode that because they are still looking for the old level 5 charting.

This has created more work for us for the next few years until private insurers adopt the new changes. Currently, this only applies to CMS/Medicaid and a few smaller insurers (I forget which ones).
As Ectopic mentioned, I don't think this is correct. This also doesn't really track at face value as it would assume that an insurance company could refuse to pay for any service based on it's definition at time of service if they used an old definition.

If you have information which shows otherwise, please let us know as this would be utterly gamechanging.
 
Based on my understanding of reviewing the new MDM guidelines, it is NOT possible to bill a level 5 chart on a patient that is discharged without independently reviewing imaging or talking to a consultant. Is that right?
Incorrect.

Example:
Severe asthma exacerbation who gets IV Mg. Patient gets level 5 for problem addressed (1 severe exacerbation of a chronic condition which is life threatening). CXR, CBC, CHEM ordered. No review of the CXR performed by you. (3 tests ordered --> lvl 4). Patient received a medication which requires intensive monitoring for toxicity (Mg). That's lvl 5 for risk.

They get better. They go home.

I'm sure there are other examples, but that's one off the top of my head.

In reality, getting a lvl 5 on a discharged patient is going to be much more common with **** like chest pain or abd pain (with imaging)
Problem addressed = lvl 4
Tests = lvl 5 (cbc, chem, trop, independent cxr interp)
Risk = lvl 5 (4mg morphine given)
 
In reality, getting a lvl 5 on a discharged patient is going to be much more common with **** like chest pain or abd pain (with imaging)
Problem addressed = lvl 4
Tests = lvl 5 (cbc, chem, trop, independent cxr interp)
Risk = lvl 5 (4mg morphine given)
Pretty sure that my point still stands.

MDM complexity is defined by 3 categories, of which 2/3 are required for 99285 billing.

1. Testing, document review, or independent historian
2. Independent interpretation of testing performed by another healthcare professional— which is basically imaging unless you’re reviewing LHCs.
3. Discussion with other healthcare professional.
 
Ok, so for the sake of argument, why shouldn't this be a 5? I considered the possibility of an atypical or early presentation of pneumonia, bacteremia, deep space neck infection or meningitis, all highly morbid procedures. I considered performing labs, blood cultures, a CXR and a viral respiratory panel. I considered an Rx for empiric antibiotics or antipyretics. Hospitalization, for monitoring of progression or development of compliations was considered. This was discussed with the parents.

I think you could upgrade the Risk to be High, but having
COPA Low
Data Moderate
Risk High
still only gives a chart of 99284. You need another "High" somewhere in COPA or Data to get 99285. So either you order a bunch of tests and talk to a pediatrician about their viral URI, or hope your kid respiratory distress or something to make COPA High.
 
Top