Physicians are performing surgical procedures in an ASC. We are being told that the physician coding must follow the ASC coding guidelines as far as non-covered ASC services and packed services.
Example of case:
RTC Repair - 29827
Ext Debridement - 29823
SAD - 29826
Per ASC this is considered a packaged service, and ad an add-on, would not be reported for the ASC.
We're being told that due to the ASC packaging, that this wouldn't be reported for the physician and I feel uncomfortable following facility guidelines for professional coding when they cannot provide me with documentation to support their stance.
In reviewing chapter 12 and 14 of the MCR claims processing IOM, I'm repeatedly seeing that physician services are not included in ASC payment and the same methodologies would be used for reporting the physician services in an ASC as they are in an IP facility. Based on that, it is my opinion that the 29826 should be reported for the physician.
Am I misunderstanding? If 29826 is not to be reported, does anyone have any authoritative, official documentation to support this? I'm trying to understand better, but everything I'm finding makes it seem as though this is a missed reimbursement opportunity for the organization I work for and no one is listening.
Example of case:
RTC Repair - 29827
Ext Debridement - 29823
SAD - 29826
Per ASC this is considered a packaged service, and ad an add-on, would not be reported for the ASC.
We're being told that due to the ASC packaging, that this wouldn't be reported for the physician and I feel uncomfortable following facility guidelines for professional coding when they cannot provide me with documentation to support their stance.
In reviewing chapter 12 and 14 of the MCR claims processing IOM, I'm repeatedly seeing that physician services are not included in ASC payment and the same methodologies would be used for reporting the physician services in an ASC as they are in an IP facility. Based on that, it is my opinion that the 29826 should be reported for the physician.
Am I misunderstanding? If 29826 is not to be reported, does anyone have any authoritative, official documentation to support this? I'm trying to understand better, but everything I'm finding makes it seem as though this is a missed reimbursement opportunity for the organization I work for and no one is listening.