2023 CPT Guideline Changes

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
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.
So your options to get lvl 5 are EITHER to go 1st column (acute life threatening presentation) + 3rd column (risk, IV morphine given), and thus the second column doesn't matter and you are done. A number of variations of this can easily be done in my head for various presentations that do get discharged home, assuming the presentation is truly worrisome in your charting. Asthma, renal colic that looks bad on arrival mimicking acute abdomen, cholelithiasis pain that resolves, etc etc.

IF the it is more of an acute illness of unclear prognosis (level 4, say generic belly pain without any high-risk features on arrival...), you need level 5 on both the second and third columns. Again, the third column risk can be achieved with parenteral meds amongst other relative common things. So to get the second, I agree with your premise:
(1) 3 tests... CBC/CMP and UA. Or whatever mix and old chart review. This is easy.
and then either
(2) You review a radiology study yourself (chest xray, US done by US tech, CT scan).
OR
(3) You talk to a consultant / PCP

My own opinion here, I am evangelical about always looking at my own imaging. Always. I am not very high and mighty about many things in our job, favoring pragmatism to perfectionism... but I always look at my XRAY and CT. Very simple to chart that.

So the issue would be a patient who needs ZERO imaging, ZERO consultant/PCP discussion, does get a lot of labs but gets discharged home and you can't nudge the middle column into 5. Maybe these should be 4's. Maybe there is old imaging in the chart you can look at and independantly interpret.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
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?
These can be and should be level 4 all day long.

Go back and read the excerpt of the ACEP COPA section I posted above; this is a MODERATE problem.
  • 1 undiagnosed new problem with uncertain prognosis.
  • 1 acute illness with systemic symptoms
They specifically note in the examples that a URI might be LOW if you do ZERO testing and recommend only OTC meds AND there are no systemic symptoms.

So you have fever / cough / uri symptoms. Ddx includes acute viral syndrome, influenza, covid-19, pneumonia felt unlikely after full examination.

COPA MODERATE


DATA ?MODERATE
possibly, this is the harder one in this case-->
+1 for independent historian parent
+1 for single test (usually the combo viral swab RSV/FLU/COVID has a single CPT code)
then you need to get +1 from... a pedi note? For PMhx. For vaccination status. Very valid. But if you don't have access to their EMR you may be out of luck.

If you can't get a pedi note or other such outside document, you would either need a second test (can't think of a valid one here, strep swab seems silly, but some places could do a separate flu and covid swab...) or you are stuck at the LOW Data level.

Risk Likely moderate.
As you state, prescribing a proper "rx strength" weight-based APAP or IBUPROFEN is very appropriate here, would hit moderate.

So I think these are 4s most of the time if you practice as above; if you do no swab, review no record, and write no Rx... then its a 3, and should be IMHO.
 
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.
Ahh, I see your confusion now. What you are saying is true regarding TESTING being done. Thats how you get a 5 in that column. You don't need a 5 in that column though. You just need 2 lvl 5's in Problems addressed, testing and/or risk. You get a 5 in problems addressed and a 5 in risk in my example. That gets you a lvl 5 chart even if you don't order a single test/cxr/talk to anyone.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
My own opinion here, I am evangelical about always looking at my own imaging. Always. I am not very high and mighty about many things in our job, favoring pragmatism to perfectionism... but I always look at my XRAY and CT. Very simple to chart that.
I suppose it depends on your workflow. I have to login to a separate PACS station and manually search studies. Does it take long? No. Do I use it every day? Yes. Is it worth pulling up the XR of the atraumatic foot pain x 10 years so that I can independently review it? No way.
 
I suppose it depends on your workflow. I have to login to a separate PACS station and manually search studies. Does it take long? No. Do I use it every day? Yes. Is it worth pulling up the XR of the atraumatic foot pain x 10 years so that I can independently review it? No way.
I'm sure you can find a way to independently interpret those images during your shift; perhaps even batch them at the end of the shift... at least the ones that would meaningfully change your coding.

