Wiki ?Use? vs ?see? in CPT code notes: is there a difference?

bswords

New
Messages
2
Best answers
0
I have noticed that some CPT codes have notes that include ?see? while others include ?use,? but I can?t find an explanation of the difference.

For example:

49180 has a note that says ?If imaging guidance is performed, SEE 76942??
-but-
55700 has a note that says ?If imaging guidance is performed, USE 76942??

I can find nothing in the Surgery Guidelines that explains this difference, and how these 2 situations are treated differently, if at all.

Can somebody explain how these 2 situations are different? It would also be helpful to know where in the coding book this is explained.

Thanks.
 
I can only explain the examples you gave as I'm not 100% sure if the thought holds true to every occurrence.

In your first example 49180 is a Biopsy of an abdominal or retroperitoneal mass using a percutanious needle. Where if you See 76942 it's using US guidance imaging, supervision and interpretation.

In the case of 49180 I'm going to have to guess you will rarely have to use any imaging guidance of any type.

With 55700 the "any approach" might require imaging guidance. Thus the guide tool is US and the Use must mean add this code to it.

I'm just putting my opinion and best guess out there.
 
See vs Use

Hi There-

Think of "See" as a suggestion to "see" if the code is applicable to the coding situation.

Think of "Use" as automatically applicable if used.

Example:
49180 has a note that says, "If imaging guidance is performed, SEE 76942" - Meaning maybe this code also applies to the coding situation, but read further to find out. Maybe it's applicable, maybe it isn't.

55700 has a note that says, "If imaging guidance is performed, USE 76942" - if you used imaging guidance you must also code 76942.

I hope that gives you further clarification
 
Thanks

Thanks, Samantha. Your answer make sense. Any idea where I can find this explanation documented? ICD-9 seems to have much more precise meanings for its terms--CPT seems rather Loosey-Goosey by comparison.
 
Top