# Coding DX from path report



## smack

I work as a consultant - we have a discussion going on as to if you can code from a path report or not. 

Example: BX is done (11100) the office codes 238.2.  Upon auditing the record I have the path report and it shows SCC. 

I say that the SCC should be coded as the information is available and the office should have coded it. 

I did also refer to the CMS info found in this: 
http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Transmittals/downloads/ab01144.pdf

Any information would be helpful!!  
Thanks!


----------



## grth97

We code from the path. Provider does the biopsy and puts the 239.2 for the dx and we wait until the path comes back before we release the claim. They should not be applying 238.2 to the claim. This is used by pathology for neoplasm of uncertain behavior of skin.


----------



## rthames052006

smack said:


> I work as a consultant - we have a discussion going on as to if you can code from a path report or not.
> 
> Example: BX is done (11100) the office codes 238.2.  Upon auditing the record I have the path report and it shows SCC.
> 
> I say that the SCC should be coded as the information is available and the office should have coded it.
> 
> I did also refer to the CMS info found in this:
> http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Transmittals/downloads/ab01144.pdf
> 
> Any information would be helpful!!
> Thanks!



Our sites "hold" those types of claims (biopsies, excisions etc)... specificially to wait for the path report.


----------



## mitchellde

first the orginal code of 238.- is incorrect as that code can only be assigned based on path report. second for a biopsy you can code without the path report but you can only use a 709.- code not a neoplasm code.  
third a coder is allowed to code from a path report if coding outpatient or physician since the pathologist is a physician.  Inpatient facility coders are not allowed to code from a path report.


----------



## AprilSueMadison

Please clarify this for me:

You are all saying we should not be billing 238.2 for a claim with 11100, correct?  Or are you talking about billing the pathology, 88305?

We bill our biopsies out with 238.2.  When we get the pathology back, we bill the pathology out with the 173.31 for example.  What should we be billing 11100 out with then?  Or should we be holding claims?

Supercoder.com replies with 
"Using 238.2 (Neoplasm of uncertain behavior of the skin) and 239.2 (Neoplasm of unspecified nature of bone, soft tissue and skin) is a familiar tune in dermatology. It’s not unusual that you take one for the other since both codes refer to a lesion that is not certain in nature.

However, if you look closely at their definitions, you’ll find that they have slight but very distinct differences. Code 238.2 belongs to the family described as "neoplasms of uncertain behavior" (235-238), specifically "histomorphologically well-defined neoplasms, the subsequent behavior of which cannot be predicted from the present appearance," according to the ICD-9 book. This code refers to the skin and excludes "(1) anus NOS [not otherwise specified]; (2) skin of genital organs [236.3, 236.6]; and vermilion border of lip [235.1]."

On the other hand, 239.2 refers to neoplasms of unspecified morphology or nature of bone, soft tissue and skin, which excludes "(1) anal canal [239.0]; (2) anus [NOS 239.0]; (3) bone marrow [202.9]; (3) cartilage; (4) larynx [239.1]; (5) nose [239.1]; (6) connective tissue of breast [239.3]; skin of genital organs [239.5] and vermilion border of lip [239.0]."

Code 239.2 is a broader descriptor as it could describe a lesion of bone, soft tissue, or skin, whereas 238.2 is limited to skin lesions.

As you noted many payers have benign lesion policies that provide lists of covered diagnoses. The majority of such medical necessity policies include code 238.2 but not 239.2. This may be the reason why 238.2 is universally accepted among physicians.

If you want to charge the insurer before you have the path results, skin biopsy codes 11100 and 11101 are acceptable with 238.2. In other words, you can use 238.2 no matter what result you get for the histological diagnosis of the skin lesion."


