kathymoon
Guest
This always seems to be a debate in our offices. The provider sees a patient in the office and the problem is severe enough they are not able to take care of it, so they refer the patient to the ED for more extensive followup. The provider feels they can only code a minimal office visit or no charge at all but documentation supports a higher level. The patient is NOT admitted.
Example: Seen by NP. Patient comes into office for bleeding from ear. Was involved in sport and had minor injury to ear. When ear examined there was enough blood that NP could not visualize inner ear. Patient also had some dizziness.
The provider confered with the ED doc and sent patient to ED. (CT-scan performed at hospital).
NP says 99211 (!). Documentation supports a 99214. New problem with add'l workup and moderate risk factor with "undiagnosed new problem". And a detailed history.
Am I looking at this correctly or is there something I'm missing? Shouldn't we be able to code with the 99214?
I certainly could use some feedback. Thanks.: confused:
Example: Seen by NP. Patient comes into office for bleeding from ear. Was involved in sport and had minor injury to ear. When ear examined there was enough blood that NP could not visualize inner ear. Patient also had some dizziness.
The provider confered with the ED doc and sent patient to ED. (CT-scan performed at hospital).
NP says 99211 (!). Documentation supports a 99214. New problem with add'l workup and moderate risk factor with "undiagnosed new problem". And a detailed history.
Am I looking at this correctly or is there something I'm missing? Shouldn't we be able to code with the 99214?
I certainly could use some feedback. Thanks.: confused:
