Q/A: May we create a protocol for complete pulmonary function test?
APCs Weekly Monitor, October 28, 2011
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to APCs Weekly Monitor!
Q: Some physicians send patients to our hospital outpatient department with an order for “complete PFT [pulmonary function test].” Does a standard definition describe a complete PFT? If none exists, may we develop a protocol for the tests that physicians order most frequently? Would notifying the physicians of such a protocol be sufficient? They certainly may order other tests their patients need.
A: PFT is a comprehensive term that describes a group of studies used to assess lung function. The exact type of tests required to assess an individual situation varies according to patients’ symptoms.
No single CPT® code provides a standard definition of a complete PFT. Development of an internal hospital-defined protocol appears to address the lack of consistency, but it won’t necessarily reflect the intent of ordering physicians who may not want these particular tests performed. CMS considers the expressed intent of physicians who order test(s); a hospital-defined protocol does not meet this requirement.
Ordering physicians should specify the tests to be performed to satisfy CMS’ requirement for individualized orders/care and to mitigate the risk of revenue reversal If your facility currently uses a preprinted order form and has already defined, add the components defined in the protocol to the order form. This shows that the physician readily knew what he or she was being and had the opportunity to add/subtract tests that were indicated for the patient.
Listing individual tests on preprinted order forms and allowing physicians to select those that are appropriate for individual scenarios is best practice.
Editor’s note: Denise Williams, RN, CPC-H, director of revenue integrity services at Health Revenue Assurance Associates, Inc., in Plantation, FL, answered this question.
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to APCs Weekly Monitor!
Related Products
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- QA:Coding multiple initial infusions
- News and briefs: Oklahoma Osteopathic Association against residency bill change
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- E-mailed
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- CMS has reformulated payments for some bilateral procedures
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- New conflicts of interest create new challenges
- Q/A. One injection code or two?
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- Identify modifiable risk factors to prevent patient falls
- Hospitals are not bound by InterQual criteria for determining patient status
- Searched