----------



## mitchellde

You cannot use a 238 dx code unless the path report indicates uncertain behavior.  You cannot use 238.2 "no matter what result you get for the histological diagnosis of the skin lesion" this is a false statement .  
In your statement you put :
Code 238.2 belongs to the family described as "neoplasms of uncertain behavior" (235-238), specifically "histomorphologically well-defined neoplasms, the subsequent behavior of which cannot be predicted from the present appearance,"  This is in reference to the cellular activity cannot be predicted.
Histomorphologic is a term to describe the histologic study of , which mean under a microscope.  
If you wish to use 238 dx codes you will have to wait for a path report that tells you the anomaly is a neoplasm of uncertain behavior.  
Also 239 cannot be use as you do not know if this is a neoplsm at all, when you have a scin abnormality that is what you code a mass or lump or lesion what ever is described, if the provider does a preliminary diagnositic study such as an ultrasound and then diagnoses a tumor or a new growth, then you may code the 239.
But for a skin lesion that is biopsied or shave you can code with out a path report but you can code only a skin lesion which is a 709.- code  
You must remember THE DIAGNOSIS IS THE PATIENT'S  not yours or the physicians, by submitting a 238 code you are indicating a high risk that may in fact not exist


----------



## AprilSueMadison

Well that was Supercoder's reply to someone who had posed a similar question.

I'm just going to take a moment to rant....

Every time I think I'm getting the practice on track, I stumble upon something new that we aren't doing right.  I've only been at this for a year and a half...plain and simple...I don't know everything.  It's incredibly frustrating.  THEN, when I learn something new, I have to work my rear off to convince them we are doing it wrong and to change because the person here before me lets them do whatever they want because it is just easier.  

Thankfully I like a challenge because boy gosh did I get one when I took this job.  Someday we will be doing everything right.  Someday....  :/


----------



## mitchellde

I am sorry, I felt I had to point out the failure of the supercoder response.  and it does contratradict itself.
as far as the diagnosis goes you really need to see it from the patient perspective.  Too many times coders /billers/providers try to submit the dx codes that will allow the claim to pay without realizing the potential harm an incorrect code can cause to the patient.  
Of course you do not know everything, no one does, just continue to do your best and remain open to new thoughts and ideas.
I might also point out that if the path report returns a benign or normal response then you use V71.1 first listed with the benign dx secondary.


----------



## AprilSueMadison

Thank you for replying!  I honestly mean that.  I wasn't frustrated at your reply, just simply the position that I find myself in far too often here. 

Okay...so...time to make a plan and figure out how to implement it!


----------



## hkatie

April Sue,

It is hard and frustrating some days to be a good coder in an evolving coding landscape. If it makes you feel any better, one of the most recognizable voices in dermatology coding used to tell us, as recently as 3 years ago, that it didn't matter if you picked 238.2 or 239.2 for biopsy coding... I'm not saying I agree with her, but that came from a respected person in the coding world. Sometimes coding is like religion. Everyone adamantly believes s/he is right.

Here's how I approach it:

I accept that I am probably wrong about some of the things I do. Unknowingly so, but still wrong. I may need to change my approach to a certain topic when new information comes to light.

I seek out new information. A lot. From different sources. I do not accept someone's opinion at face value, but look to find resources that support it. In the absence of official resources, I accept that a well reasoned internal policy may be all that I can do.

I get very cozy with my ICD-9 and CPT books. Very cozy. Little bits of information are tucked into each section that sometimes get overlooked. (Like the histo-morph passage at the beginning of the Neoplasms of Uncertain Behavior section and the list of "Includes" at the beginning of Neoplasms of Unspecified Behavior.)

In communicating with my providers, I make it clear when I'm in a gray area and that as things evolve, we may need to evolve too. It's a process to build trust with your providers. Ask them questions, find out what's going on in their exam rooms, and then compare with their documentation. Start with the easy stuff, like documenting all the bullet points or body areas. It's a wonderful way to build your relationships with your providers, and then it allows you to have real and meaningful discussions with them about the stuff that's less clear.