We got a popup PACS in our meditech so you can review studies while seated in your native EMR, very helpful for this but real detailed things its nice to use the PACS monitor and all...
 
I suppose it depends on your workflow. I have to login to a separate PACS station and manually search studies. Does it take long? No. Do I use it every day? Yes. Is it worth pulling up the XR of the atraumatic foot pain x 10 years so that I can independently review it? No way.
Wow, yeah that workflow is terrible. We have a dedicated pacs machine that I can wheel over to and have the study I need up in about 20 seconds.

I can also be lazy and click the image directly in our (otherwise super s***ty) emr and review it that way.

If you're compensated based on productivity, I'd definitely come up with a routine to review the imaging as it's probably the largest bang for buck item in this entire coding overhaul.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
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.
Hmm...we use Logix. So I can forget everything else? Our finance department didn't feel confident in that position.
 
Hmm...we use Logix. So I can forget everything else? Our finance department didn't feel confident in that position.
Ask logix. Screw the finance idiots. Logix is gonna code the charts.
 
These can be and should be level 4 all day long.

Go back and read the excerpt of the ACEP COPA section I posted above; this is a MODERATE problem.
  • 1 undiagnosed new problem with uncertain prognosis.
  • 1 acute illness with systemic symptoms
They specifically note in the examples that a URI might be LOW if you do ZERO testing and recommend only OTC meds AND there are no systemic symptoms.

So you have fever / cough / uri symptoms. Ddx includes acute viral syndrome, influenza, covid-19, pneumonia felt unlikely after full examination.

COPA MODERATE

So.....ok fine. I said a "1 yo with a routine, simple URI?" When I wrote that I mean a kid with a runny nose, maybe a cough, with normal vitals. Through my thought analysis this was low. I don't think it falls under

1) 1 undiagosed new problem with uncertain prognois. - it's a new problem, but the prognosis is 99.99% OK. Literally.
2) 1 acute illness with systemic symptoms - I don't think a routine URI produces systemic symptoms for the purposes of this conversation.

Now...I wondered after I posted that...what if the 1yo kid has a fever and tachypnea with the routine URI? And I mean not in the dangerous sense. We see these kids all the time and after tylenol their fever and tachypnea markedly improve.

According to your document, that still doesn't quite fit. I'm copying and pasting from your post: "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."

So I don't think we can get a moderate, certainly not all day long as you alluded to. I would like it to be, but it aint.

Just conceptually speaking....i'd say that a certain percent of all chest pains we see will be level 4. Most will be level 5. But conceptually it's hard to bill the same for a routine URI and some of the chest pains we see.

Other than that I agree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
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.

where is the link for this?

EDIT: Found it
 
Last edited:
"Reviewing test results" vs "independent interpretation of tests"
what is the difference between these two?

In Data -> Category 1 and 2

You see a pt and order a CXR.
You get 1 point for ordering a CXR
You get 1 point for reviewing the CXR result written by the radiologist, e.g. their final read. This is "reviewing a test result" right?

Then...you get 1 point for independently reviewing the CXR yourself. Mean you have to document your own read. "No pneumothorax, chronic lung markings, no consolidation, no pleural effusion." This is "independent interpretation of tests"?

Can I look at a CT performed 1 month ago that has already been read by a radiologist and interpret it myself? Hmm..I don't think so because it says "(not separately reported)"


Because of "(not separately reported)....." can I get points for interpreting an xray before the radiologist? And then get a point for reviewing their read?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Where in the new 2023 guidelines does giving IM toradol mean you can bill higher (as opposed to giving no medicines or by PO?)

I don't think it's under the risk section. There a section under "Parenteral Controlled Substances" but toradol is not a controlled substance
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
"Reviewing test results" vs "independent interpretation of tests"
what is the difference between these two?

