Tip of the Week: Overturn CCI edits with 33223, 33222: Use of modifier -59 warranted when physician documents "pocket revision"
APCs Weekly Monitor, April 6, 2007
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to APCs Weekly Monitor!
When it comes to coding pacemaker/cardioverter-defibrillator insertions, many HIM professionals and coders mistakenly believe that you cannot report the following skin pocket revision codes:
- 33223: Revision of skin pocket for single or dual chamber pacing cardioverter-defibrillator
- 33222: Revision or relocation of skin pocket for pacemaker
with the following cardiac device insertion codes:
- 33240: Insertion of single or dual chamber pacing cardioverter-defibrillator pulse generator
- 33249: Insertion or repositioning of electrode lead(s) for single or dual chamber pacing cardioverter-defibrillator and insertion of pulse generator
They don't think they can report both codes because doing so causes them to bump up against a National Correct Coding Initiative (NCCI) edit, says Lolita Jones, RHIA, CCS, principal of Lolita M. Jones Consulting in Fort Washington, MD.
But don't be scared away by the edit. The official rules state that you can report both by appending modifier -59 (distinct procedural service) to the second code in the pair. Although reporting both codes triggers a CCI edit, you can overturn the edit if the documentation truly supports the fact that the physician performed a pocket revision, Jones says.
For example, if a physician has to alter a pre-existing pocket when inserting a dual-chamber pacing cardioverter-defibrillator pulse generator, report 33240 and 33223-59. This may be necessary when a patient has an infection that requires the physician to revise the pocket, or when the new device he or she is going to insert is too large for the existing pocket.
The critical guideline when reporting 33240 with 33223 is that the pocket has to be pre-existing, says Melissa Thurmond, CCS, at Mary Washington Hospital in Fredricksburg, VA. "If it (pocket) has not been made, and this is the initial insertion, then you cannot pick it up (33223)," she says.
(Source: Briefings on APCs, January 2007).
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