Before I walk into a meeting with my provider, I make sure I'm not riding my high horse. It's obnoxious, counter-productive, and when I find out I'm wrong about something and have to change things, it makes it very difficult to be an effective change agent. I am very good at my job, but I am imperfect at it. I make sure my providers see that aspect so they can understand where we might have weaknesses. It's a partnership, and my partnerships don't work well when I'm always the "most right person" in the room.

Finally, I breathe. I move forward using the best information I could come up with and again, accept that I'm probably wrong about something today. Coding and compliance are risk-based and risk-mitigating activities. I'm comfortable with that and strive to mitigate risk whenever possible. 

You'll get there. The first couple of years of coding are the hardest, but it gets easier. Stay in touch with other coders, be honest with your providers about your misinterpretations or misunderstandings, and keep moving forward.

I sat through an 8 hour meeting with my docs this week. The topics were mostly coding, compliance, PQRS, Meaningful Use, etc. At the end of the day, my senior partner came over and hugged me. "I am sooo appreciative that we have you," he told me. That hug and comment was the culmination of years of work between the two of us. It didn't happen overnight, but then it wouldn't have meant so much if it had.

Good luck, we're all in your corner

Katie


----------



## AprilSueMadison

This is what I have put together based on so many articles, posts, discussions and references.



> 238.2 – Neoplasm of uncertain behavior of other an unspecified sites and tissues – Skin
> 
> A pathologist makes the “uncertain” determination based on analysis.  Do not use an “uncertain” diagnosis for a neoplasm that has not been determined as such by pathology.  If the pathology report returns with indications of atypia or dysplasia, use this code.  Keratocanthomas are no longer coded using this particular code.  Per the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, “In the past, keratoacanthomas were considered lesions of uncertain behavior. The current pathology literature indicates that these are low-grade squamous cell carcinomas. Thus, they are described with the skin malignancy codes, 173.X, and their excisions are reported with the malignant lesion excision codes, 116XX.”
> 
> 239.2 – Neoplasm of unspecified nature – Bone, soft tissue, and skin
> 
> Indicates that you cannot, or have not, determined the neoplasm's nature.  “Unspecified” means that no analysis was done.  This includes the following:
> Growth NOS
> Neoplasm NOS
> New growth NOS
> Tumor NOS
> 
> 709.9 – Unspecified disorder of skin and subcutaneous tissue
> 
> Per the Disease Index in the ICD-9 book, this can be used for the following:
> Lesion – Skin
> Sore – Skin
> 
> 
> 782.2 – Localized superficial swelling, mass, or lump
> 
> Appropriate to code when there is a site is described as a lump or mass.  It's important to remember that a mass does not necessarily equal a neoplasm.  An example of such documentation is ”Physical examination reveals a palpable mass on the right flank”.
> 
> 
> V71.1 – Observation for suspected malignant neoplasm
> 
> When a patient has a lesion excised for possible malignancy, and no malignancy is found, V71.1 becomes your primary diagnosis code followed by the benign lesion code the pathology report has shown.  This proves that the documentation and exam was medically necessary due to size, color, or other abnormalities.  This is used when the pathology report has come back as benign and the claim is being held for those results.
> 
> Other Important Information -
> Excision claims must always be held until the final pathology report comes back



What do you think so far?


----------



## nsteinhauser

This is a posting that a lot of coders should read - all excellent points - especially about the 238.2.....the only time you would assign this diagnosis is when the pathology comes back as 'uncertain behavior' - and - how a 'mass' is not necessarily a 'neoplasm.'  April, you may want to add 784.2 to your list (swelling, mass or lump in head or neck.)


