Advertisement

May 21, 2013

CGS Changes Coding Requirements and Clarifies Modifier-25

Evaluation and Management Services Coding

On May 10, 2012, CGS Administrators, LLC, the Medicare Administrative Contractor for Medicare Parts A and B in Ohio and Kentucky, announced that providers must perform and document all three elements of an Evaluation and Management (E&M) service in order to bill for any code higher than CPT 99211, the lowest subsequent office visit. The final coding level should still be assigned based on the highest two of the three elements.

The healthcare community is well aware that documentation of E&M services includes three elements: patient history, physical exam, and medical decision-making. Before CGS’ May 10 update, providers could code and bill E&M services based on the performance and documentation of any two of the three E&M elements. For example, at a follow-up E&M visit for a prescription refill, a physician could perform and document only the patient history and medical decision-making components commensurate with a level 3 visit and then bill for a CPT 99213. Historically, the physician did not need to perform or document the third E&M component (e.g., physical exam). This is no longer acceptable.

Now providers must perform and document all three elements of an E&M service to justify their coding and billing. This means that providers must perform and document at least a minimal third E&M element at every follow-up visit. CGS will downgrade any claim that is not supported by documentation of all three E&M elements to CPT 99211 and its accompanying lower reimbursement.

Make certain that your EMR templates and other billing policies are revised to meet this new requirement.

The full May 10 CGS posting on this subject can be viewed here.

Modifier-25

On May 14, CGS clarified proper use of Modifier-25 with respect to the global surgery indicator “XXX.” CGS states that a Modifier-25 should ONLY be used to designate a significant and separately identifiable E&M service that was performed by the same physician on the same day as another procedure or other service. The E&M service may be related to the same diagnosis as the XXX procedure but cannot include any work inherent in the performance, supervision, or interpretation of the XXX procedure.

A Modifier-25 cannot be used when the E&M visit is an inherent and necessary part of the surgical procedure. For example, a physician cannot use a Modifier-25 when performing an infusion procedure at an office visit because such an E&M visit is a necessary part of the infusion. In this example, the infusion procedure and E&M visit are bundled and reimbursed as one service.

CGS warns against any attempts to circumvent the rules by conducting an E&M visit on a different day than the underlying XXX surgical procedure just so the provider can bill for the E&M service in addition to the XXX surgery. CGS considers this type of “unbundling” inappropriate and will deny payment for the delayed E&M visit upon any subsequent audit of the documentation.

The full May 14 CGS posting on this subject can be viewed here.

*Dinsmore would like to acknowledge and thank MaryAnn Baughman of Healthcare Coding Consultants, Columbus, Ohio, for her contribution to this alert.

© 2013 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Associate

A member of the Corporate Department and Health Care Practice Group, Tyler has experience handling a variety of health care matters. Understanding that the health care industry is constantly evolving, Tyler places a premium on staying abreast of new developments and communicating them to clients. He drafts a monthly newsletter for health care clients, detailing new legislation and newsworthy health care issues, both to keep clients informed and enable them to take a proactive approach toward handling and resolving issues. He also has worked with health care providers regarding reporting...

(304) 357-9939

About the Author

Associate

Stacey A. Borowicz is a member of the Corporate Department. Stacey counsels healthcare clients on business transactions, formations, mergers, acquisitions and employment-related transactions. Her experience includes handling matters involving fraud and abuse, Stark, anti-kickback and false claims. Stacey drafts compliance plans and performs antitrust, fraud and abuse, anti-self referral law, Medicare coding and billing compliance, HIPAA, and corporate compliance analyses. She regularly represents physician practices, ambulatory surgery centers, imaging centers and other physician-...

614-227-4212

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.