EM Coding Alert
Reader Questions:
Don’t Consider a Ventilating Tube a Foreign Body
Published on Wed Jun 23, 2021
Question: Our provider removed a ventilating tube using a binocular microscope during an office visit. They are advising that I bill separately for this service by coding it as a removal of a foreign body. Is this correct? Washington, D.C. Subscriber Answer: A ventilating tube inserted during a prior procedure does not qualify as a foreign body. In fact, you should not bill separately for this service at all. Instead, you will bundle the service into the underlying evaluation and management (E/M) visit. You may bill separately for the use of the binocular microscope with 92504 (Binocular microscopy (separate diagnostic procedure)).
Related Articles
Other Articles in this issue of
EM Coding Alert
- Guidelines:
5 Tips to Capture the Maximum Ethical Reimbursement for Inpatient Consults
Don’t rely on hospital E/M codes until you confirm inpatient status. Picture this: Another physician [...] - Back to Basics:
Use Knowledge of Medical Necessity to Better Your Documentation
Hint: Your documentation can justify medical necessity, too. You may be familiar with the term [...] - Case Study:
Untangle This E/M Scenario to Choose the Best Possible Codes
Hint: Remember the anatomical modifier. As a coder, you know that E/M service codes are [...] - You Be the Coder:
Look to This Code Range for Contraceptive Counseling
Question: If a patient comes in for family planning counseling, and our pediatrician administers a [...] - Reader Questions:
Know When Time Earns You More Money
Question: I have an operative report in front of me that is a bit confusing. [...] - Reader Questions:
Don’t Use These MDM Tables Interchangeably
Question: Both the Elements of Medical Decision Making (MDM) table in the 2021 CPT® Manual [...] - Reader Questions:
Don’t Consider a Ventilating Tube a Foreign Body
Question: Our provider removed a ventilating tube using a binocular microscope during an office visit. [...]
View All
