ollielooya
True Blue
Colleagues...
I have immersed myself into the archives regarding this subject, especially in light of how to bill destruction for multiple lesions with CPT +17003. There appears to be two camps of thought as to 1)"listing separately" (as stated by CPT for 17003) or by units" (as found in one of the publications from the CPT Assistant). So, basically both ways are CORRECT? It's just one of these issues that can be debated as to which is the best way?
Example for four lesions removed:
17000 for the first lesion, and 17003 for the second, 17003-59 for the third and , 17003-59 for the fourth
VERSUS
17000, 17003 (3)
Our doctor has been doing it the second way, and would like to move towards the first way, but would like some authoritative documentation to present. A better reimbursement will always grab their attention, but cannot find anything specific in CPT Assistant or my other references to address this issue. It seems the phrase in +17003 "...second through 14 lesions, each (List separately in addition to code for first lesion) is what causes the confusion?
Thanks for the continual input...
Suzanne E. Byrum, CPC
I have immersed myself into the archives regarding this subject, especially in light of how to bill destruction for multiple lesions with CPT +17003. There appears to be two camps of thought as to 1)"listing separately" (as stated by CPT for 17003) or by units" (as found in one of the publications from the CPT Assistant). So, basically both ways are CORRECT? It's just one of these issues that can be debated as to which is the best way?
Example for four lesions removed:
17000 for the first lesion, and 17003 for the second, 17003-59 for the third and , 17003-59 for the fourth
VERSUS
17000, 17003 (3)
Our doctor has been doing it the second way, and would like to move towards the first way, but would like some authoritative documentation to present. A better reimbursement will always grab their attention, but cannot find anything specific in CPT Assistant or my other references to address this issue. It seems the phrase in +17003 "...second through 14 lesions, each (List separately in addition to code for first lesion) is what causes the confusion?
Thanks for the continual input...
Suzanne E. Byrum, CPC