• If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ & read the forum rules. To view all forums, post or create a new thread, you must be an AAPC Member. If you are a member and have already registered for member area and forum access, you can log in by clicking here. If you've forgotten the password it can be reset on our sign in section by entering your registered Email Address or Username here. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below..

Wiki 93000 and 93040

Create Wiki
M

mdominguez0221

New
Messages
2
Location
San Elizario, TX
Best answers
0
I work for a PCP and they have until recently only coded 93000. Now they want us to bill the 93000 and 93040 -26-59. Has any one gotten any luck getting 93040 paid? we have been linking them if they have complaint for Chest Pain, SOB ect.
 
Hi! I'm seeing a couple of issues with this. First, is the provider actually performing separate 12 lead and 3 lead ECGs at separate encounters on the same DOS? What is the logic behind adding the modifier 59 to 93040? What you are describing really doesn't make much clinical sense (in my opinion). A 12 lead ECG (93000) would be considered a complete study so there would need to be a well documented rationale to also try and report a 3 lead (93040). Second, I don't think it would be appropriate to add modifier 26 to 93040 as there is already a code for reporting the professional interpretation and report only, 93042. I've coded for several cardiology practices and I have never seen anyone attempt to report ECGs this way; without better documentation I think this would be considered an attempt at unbundling.

Hope this helps...:)
 
zoinks071 said:
Hi! I'm seeing a couple of issues with this. First, is the provider actually performing separate 12 lead and 3 lead ECGs at separate encounters on the same DOS? What is the logic behind adding the modifier 59 to 93040? What you are describing really doesn't make much clinical sense (in my opinion). A 12 lead ECG (93000) would be considered a complete study so there would need to be a well documented rationale to also try and report a 3 lead (93040). Second, I don't think it would be appropriate to add modifier 26 to 93040 as there is already a code for reporting the professional interpretation and report only, 93042. I've coded for several cardiology practices and I have never seen anyone attempt to report ECGs this way; without better documentation I think this would be considered an attempt at unbundling.

Hope this helps...:)
Click to expand...
thank you I have been trying to explain this to our manager but she wont see the logic in what i explained. i appreciate it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top