In Data -> Category 1 and 2

You see a pt and order a CXR.
You get 1 point for ordering a CXR
You get 1 point for reviewing the CXR result written by the radiologist, e.g. their final read. This is "reviewing a test result" right?

Then...you get 1 point for independently reviewing the CXR yourself. Mean you have to document your own read. "No pneumothorax, chronic lung markings, no consolidation, no pleural effusion." This is "independent interpretation of tests"?

Can I look at a CT performed 1 month ago that has already been read by a radiologist and interpret it myself? Hmm..I don't think so because it says "(not separately reported)"


Because of "(not separately reported)....." can I get points for interpreting an xray before the radiologist? And then get a point for reviewing their read?
From ACEP:
  • Ordering of each unique test.
    • Ordering a test is included in reviewing the results.
    • A single unique test ordered or reviewed is a data point, but a single unique test ordered and reviewed is not 2 points.
    • It is assumed that the physician/QHP will review the results of a test ordered; therefore, the physician/QHP does not receive dual credit in Category 1 for both ordering and reviewing the same test.
    • Review of a test ordered by another physician counts as a review of a test. For example, a review of tests performed at an outside clinic, urgent care center, or nursing home prior to arrival in the ED would qualify.

I don't think you can get credit for independently interpreting an old image. I think the whole point is that you made the interpretation yourself in real time and acted on it, hence the reason it gets credit.

You will get credit for interpreting the CXR that you ordered. You will also get credit for ordering the cxr (ordering it only confers 1 point, as reviewing the rads read is bundled in ordering it as above)
 
From ACEP:
  • Ordering of each unique test.
    • Ordering a test is included in reviewing the results.
    • A single unique test ordered or reviewed is a data point, but a single unique test ordered and reviewed is not 2 points.
    • It is assumed that the physician/QHP will review the results of a test ordered; therefore, the physician/QHP does not receive dual credit in Category 1 for both ordering and reviewing the same test.
    • Review of a test ordered by another physician counts as a review of a test. For example, a review of tests performed at an outside clinic, urgent care center, or nursing home prior to arrival in the ED would qualify.

I don't think you can get credit for independently interpreting an old image. I think the whole point is that you made the interpretation yourself in real time and acted on it, hence the reason it gets credit.

You will get credit for interpreting the CXR that you ordered. You will also get credit for ordering the cxr (ordering it only confers 1 point, as reviewing the rads read is bundled in ordering it as above)

This actually makes sense. So it will be hard to give oneself credit for "reviewing" tests for a typical patient, on any level.

For a typical chest pain patient, we order
- IV, Monitor
- EKG
- CMP, CBC, Trop x2, Coags
- CXR
- ASA 325

I have ordered 6 tests (EKG, CMP, CBC, Trop x2 [only counts as one test!], Coags, CXR)
I have reviewed nothing
I have interpreted the EKG and gave my read (or perhaps this is billed independently so NO point))
I have interpreted the CXR and gave my read. However depending on claiming EKG interpretation, you may receive no additional credit.

So DATA is always Extensive.

How does one get credit for "Review of the results(s) of each unique test"? Is this reviewing results from tests in the past? Like prior labs, ECHOs, Endoscopies, etc. That part isn't clear.
 
Last edited:
This actually makes sense. So it will be hard to give oneself credit for "reviewing" tests for a typical patient, on any level.

For a typical chest pain patient, we order
- IV, Monitor
- EKG
- CMP, CBC, Trop x2, Coags
- CXR
- ASA 325

I have ordered 6 tests (EKG, CMP, CBC, Trop x2 [only counts as one test!], Coags, CXR)
I have reviewed nothing
I have interpreted the EKG and gave my read
I have interpreted the CXR and gave my read. However in this case any interpretations > 1 you receive no additional credit.

So DATA is always Extensive.

How does one get credit for "Review of the results(s) of each unique test"? Is this reviewing results from tests in the past? Like prior labs, ECHOs, Endoscopies, etc. That part isn't clear.
Review results of each unique test would be:
Patient comes in from nursing home. Had labs done today which come with them. You review the CBC, Chem and Trop that were done as an outpatient today prior to arrival and decide not to repeat these labs as they're all only 2 hrs old.

