Well...there is the data point on the E&M MDM audit tool that gives credit for "obtaining information from another person". At one point a few years ago, there were rumors that you could consider the use of an interpreter as obtaining information from another person. That's not really the purpose of the audit tool. When obtaining information from another person, you're getting information that comes from another source entirely than the patient; so either another provider, another family member; someone who may or may not have conflicting or additional information. That scenario can impact your MDM if you have this additional information that you need to consider when developing the plan of care. When you use an interpreter, you're actually hearing what the patient is saying, so there's not as much concern as if you were getting third party information. Of course, you always run the risk that something gets lost in translation. There are no DGs as far as I'm aware with regards to using a translator and taking credit for data points, so I'd steer clear of that until we get clarification (if ever). Unless the provider indicates in his note that he's confused about the translation, and the nature of the presenting problem is sufficiently complex that confusing information could be problematic, I'd not add the data points for the translator. Hope this helps.