----------



## AprilSueMadison

I updated it with some additional sources and the code you suggested:



> 238.2 – Neoplasm of uncertain behavior of other an unspecified sites and tissues – Skin
> 
> A pathologist makes the “uncertain” determination based on analysis.  Do not use an “uncertain” diagnosis for a neoplasm that has not been determined as such by pathology.  If the pathology report returns with indications of atypia or dysplasia, use this code.
> 
> Keratocanthomas are no longer coded using this particular code.  Per the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, “In the past, keratoacanthomas were considered lesions of uncertain behavior. The current pathology literature indicates that these are low-grade squamous cell carcinomas. Thus, they are described with the skin malignancy codes, 173.X, and their excisions are reported with the malignant lesion excision codes, 116XX.”
> 
> 239.2 – Neoplasm of unspecified nature – Bone, soft tissue, and skin
> 
> Per the Journal of Dermatology Nurses Association and the article“Coding Mystery Lesions: “Uncertain” or “Unspecified” Behavior”, this indicates that you determined the neoplasm's nature.
> 
> “Unspecified” means that no analysis was done.  This includes the following:
> Growth NOS
> Neoplasm NOS
> New growth NOS
> Tumor NOS
> 
> An example of such documentation is “Patient presents with 5mm shiny, papule on the nose, suspect malignancy”
> 
> 709.9 – Unspecified disorder of skin and subcutaneous tissue
> 
> Per the Disease Index in the ICD-9 book, this can be used for the following:
> Lesion – Skin
> Sore – Skin
> 
> An example of such documentation is “Patient presents with a bleeding, fissure on the L forearm.  States it started with a red rash that never healed and eventually opened up.”  or “Patient presents with dry and cracking fingers, suspect fungus”
> 
> 782.2 – Localized superficial swelling, mass, or lump
> 
> Appropriate to code when there is a site is described as a lump or mass.  It's important to remember that a mass does not necessarily equal a neoplasm.  An example of such documentation is ”Physical examination reveals a palpable mass on the right flank”.
> 
> 
> 784.2 – Swelling, mass, or lump in the head and neck
> 
> Appropriate to code when there is a site is described as a lump or mass.  It's important to remember that a mass does not necessarily equal a neoplasm.  An example of such documentation is ”Physical examination shows normal skin, however upon palpitating the patient's neck there is clearly a mass.  Referring to ENT Dr. Jones for a further workup.”
> 
> V71.1 – Observation for suspected malignant neoplasm
> 
> When a patient has a lesion excised for possible malignancy, and no malignancy is found, V71.1 becomes your primary diagnosis code followed by the benign lesion code the pathology report has shown.  This proves that the documentation and exam was medically necessary due to size, color, or other abnormalities.  This is only used when the pathology report has come back as benign and the claim is being held.
> 
> Other Important Information -
> Excisions and shave removals of lesion claims must always be held until the final pathology report comes back


----------



## Deb Sue

What a awesome post!!  Thanks Katie!


----------



## CatchTheWind

I would like to add my opinion to the 238.2 vs 239.2 controversy.  

Academically (ie: in theory) 239.2 is the correct code. However, it is nearly universally accepted among dermatologists and dermatology coding experts that 238.2 is acceptable in actual practice.  

I personally had a conversation with the AAD's coding expert, who told me that dermatologists commonly use 238.2 and that "it has never been a problem."  She advised me that there is no reason not to continue using it.

There was also a great quote in a previous thread on this issue (sorry, I can't find it right now) from a coder who said her doctor explained to her that this had been discussed at conventions and the consensus was to continue using 238.2.

I will concede that if this technically incorrect but universal practice resulted in overpayments, illegality, or risk of fines, I would be the first one to lobby others to "do it correctly."  However, as I see no material detriment to its continued use, I personally favor not continuing to argue over it.  Let those who feel more comfortable with 239.2 use it, but understand that those of us who continue to use 238.2 have justification for what we do.