3 points for tests. Boom, you've hit lvl 4 already for that column. You can make it a 5 if you order and interpret a CXR or if you consult someone.

Also, it's worth noting that reviewing your own EKG generally will NOT give you a independent interpretation credit. This is because at most places we bill for our EKG interpretations. You can't get charting points credit for a study you're also formally billing for. Plain films, CT, US are where that is going to come from.

And yeah, chest pain should basically always be extensive for data. If you're considering ACS, I would argue that it's always extensive for COPA as ACS is a potentially life threatening diagnosis and that's what you're ruling out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
IM toradol for everyone? It's a hell of a drug.

I agree with BoardingDoc. IM toradol doesn't count for anything as far as I can tell. Lots of IV and IM meds won't count for anything. They have to require intensive monitoring for toxicity, or be a controlled substance in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V.
 
Review results of each unique test would be:
Patient comes in from nursing home. Had labs done today which come with them. You review the CBC, Chem and Trop that were done as an outpatient today prior to arrival and decide not to repeat these labs as they're all only 2 hrs old.

3 points for tests. Boom, you've hit lvl 4 already for that column. You can make it a 5 if you order and review a CXR or if you consult someone.

Also, it's worth noting that reviewing your own EKG generally will NOT give you a independent interpretation credit. This is because at most places we bill for our EKG interpretations. You can't get charting points credit for a study you're also formally billing for. Plain films, CT, US are where that is going to come from.

And yeah, chest pain should basically always be extensive for data. If you're considering ACS, I would argue that it's always extensive for COPA as ACS is a potentially life threatening diagnosis and that's what you're ruling out.

I like it. On that same level I imagine reviewing prior labs in the EMR probably also counts. We do this literally for every patient that we spend more than 1 minute thinking about.

e.g. Pt comes in with diarrhea. Cr is 4.6. You review a Cr from 3 months ago and it was 1.3.

I think getting Extensive from the Data MDM will be quite easy for like 80-90% of the patients we see.

EDIT: Oh I just want to say as well that a good billing and coding company will figure out the max LOS for you. If including your interpretation of an EKG means that's the only way you get from Moderate to Extensive, then they should do that (and forgo billing the EKG interpretation). Billing an EKG is 0.24 RVUs. Going up in LOS 4 to LOS 5 is 1.4 RVUs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I agree with BoardingDoc. IM toradol doesn't count for anything as far as I can tell. Lots of IV and IM meds won't count for anything. They have to require intensive monitoring for toxicity, or be a controlled substance in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V.
Tonight I charted that I gave medication requiring intensive monitoring because of someone getting zofran and droperidol as they're both QT prolonging and I got an EKG. Not sure if that'll stick, but I don't think it's technically wrong.

I'm finding that I have a lot of patients where I get a 5 in data easily (as you mentioned above) but get stuck on 4 in the other columns unless I decide to simply become a candyman and give everyone morphine for funsies. I would love it if IV zofran were a way around that.

EDIT: The ACEP link above puts both haldol and droperidol on the list of meds that they consider as qualifying. Zofran is out. Drop is in.
 
Tonight I charted that I gave medication requiring intensive monitoring because of someone getting zofran and droperidol as they're both QT prolonging and I got an EKG. Not sure if that'll stick, but I don't think it's technically wrong.

I'm finding that I have a lot of patients where I get a 5 in data easily (as you mentioned above) but get stuck on 4 in the other columns unless I decide to simply become a candyman and give everyone morphine for funsies. I would love it if IV zofran were a way around that.

EDIT: The ACEP link above puts both haldol and droperidol on the list of meds that they consider as qualifying. Zofran is out. Drop is in.

Right if given IV!

