Wiki Modifier 78 or 79? - Patient was referred to our EP

[cvand1972]

I'm torn....
Patient was referred to our EP Doctors for a Loop Recorder Implant for Palpitations and Syncope. This was done on 6/3/2013.
Patient was then referred back to our EP Doctors for an Ablation. His loop recorder was checked and was noted to have a run of narrow complex tachycardia. He was having symptoms of presyncope. An SVT Ablation was done on 7/29/13.
We are billing:
33282 on 6/3/13
93653 and 93613 on 7/29/13.

The 7/29/13 date is getting denied due to the 90 day Global issue.
I'm leaving towards trying to use 79, but thought I would get another opinion.

 

[jewlz0879]

I interpret this as related to 33282. He had the implantable loop recorder, which showed complex tachycardia, therefore, EP ablation performed.

It wasn't a planned return. The physician didn't even know at the time of loop implant the etiology of the syncope; it was due to tachycardia based on results of loop. Due to those results, he brought patient back and performed therapeutic remedy. I'd say 78. At least that's how I'm interpreting this. Just my two cents.