----------



## mitchellde

CatchTheWind said:


> I would like to add my opinion to the 238.2 vs 239.2 controversy.
> 
> Academically (ie: in theory) 239.2 is the correct code. However, it is nearly universally accepted among dermatologists and dermatology coding experts that 238.2 is acceptable in actual practice.
> 
> I personally had a conversation with the AAD's coding expert, who told me that dermatologists commonly use 238.2 and that "it has never been a problem."  She advised me that there is no reason not to continue using it.
> 
> There was also a great quote in a previous thread on this issue (sorry, I can't find it right now) from a coder who said her doctor explained to her that this had been discussed at conventions and the consensus was to continue using 238.2.
> 
> I will concede that if this technically incorrect but universal practice resulted in overpayments, illegality, or risk of fines, I would be the first one to lobby others to "do it correctly."  However, as I see no material detriment to its continued use, I personally favor not continuing to argue over it.  Let those who feel more comfortable with 239.2 use it, but understand that those of us who continue to use 238.2 have justification for what we do.


it is not that it is technically wrong it is morally. ethically. and actually wrong.  You cannot give a diagnosis to a patient that they do not have.  these codes are not provider encounter codes they are patient diagnosis codes.  Using the 238.2 as a code that you cannot prove with a path report will have the effect of allowing the payer to justify raising the patient insurance premiums.  Yes it gets paid since the payer does not know you do not have the path report.  just because some "Nancy -know-it-all"  writes an article professing something does not make it the correct thing to do.  You do NOT have justification to do this. you do it for payment and not for the patient diagnosis.  
This kind of thinking angers me ... and now I will step off my soapbox!


----------



## gracigoo

*excision without sent to path*

i have a quick question about whether or not a specimen should be sent to path...i have a doc that said he "excised" 5 different seb keratosis..so im asking for the path, and says he didn't send them to path. here is my questions..
1. i thought any excision of a lesion HAD to be sent to path...
2. why would he excise seb keratosis? seb keratosis are only on the top layer of the epidermis...to charge an excision, doesn't have to be into the subq layer?...


----------



## mitchellde

You are correct.  You must have a documented procedure note that does indicate the depth.  Without a path report you will not know for sure it was a seborrehic keratosis so you will need code as a skin lesion which the code book leads you to 709.9 for the code.  But I'd your provider did not submit the specimen then it will appear to be cosmetic.  Look in the note for the medical rationale for the removal.  However an excision needs a path report.


----------



## JesseL

gracigoo said:


> i have a quick question about whether or not a specimen should be sent to path...i have a doc that said he "excised" 5 different seb keratosis..so im asking for the path, and says he didn't send them to path. here is my questions..
> 1. i thought any excision of a lesion HAD to be sent to path...
> 2. why would he excise seb keratosis? seb keratosis are only on the top layer of the epidermis...to charge an excision, doesn't have to be into the subq layer?...



Do you have a copy of the procedure notes


----------



## gracigoo

*excision of seb ker*

History of Present Illness:  

 is a 79 year old female who presents for lesion removal. The lesion is located on her right lateral neck.  The lesion has not increased in size.  It is not painful.   We discussed this procedure, including option of not performing surgery, technique of surgery and potential for scarring.  The patient was given an informed consent.







Physical Examination:

BP 168/70  | Pulse 64  | Ht 5' 4" (1.626 m)  | Wt 165 lb (74.844 kg)  | BMI 28.31 kg/m2      

This lesions are located on her right lateral neck. 5 seborrheic keratoses of 1.0 cm size.







Plan:  

After informed consent was obtained, using Betadine for cleansing and 1% lidocaine with epinephrine for anesthetic, with sterile technique, elliptical excision 1 cm in total  X 5 lesions and suturing with 4-0 ethilon sutures was performed with adequate hemostasis. Antibiotic dressing was applied, and wound care instructions provided.  Be alert for any signs of cutaneous infection. The procedure was well tolerated without complications.




Follow up: return for suture removal in 7 days.






im reading this as 1 1cm area with 5 seb keratosis on it...here is the response i got from our regulatory and operations superviser-coding services:


Benign lesions include seb Keratosis based on what I am seeing under the Medicare policy.