I guess we can get a high risk by asking every single person, at the end of the encounter, "you wanna be admitted?" 🤣🤣🤣:smack:
"Doc, admitted for my hangnail?"
"Ok...nevermind."
 
@BoardingDoc are you using the exact language in the MDM grid in your chart? Like writing "pt has 1 acute, complicated injury", "Discussed hospitalization or escalation of hospital-level care", "Pt has a social determinant of health - homelessness", or "1+ chronic illnesses with exacerbation, progression, or side effects of treatment", etc.
 
@BoardingDoc are you using the exact language in the MDM grid in your chart? Like writing "pt has 1 acute, complicated injury", "Discussed hospitalization or escalation of hospital-level care", "Pt has a social determinant of health - homelessness", or "1+ chronic illnesses with exacerbation, progression, or side effects of treatment", etc.

This is a copy paste from the bottom of my current chart for a guy here with BS insomnia and anxiety/palps.

Differential diagnosis: Insomnia, palpitations, anxiety, thyroid disease

Problems Addressed
1 or more chronic illnesses with exacerbation, progression or side effects of treatment: insomnia, palpitations ongoing ~1 yr

Amount / Complexity of Data
3+ tests ordered

Risk
Prescription Drug Management


I wrote a macro that prompts me for input in each of the 3 columns and then fills it in as above. I use this macro at the bottom of my MDM for every chart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
This is an example for a guy I admitted for stroke like sx

Differential diagnosis: Stroke, TIA, medication side effect, neuropathy

Problems Addressed
1 acute or chronic illness or injury that poses a threat to life or bodily function: Possible stroke

Amount / Complexity of Data
3+ tests ordered
Radiology studies independently interpreted by me - My interpretation is: No acute intracranial process on CT head

Risk
Decision made regarding hospitalization: Admitted
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
What's your EMR?

I use Cerner/FirstNet and it effing sucks I can't write macros with our software build/configuration.
 
Last edited:
What's your EMR?

I use Cerner/FirstNet and it effing sucks I can't write macros with our software build/configuration.
I'm on garbage Meditech. I use phraseexpress and write my own little scripts with it. I have it installed on a thumbdrive that I just plug into whatever computer I'm working on that day. That way it works whether I'm using EPIC, meditech, cerner, notepad, whatever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
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.
This was confirmed by our contract negotiators. Some major insurers are still holding to the standard from last year (review of systems/physical exam documentation requirements).
 
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.
BTW, major insurers (United being one of them) just do what they want to do. They will game the system no matter what to pay as few dollars as possible to manage to maintain their 60+ billion in profits each year. I know of several lawsuits against United for simply ignoring claims. Yes, claims were submitted that United just didn't acknowledge and refuse to acknowledge. No "nope, this isn't a level 5, it's a level 4," no "you need to revise this," nothing over multiple submissions. Apparently ghosting is a thing among some major insurers to the tune of millions of dollars per small group.
 
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: 1 users
One of the coding articles I read (or a class I attended) mentioned that you get credit as if you ordered a CT if you considered it. Example: Patient presented with a head injury. CT head considered, but did not meet criteria based on NEXUS II/Canadian head CT criteria.

Likewise, consideration of admission is counted. Example: "Patient presented with chest pain. Does not meet admission criteria based on HEART score <4 and health system protocol for atypical chest pain."

The EKG for droperidol is an interesting one. Does that qualify as high risk for significant toxicity requiring monitoring? Maybe. Prolonged QTc in itself isn't high risk, but VT obviously is. I think they are talking more about titratable infusions, but I could see where it would apply to something as simple as warfarin.
 
As a non-ER guy, do you guys feel this will change your practice to include more middle of the night consultant calls to document that conversation?
 
