I see the statement you are presenting only too many times regarding having E/M level standards. I can understand from a Practice Manager point of view, how they want to maximize reimbursement in an already stressed economy, however the backlash can be severe. If you ask any auditor, they will tell you that any chart note should support medical necessity of any E/M level. Even with the Marshfield Clinic tool (the one with all the points), you cannot fully reach medical necessity, albeit close at times.
I have been told by certain managers at previous jobs that most Express/Quick/Power Care visits (non-Urgent but powered mostly by NPs) should be 99214s, and tailor the providers' template to hit those levels for History and MDM (1 new problem and 1 Rx). This is a very dangerous practice unless audits can genuinely find medical necessity in the chart. E/M level inflation is part of the reason CMS is doing a revamp of the way they will pay for E/M visits come 2021, where documentation requirements only have to meet 99202/99212 and perhaps 99205/99215 depending on possible final changes.
I have other opinions about this E/M change, but nothing that is relevant in this thread. Instead, I will just caution again against any required E/M level for any clinic, especially at an Urgent Care clinic. Most CMS and MAC guidelines will explain that any E/M level will need to stand against medical necessity.
Hope this is useful!