I would code them to what the Provider specified in the note and has diagnosed them as. They will deny or be paid based on the coverage determination.
Do you believe all lesions need to go to pathology for diagnosis including keratosis?
I used to work in a Derm dept long ago and these were removed all the time and never sent to path so I just want to make sure we are on the same page.


i was helping a co-worker who codes for this provider..based on the response we got from the supervisor, she ended up billing this as 11420 X5 with dx 702.19


----------



## CatchTheWind

Whether or not to send to pathology is a clinical decision for the provider to make, so that would not concern you as a coder.

I would query the provider as to whether there were five tiny lesions all contained within a 1 cm. area, or whether there were five lesions of exactly 1 cm. each. In either case, I would point out to him the importance of precise documentation, as documentation does concern you as a coder!  (If the former case, he didn't state the size of each individual lesion; if the latter case, it sounds like he is being extremely imprecise, as it is unlikely that all five were exactly 1.0 cm!)

Also, if you are part of the billing team, I would question whether benefits were verified for this procedure and/or an ABN obtained and/or payment collected from the patient, as it is very likely that this is not going to be covered.


----------



## jedellar

*Thank you for the encouragement!*



hkatie said:


> April Sue,
> 
> It is hard and frustrating some days to be a good coder in an evolving coding landscape. If it makes you feel any better, one of the most recognizable voices in dermatology coding used to tell us, as recently as 3 years ago, that it didn't matter if you picked 238.2 or 239.2 for biopsy coding... I'm not saying I agree with her, but that came from a respected person in the coding world. Sometimes coding is like religion. Everyone adamantly believes s/he is right.
> 
> Here's how I approach it:
> 
> I accept that I am probably wrong about some of the things I do. Unknowingly so, but still wrong. I may need to change my approach to a certain topic when new information comes to light.
> 
> I seek out new information. A lot. From different sources. I do not accept someone's opinion at face value, but look to find resources that support it. In the absence of official resources, I accept that a well reasoned internal policy may be all that I can do.
> 
> I get very cozy with my ICD-9 and CPT books. Very cozy. Little bits of information are tucked into each section that sometimes get overlooked. (Like the histo-morph passage at the beginning of the Neoplasms of Uncertain Behavior section and the list of "Includes" at the beginning of Neoplasms of Unspecified Behavior.)
> 
> In communicating with my providers, I make it clear when I'm in a gray area and that as things evolve, we may need to evolve too. It's a process to build trust with your providers. Ask them questions, find out what's going on in their exam rooms, and then compare with their documentation. Start with the easy stuff, like documenting all the bullet points or body areas. It's a wonderful way to build your relationships with your providers, and then it allows you to have real and meaningful discussions with them about the stuff that's less clear.
> 
> Before I walk into a meeting with my provider, I make sure I'm not riding my high horse. It's obnoxious, counter-productive, and when I find out I'm wrong about something and have to change things, it makes it very difficult to be an effective change agent. I am very good at my job, but I am imperfect at it. I make sure my providers see that aspect so they can understand where we might have weaknesses. It's a partnership, and my partnerships don't work well when I'm always the "most right person" in the room.
> 
> Finally, I breathe. I move forward using the best information I could come up with and again, accept that I'm probably wrong about something today. Coding and compliance are risk-based and risk-mitigating activities. I'm comfortable with that and strive to mitigate risk whenever possible.
> 
> You'll get there. The first couple of years of coding are the hardest, but it gets easier. Stay in touch with other coders, be honest with your providers about your misinterpretations or misunderstandings, and keep moving forward.
> 
> I sat through an 8 hour meeting with my docs this week. The topics were mostly coding, compliance, PQRS, Meaningful Use, etc. At the end of the day, my senior partner came over and hugged me. "I am sooo appreciative that we have you," he told me. That hug and comment was the culmination of years of work between the two of us. It didn't happen overnight, but then it wouldn't have meant so much if it had.
> 
> Good luck, we're all in your corner
> 
> Katie



Thank you, Katie, for this letter.  I printed it off and plan to read it whenever the going gets tough!  Us coders need all the support we can get!  Thanks again!


----------

