e + m

[bedrock]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I admit that I’ve been using the previous e/m standards when billing which isn’t great. Cigna decided this week to start regularly audit e+m codes nationwide. 10% of our practice is Cigna so it’s important I don’t get burned here.

Can someone help me with a very simple list of bullet points of the most recent revision in e+m billing guidelines that I need to include with documentation for e+m codes on level 3, 4, 5 on new and f/u patients?

 

[SgtThunderfistMD]

see attachments

 

[BoardingDoc]

I admit that I’ve been using the previous e/m standards when billing which isn’t great. Cigna decided this week to start regularly audit e+m codes nationwide. 10% of our practice is Cigna so it’s important I don’t get burned here.

Can someone help me with a very simple list of bullet points of the most recent revision in e+m billing guidelines that I need to include with documentation for e+m codes on level 3, 4, 5 on new and f/u patients?

1: Dude, it's been 4 years.
2: You're in for some pleasant surprises. The new EM format is so much better than the old one, and there's so much less documentation required. ROS doesn't matter at all anymore. You don't need to document crap like onset, timing, etc for the sake of billing. It's really a nice change. You just need to wrap your head around the "best 2 out of 3 column" concept. Pain is easy though. You will almost never use column 2, so you can just focus on maxing 1 and 3.

 

[clubdeac]

1: Dude, it's been 4 years.
2: You're in for some pleasant surprises. The new EM format is so much better than the old one, and there's so much less documentation required. ROS doesn't matter at all anymore. You don't need to document crap like onset, timing, etc for the sake of billing. It's really a nice change. You just need to wrap your head around the "best 2 out of 3 column" concept. Pain is easy though. You will almost never use column 2, so you can just focus on maxing 1 and 3.

Never use column 2? I always review data and or order data to meet a level 4. “Independent interpretation of MRI or X-rays” all day long

 

[runfastnow]

If you text/call/talk to spine surgeon about patient it's an easy column 2 moderate/level 4 check box as well.

 

[clubdeac]

If you text/call/talk to spine surgeon about patient it's an easy column 2 moderate/level 4 check box as well.

Agree and I call radiologists all the time to talk about their MRI findings. Boom level 4 middle column

 

[RaceCanyon]

2 chronic conditions addressed today.
Moderate complexity due to spinal procedure recommendation / risk benefit analysis / discussion.

Easy peasy

 

[Ferrismonk]

2 chronic conditions addressed today.
Moderate complexity due to spinal procedure recommendation / risk benefit analysis / discussion.

Easy peasy

This is the easiest.

 

[Ducttape]

easiest, but is it appropriate?

the benchmarks suggest that around half of our coding should be level 3s.

it doesnt sound like that is what some people on this forum are doing.

ortho apparently does 51-60% level 3s.

noninvasive cardiology is 53-64% level 4s.

Better benchmarks for E/M coding comparisons

www.mgma.com

i dont have MGMA access.

MGMA | DataDive | Procedural Profile

The MGMA Data Dive Procedural Profile is an intelligent & intuitive tool for viewing healthcare CPT coding profiles for any provider specialty.

mvmgma.org

 

[runfastnow]

Other physicians not understanding the given rules of the game and not maximizing their productivity is not the problem of those who do.

Can easily play within the rules and have 80+% level 4 when dealing with chronic spine/ortho conditions and any sort of Rx/injection/procedure management.

 

[PMROralBoards]

easiest, but is it appropriate?

the benchmarks suggest that around half of our coding should be level 3s.

it doesnt sound like that is what some people on this forum are doing.

ortho apparently does 51-60% level 3s.

noninvasive cardiology is 53-64% level 4s.

Better benchmarks for E/M coding comparisons

www.mgma.com

i dont have MGMA access.

MGMA | DataDive | Procedural Profile

The MGMA Data Dive Procedural Profile is an intelligent & intuitive tool for viewing healthcare CPT coding profiles for any provider specialty.

mvmgma.org

Ortho also has high productivity cases and don’t have to care about documenting well to meet level 4s to pick up the crumbs. Can’t comment on cardiology.

 

[cowboydoc]

easiest, but is it appropriate?

the benchmarks suggest that around half of our coding should be level 3s.

it doesnt sound like that is what some people on this forum are doing.

ortho apparently does 51-60% level 3s.

noninvasive cardiology is 53-64% level 4s.

Better benchmarks for E/M coding comparisons

www.mgma.com

i dont have MGMA access.

MGMA | DataDive | Procedural Profile

The MGMA Data Dive Procedural Profile is an intelligent & intuitive tool for viewing healthcare CPT coding profiles for any provider specialty.

mvmgma.org

Do you drive 1 MPH under the posted speed limit in the left lane next to a semi to ensure the 12 cars behind you don't exceed the speed limit?

If you do the work and document according to the expectations for a level 4, you should bill a level 4. If you bill a level a 3 while doing/documenting level 4 work, you are also committing fraud.

Your complex patient population certainly justifies greater than average number of level 4 visits.

Matching a benchmark is nonsense.

 

[cowboydoc]

Do you drive 1 MPH under the posted speed limit in the left lane next to a semi to ensure the 12 cars behind you don't exceed the speed limit?

If you do the work and document according to the expectations for a level 4, you should bill a level 4. If you bill a level a 3 while doing/documenting level 4 work, you are also committing fraud.

Your complex patient population certainly justifies greater than average number of level 4 visits.

Matching a benchmark is nonsense.

Here’s a snippet of my latest feedback from coding.

Several were bumped from 3 to 4, none down coded. Clearly, I didn’t know about the 96127, which is 0.16 wRVUs if applicable.

 

[clubdeac]

Here’s a snippet of my latest feedback from coding.

Several were bumped from 3 to 4, none down coded. Clearly, I didn’t know about the 96127, which is 0.16 wRVUs if applicable.

View attachment 406773

You’re doing a lot of G2211. Are these mostly opioid patients or do use it on repeat injection patients

 

[cowboydoc]

You’re doing a lot of G2211. Are these mostly opioid patients or do use it one repeat injection patients

Just Medicare with longitudinal plan, which would be COT and others with f/u plan.

 

[myrandom2003]

what screener are you using for the 96127?

 

[mdo1738]

what screener are you using for the 96127?

Looks like PHQ-4