# New to cardiology need help with cath codes



## HEATHERLEESON (Jul 7, 2011)

Hello,

I am new to cardiology. Can anyone tell me if 93452 and 93454 can be billed together? The notes state that 93452 can not be reported in conjuction with 93453,93458-93461. It leaves out 93454. 

Thanks,
Heather Hall, CPC


----------



## dpeoples (Jul 7, 2011)

HEATHERHALL said:


> Hello,
> 
> I am new to cardiology. Can anyone tell me if 93452 and 93454 can be billed together? The notes state that 93452 can not be reported in conjuction with 93453,93458-93461. It leaves out 93454.
> 
> ...



hmmm, that is interesting. I guess that technically they can be billed together, however, if I were coding the case and both procedures are documented, I would code 93458 alone.

HTH


----------



## Jim Pawloski (Jul 7, 2011)

dpeoples said:


> hmmm, that is interesting. I guess that technically they can be billed together, however, if I were coding the case and both procedures are documented, I would code 93458 alone.
> 
> HTH



If you did the separate codes, would that not be unbundling the charge of 93458, which says coronaries + LHC (+/- LVgram)?

JIm Pawloski, CIRCC


----------



## theresa.dix@tennova.com (Jul 8, 2011)

Jim Pawloski said:


> If you did the separate codes, would that not be unbundling the charge of 93458, which says coronaries + LHC (+/- LVgram)?
> 
> JIm Pawloski, CIRCC




Jim,
 yes it would be unbundling. 

I see the reason why it says not to use 93452 with certain codes. The codes it is saying not to use with(53,58,61) already contain left heart cath wording in them. So that would be billing left heart cath twice. It only goes to say you would not bill two codes 93452 and 93454 when there is one code that includes both 93452 and 93454 which is 93458.


----------



## dpeoples (Jul 8, 2011)

Jim Pawloski said:


> If you did the separate codes, would that not be unbundling the charge of 93458, which says coronaries + LHC (+/- LVgram)?
> 
> JIm Pawloski, CIRCC



Yes, that is what I find interesting (and puzzling). I really can't think of a situation where both would be billed, but the verbage seems to allow for such a scenario.


----------



## theresa.dix@tennova.com (Jul 8, 2011)

dpeoples said:


> Yes, that is what I find interesting (and puzzling). I really can't think of a situation where both would be billed, but the verbage seems to allow for such a scenario.



I see how it is very confusing!


----------



## HEATHERLEESON (Jul 8, 2011)

*Thanks*

Thanks for your everyones help.


----------

