Claire,
That's not dumb at all. In fact, what's dumb is that I apparently don't have anything on file to back up what I wrote. I just spent the last two hours pouring through all my bookmarks and files trying to figure out where in the world I got that idea. I'm coming up blank. So I'm pulling back on that statement for now.
As for the "Inga Defense," this is the first time I've run across a doc using it to his or her advantage.
I've employed it myself multiple times to great effect.
Having said all that, though, and using Inga to back me up, she does indicate that coding e/m on the same day as Mohs is okay if it is medically necessary and significant and separately identifiable. My surgeon (who is an amazingly accurate coder and documenter and got the only perfect score in the practice on our December audit,) codes e/m about 60% of the time he does Mohs.
He does some e/m on all Mohs encounters, but I think for him it rises to "significant and separate" when he has to do more than a cursory history and exam. I've noticed he doesn't code for it on patients who have been in for another Mohs procedure recently. He never codes e/m on patients who are in just for adjacent tissue transfers, grafts, excisions, ed & c's, LN2, etc unless the patient came without a diagnosis or they are a new referral from another practice.
I'll try to ask him this week what his threshold is for "significant/separately identifiable" but I have a feeling the answer I'll get is "I know it when I do it." The answer ought to be in the documentation if I can't get a good sense of it from him. I'll let you know what I find. I'll also take another crack at finding out where I got that RVU idea from when I have a few more free hours at home. In the meantime I apologize for what appears to be bad information that I passed along.
Best,
Katie