The naunces of the discussions above show how absurd this is. Not sure why we're just accepting this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
So.....ok fine. I said a "1 yo with a routine, simple URI?" When I wrote that I mean a kid with a runny nose, maybe a cough, with normal vitals. Through my thought analysis this was low. I don't think it falls under

1) 1 undiagosed new problem with uncertain prognois. - it's a new problem, but the prognosis is 99.99% OK. Literally.
2) 1 acute illness with systemic symptoms - I don't think a routine URI produces systemic symptoms for the purposes of this conversation.

Now...I wondered after I posted that...what if the 1yo kid has a fever and tachypnea with the routine URI? And I mean not in the dangerous sense. We see these kids all the time and after tylenol their fever and tachypnea markedly improve.

According to your document, that still doesn't quite fit. I'm copying and pasting from your post: "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."

So I don't think we can get a moderate, certainly not all day long as you alluded to. I would like it to be, but it aint.

Just conceptually speaking....i'd say that a certain percent of all chest pains we see will be level 4. Most will be level 5. But conceptually it's hard to bill the same for a routine URI and some of the chest pains we see.

Other than that I agree.
Just to hit on this one and then some others. If the kid has a fever and/or more than one symptoms that is considered "systemic complaints" as far as I'm aware. I see it states it may be typical of an uncomplicated illness but putting in your MDM that is may also be indicative of a more significant illness should get you off the hook. If you want more info on my source PM me. Not opening that can of worms out here.

Some tidbits I have worked through over the last few days are:

-Anyone admitted probably has 3+ labs/rads ordered and review as well as a hospitalist consult for data. That along with decision for admission is High MDM Data and Risk. Lvl 5. Same with psych patients.

-Higher risk undifferentiated patients should probably be lvl 5's even if they go home. The CoPA area is sketchy and really doesn't make a lot of sense but through data/risk you can get there. 3+ labs/rad as well as an EKG, prelim CXR interp, bedside echo interp gets you the data and considering admission or even stating the patient has a significant risk of M/M with the presentation should get you there.

-Obs admission count as considering admission for risk

-Any Rx counts to get to lvl 4. Example I had last night was 2yo with conjunctivitis that could have been periorbital cellulitis. No labs or imaging but CoPA Could be undiagnosed illness with unceratiain prognosis as well as Rx for Polytrim drops(risk). This could also be a lvl 3 but given the way it presented I though lvl 4 for this scenario. It could go either way honestly.

-Realize with the new guidelines there was a lot of weight put on what WE think is actually the risk instead of the final diagnosis so what we convey in the chart is what matters.

I added some templated notes, similar to what @BoardingDoc posted, to my site to plug in at the end of the note to facilitate coders as was previously mentioned in the thread. It's a little clunky I know. After a few shifts using them and deleting the un-needing portions it gets pretty quick. At least I know I conveyed to the coders exactly what level I think the chart should be and why(briefly). Coding Level - ERNotes
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
This actually makes sense. So it will be hard to give oneself credit for "reviewing" tests for a typical patient, on any level.

For a typical chest pain patient, we order
- IV, Monitor
- EKG
- CMP, CBC, Trop x2, Coags
- CXR
- ASA 325

I have ordered 6 tests (EKG, CMP, CBC, Trop x2 [only counts as one test!], Coags, CXR)
I have reviewed nothing
I have interpreted the EKG and gave my read
I have interpreted the CXR and gave my read. However in this case any interpretations > 1 you receive no additional credit.

So DATA is always Extensive.

How does one get credit for "Review of the results(s) of each unique test"? Is this reviewing results from tests in the past? Like prior labs, ECHOs, Endoscopies, etc. That part isn't clear.
It is 3 reviewed or ordered tests. You ordered labs so can't review them because they don't technically have a "review." From ACEP: "Category 2 only applies for interpreting a test where an interpretation or report is customary, e.g., EKG, X-ray, ultrasound, rhythm strip. Lab tests do not have a separate interpretation component." However radiology report do have a read which you can review. Either way, on a standard CP patient you are going to have 3 tests ordered so you fulfill the requirement. For the second point in column 2(data) you interpreted the EKG or CXR so you fulfill that column for high. In the risk column you probably considered admission or at least obs so that gets you high risk.
 
