Click here for more sample CPC practice exam questions with Full Rationale Answers

Practice Exam

Click here for more sample CPC practice exam questions and answers with full rationale

Practice Exam

CPC Practice Exam and Study Guide Package

Practice Exam

What makes a good CPC Practice Exam? Questions and Answers with Full Rationale

CPC Exam Review Video

Laureen shows you her proprietary “Bubbling and Highlighting Technique”

Download your Free copy of my "Medical Coding From Home Ebook" at the top right corner of this page

Practice Exam

2018 CPC Practice Exam Answer Key 150 Questions With Full Rationale (HCPCS, ICD-9-CM, ICD-10, CPT Codes) Click here for more sample CPC practice exam questions with Full Rationale Answers

Practice Exam

Click here for more sample CPC practice exam questions and answers with full rationale

44640 only

Hi all – is 44640 the only billable code here?:
I sort of redacted the report for only the pertinent info.

Post-op Diagnosis
* Enterocutaneous fistula [K63.2], anastamotic leak
*
Procedure(s) (LRB):
EXPLORATORY LAPAROTOMY WITH ILEOCOLECTOMY (N/A) Takedown of splenic flexure.

We made a upper midline incision excising the prior extraction incision through which the stool from the fistula had drained. We entered the abdomen superiorly in a free space and divided the fascia just to the left of the fistula and eventually separated the fistula from the abdominal wall with minimal spill of stool. There was old stool staining the fascia along the edges of our fascial incision.
We sharply and bluntly took down small bowel adhesions around the old anastamosis until we could identify the loop of small bowel entering the anastamosis and the distal transverse colon exiting it. We divided some omentum stuck over the superior aspect of the anastamosis with the IMPACT ligasure. We divided the mesentery to the small bowel and colon side of the anastamosis staying high in the mesentery with the ligasure. We divided the small bowel through viable soft small bowel about 5-10cm proximal to the anastamosis with a GIA 75 blue 3.5 mm stapler. We divided the transverse colon also about 5-10 cm distal to the anastamosis through viable soft colon also with a GIA 75 blue 3.5 mm stapler. Both staple lines were turned in with 3-0 silk lembert sutures. I should note that there were a few serosal tears incidental to the procedure in the small bowel that were closed with interrupted 3-0 silk suture.
*
We took down the splenic flexure to insure there would be no tension on the new ileocolic anastamosis, taking care to avoid injury to the spleen. We considered making an ileostomy as the bowel was a little thickened and inflamed still but it was relatively normal and sutures that we tied down held well. The blood supply was clearly excellent, the patient was stable, and there were no fibrinous exudates and we felt the an anastamosis should have an excellent chance of healing and would clearly be better for her than an ileostomy.
*
A functional end to end anastamosis was then constructed handsewn side to side. I chose a handsewn anastamosis due to the slight inflammation and thickening of the bowel. It was two layer handsewn with interrupted 3-0 silk suture for the outer layer and running 3-0 vicryl suture for the inner layer. Hemostasis appeared excellent. All the bowel appeared pink and healthy. Care was taken to avoid twists in the mesentery. We then placed additional sutures on both sides of the anastamosis sewing the bowel together to try to make sure that she would not get a leak at the corners of the longitudinal suture line. Her small bowel mesentery is very thick and fatty and I expect when she stands up it is quite heavy. Stool spill was minimal intraop. She had some residual omentum in the left upper quadrant. The ileocolic anastamosis was to the distal transverse colon. We sewed the omentum over the anastamosis with two 3-0 silk sutures.
*
We then excised the abscess cavity some of which was impregnanted with old stool from the fat and fascia of the midline wound. We did excise some midline fascia but as little as possible. The abdomen was thoroughly irrigated with multiple liters of saline.

Medical Billing and Coding Forum

Lab Only Visits

I just started coding for a FQHC clinic with Indian Health Services. They have been coding lab only visits using the nurse visit code 99211 along with the venipuncture code and outside lab handling code. Their reason for coding it this way is because Medicare will not pay for the lab services and they want to be reimbursed so they are charging a nurse visit code because the RN is doing the draw and it is done incident to the provider being in house. I do not agree with any of it because the visit does not meet the criteria of the 99211 evaluation and management guidelines. The majority of the labs are sent out but they are not indicated on the claim with modifier 90 so the insurance does not really know from us if we sent the lab out until they get a claim from the outside lab. I believe this is fraud on their part to get the claim paid. Can I get anyone else’s thoughts on this or how your facility would code a scenario like this.

Thank you,
Lisa

Medical Billing and Coding Forum

Billing Medial Branch RFA for only Level L3 & L5 (L4 was aborted)

I am in disagreement with my pain management provider regarding a planned L3/L4/L5 Medial Branch RFA. L4 continued to produce dermatomal radiation & was aborted. It was decided to proceed with L3/L5 RFA. My provider insists this would constitute ONE level. I disagreed, stating the Facet Joints at L3/L4 & L4/L5 were only partially denervated. My thought was it should be billed as 64635-52, and 64636-52 (reduced services because each joint at each level was only partially denervated). Any input would be so appreciated. Thank you!!

Medical Billing and Coding Forum

Billing for a primary procedure when you only performed the add on portion

Hello,
I am looking for some insight as well as need to know where I can find in writing, or examples of in writing, topics related to the following scenario:

Billing for a surgical assistant ONLY.

The assistant is scheduled for a CABG. Assitant gets there and ONLY performs an EVH. The assistant notates "EVH only". And the operative report submitted prior to billing states this as well. Primary surgeon bills 33533,33518,20926, 33508.

Which is correct (legally and following coding guidelines) for the assist to bill their portion?
1. The assistant billing company submits a claim with 33533, 33518, 33508 (20926 is NAR for assistant payment) to the commercial insurance company for payment.
OR
2. The assistant billing company uses another policy to bill for the assistants services without billing the commercial insurance since documentation stipulates the assistant did not participate in any other procedure outside of add on CPT 33508.

I am of the mindset for option 2. But need something extra besides my knowledge as a certified coder to back this up and provide up the chain of command so to speak.

TIA!

Medical Billing and Coding Forum

EPS only

Hello,
I used to report 00537 (10+TM) in 2017 for 93600 as per ASA Crosswalk instructions.
This year the code has been revised to show "Anesthesia Care Typically Not Required."
I cannot find literature on this change and I have cases performed with anesthesia.

Has anyone seen problems with continuing to report 00537?

Please advise! 😀

Thank you for your time!
~Melissa

Medical Billing and Coding Forum