Use unlisted code 96549 to report concurrent chemotherapy
APCs Weekly Monitor, March 9, 2007
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to APCs Weekly Monitor!
Use unlisted code 96549 to report concurrent chemotherapy
QUESTION:We are confused about how or whether we should code concurrent chemotherapy. The CPT Manual states that 90768 should be used with 96413 and 96415, which are both IV chemotherapy infusion codes. However, the November 2005 CPT Assistant states that there is not a code for concurrent chemo, so we should use 96549 (Unlisted chemotherapy procedure).
The 2007 CPT Coders' Desk Reference states that 90768 (Intravenous infusion, for therapy, prophylaxis, or diagnosis [specify substance or drug]; concurrent infusion [List separately in addition to code for primary procedure])should be used for infusions "other than chemo drugs."
Do you know which source is correct? My tendency is to follow the 2007 CPT Manual, which means that we should use 90768 for concurrent chemotherapy. Do you agree?
ANSWER:CMS states the following in Transmittal 1139 ("January 2007 Update of the OPPS"):
Hospitals are instructed to use the full set of CPT codes, including those codes referencing concepts of initial, concurrent, and sequential, to bill for drug administration services furnished in the hospital outpatient department beginning January 1, 2007. In addition, hospitals are instructed to continue billing the HCPCS codes that most accurately describe the service(s) provided.
The CPT Manual, instructions along with CPT Assistant guidance, supports CMS' directive listed above. Per the CPT knowledge base and the November 2005 CPT Assistant, if staff mix or give chemotherapy agents concurrently, report unlisted chemotherapy administration code 96549. Due to a lack of evidence of current practice standards, there is no code at this time for concurrent administration of chemotherapeutic drugs.
Report CPT code 90768 for concurrent infusion of a non-chemotherapy drug.
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
- 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?
- ED-to-inpatient transfers are flawed with safety gaps
- Joint Commission Center announces handoff communication solutions
- Inside best practice: Reduce patient falls with a stoplight
- Identify modifiable risk factors to prevent patient falls
- Searched