Our finance department is partners in my medical group (who are also my friends), our accountants, and an outside accounting firm. Logix has been super useless unfortunately.
But does your finance dept know anything about coding?
for those who state otherwise Explain this to me. Not arguing. These coding guidelines are the CPT aka ama guide,ines which is what the insurers follow. Cms has said that they will follow CPT which is different than in the past.
what documentation guidelines will these insurers follow? Their own? I know United makes up whatever they want. But what is the logic of the finance people and contract negotiators?
in theory CPT says you must hit these guidelines to be a 99285. That’s the code you submit for billing. If you don’t hit the 2023 guidelines and use the old style you can’t legit submit a 99285 cause it doesn’t hit the new standard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Probably not. I’m not going to wake up a consultant to make 1.4 more RVUs.
You might not, but can definitely see some of our reimbursement obsessed colleagues doing this for patients they are discharging. It’s a 1-2 minute conversation that theoretically nets you an additional $40-50 each time it allows you to up code. There are very few things we do in the ER that are that efficient at netting additional income.

I’m amazed at what some of our colleagues wake up consultants for in the middle of night, as is. Now imagine they have a monetary incentive to do so? I doubt many will do this, but I can definitely see a few of the docs in my group doing this.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: 1 user
As a non-ER guy, do you guys feel this will change your practice to include more middle of the night consultant calls to document that conversation?
No, I'll just write down that I considered waking up a consulting service but decided the patient can call them in the morning. Or something less sarcastic. I don't like to call people if I don't need their immediate input unless their service has asked that we call them a lot.
 
But does your finance dept know anything about coding?
for those who state otherwise Explain this to me. Not arguing. These coding guidelines are the CPT aka ama guide,ines which is what the insurers follow. Cms has said that they will follow CPT which is different than in the past.
what documentation guidelines will these insurers follow? Their own? I know United makes up whatever they want. But what is the logic of the finance people and contract negotiators?
in theory CPT says you must hit these guidelines to be a 99285. That’s the code you submit for billing. If you don’t hit the 2023 guidelines and use the old style you can’t legit submit a 99285 cause it doesn’t hit the new standard.

We have already queried Optum about their coding decisions in 2023. We audited a few dozen charts from 2023 and they have downcoded one of our docs like 30% of the time.

If the billing and coding can't even get it right...WTF are we going to do
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You might not, but can definitely see some of our reimbursement obsessed colleagues doing this for patients they are discharging. It’s a 1-2 minute conversation that theoretically nets you an additional $40-50 each time it allows you to up code. There are very few things we do in the ER that are that efficient at netting additional income.

I’m amazed at what some of our colleagues wake up consultants for in the middle of night, as is. Now imagine they have a monetary incentive to do so? I doubt many will do this, but I can definitely see a few of the docs in my group doing this.

Note I'm not angry at you or your post, I'm angry at the thought of waking up some consultant at 3:00 AM to ask them a nonsense question, for the chance to make $50.

I would rather call the hospitalist and ask them a question about mgmt...like "what is the next BP med to start on this HTN pt who is already on lisinopril and amlodipine?" At least the hospitalist is already up
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Note I'm not angry at you or your post, I'm angry at the thought of waking up some consultant at 3:00 AM to ask them a nonsense question, for the chance to make $50.

I would rather call the hospitalist and ask them a question about mgmt...like "what is the next BP med to start on this HTN pt who is already on lisinopril and amlodipine?" At least the hospitalist is already up

Yeah, I let my consultants sleep. If there's something that I tee'd up for them the next day (and it can wait), I call them near the end of my nightshift. I guess I could document that, at that time.
 
We have already queried Optum about their coding decisions in 2023. We audited a few dozen charts from 2023 and they have downcoded one of our docs like 30% of the time.

If the billing and coding can't even get it right...WTF are we going to do
Based on how long it takes us to get data from the coding/billing folks, we won't know we're f*cked until late Q2...
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Probably not. I’m not going to wake up a consultant to make 1.4 more RVUs.
Also we need to look at where this particular point ever helps us.

It could move the middle column (complexity of data) from a 3–>4 if you don’t already have a single X-ray / CT to Indy interpret AND you don’t have 3 individual tests / outside history points to score.

So that’s a patient with only a… cbc and bmp with no X-ray no other tests no prior or outside notes no independent historian… who somehow has a reason for you to call a consultant.

Who also needs a new condition that meets level 4 or risk of 4… but not both… so that the middle column is important.

So perhaps a rash you are worried about that you call derm about after a cbc/bmp?

Honestly otherwise this point is so rarely needed meh.

Now it can help you move the middle column from 4->5 in the unusual case of a 5 who didn’t get 3 tests or doesn’t have an X-ray / Ct, and is only a 5 in complexity OR risk.

But again these patients are rare. Maybe a smear of blood on TP with normal cbc / bmp / lft who gets no imaging but you call the GI doc to set up follow up?

Anyway I think people who call consultants for points are actually scoring useless points 90% of the time bc it won’t modify coding level, as the middle column is already optimized or you’re making it a 5 when the other columns are both fours.

I think MORE likely IM Ativan / Morphine will make a comeback for secondary reasons AND people will be very incentivized to just get that X-ray and interpret it.
 
Also we need to look at where this particular point ever helps us.

It could move the middle column (complexity of data) from a 3–>4 if you don’t already have a single X-ray / CT to Indy interpret AND you don’t have 3 individual tests / outside history points to score.

So that’s a patient with only a… cbc and bmp with no X-ray no other tests no prior or outside notes no independent historian… who somehow has a reason for you to call a consultant.

Who also needs a new condition that meets level 4 or risk of 4… but not both… so that the middle column is important.

So perhaps a rash you are worried about that you call derm about after a cbc/bmp?

Honestly otherwise this point is so rarely needed meh.

Now it can help you move the middle column from 4->5 in the unusual case of a 5 who didn’t get 3 tests or doesn’t have an X-ray / Ct, and is only a 5 in complexity OR risk.

But again these patients are rare. Maybe a smear of blood on TP with normal cbc / bmp / lft who gets no imaging but you call the GI doc to set up follow up?

Anyway I think people who call consultants for points are actually scoring useless points 90% of the time bc it won’t modify coding level, as the middle column is already optimized or you’re making it a 5 when the other columns are both fours.

I think MORE likely IM Ativan / Morphine will make a comeback for secondary reasons AND people will be very incentivized to just get that X-ray and interpret it.
I guess it shouldn't surprise if the outcome of all this is that we start using more parenteral controlled substances and more low suspicion chest x-rays.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I guess it shouldn't surprise if the outcome of all this is that we start using more parenteral controlled substances and more low suspicion chest x-rays.
I do actually think that IM/IV benzo/opiate being specifically noted as a trigger for HIGH risk level 5 will change behavior. Even if slowly and subconsiously people will play to the rules given to them.
 
We have already queried Optum about their coding decisions in 2023. We audited a few dozen charts from 2023 and they have downcoded one of our docs like 30% of the time.

If the billing and coding can't even get it right...WTF are we going to do
Errrr optum aka United healthcare. What a freaking joke health care has become. Yeah it’s what I tell my colleagues. Chart well. Do all the things. Will take time to figure it out.
 
Note I'm not angry at you or your post, I'm angry at the thought of waking up some consultant at 3:00 AM to ask them a nonsense question, for the chance to make $50.

I would rather call the hospitalist and ask them a question about mgmt...like "what is the next BP med to start on this HTN pt who is already on lisinopril and amlodipine?" At least the hospitalist is already up
I also wouldn’t do it but the same consultant is happy to send their patient for a nonsense visit at 4pm on Friday. No respect for your time either. Just food for thought.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Top