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

Colectomy-Need Opinion :)

Hello would you code a 44140 or 44145?

Description of Procedure: In the supine position with appropriate monitoring she received general endotracheal anesthesia with IV antibiotic. Foley catheter was placed and she is placed into padded stirrups. Orogastric tube was placed. The abdomen was widely prepped with chlorhexidine and draped. I had irrigated the rectum with Betadine saline. The abdomen is entered through an infraumbilical 7 cm incision with GelPort introduced with a dry laparotomy pad and insufflation. 2 separate 12 mm dissecting ports were placed, on the left about one third from the umbilicus to the ASIS which would be a site for colostomy if required. On the right side, more laterally in the iliac fossa. The abdomen is explored, and I used the Enseal to separate normal attachments of the right uppermost rectum and then to separate with more blunt dissection the filmy adhesions of the anterior mid rectum to the underside of the uterus. I do not fully dissect this area since its distal to the area of interest. I am able to encircled the proposed excision site which is probably the junction of the rectum with sigmoid, and then a blue load laparoscopic stapler was introduced on the right side with transverse amputation, blue load selected because of the colon is thin and not inflamed. Now the corresponding mobilized mesentery is divided on the midline at about the sacral promontory, using the Enseal. We released the descending mesentery over the left sacral brim and now deflate. With open technique, and exposure, the right and left sigmoid mesentery was scored and transilluminated and Enseal used to divide vessels without bleeding. The proximal sigmoid is selected, and a small enterotomy placed. The 31 mm anvil with sharp point is introduced and proximal to this we amputate with a green load stapler, the colon is normally thick here. The specimen is removed and I cut it on the back table showing a 5 cm nonbleeding blanched ulceration which is circumferential. This is submitted in formalin and my gloves were exchanged. Returning to the operative field, the anvil point is brought adjacent to the staple line, the surrounding fat is cleared and the tissues reintroduced and the abdomen reinsufflated.
*
From below I introduced the 31 mm carrier with one hand in the abdomen the ED instrument is gently advanced to the stapled rectum and the stem is introduced. We assure normal orientation of the descending colon and the apparatus is connected and closed under vision, fired using manufacturer’s instruction and retrieved. With the proximal pelvic: Compressed, saline and air are introduced showing appropriate distention and no leak of air or liquid

Medical Billing and Coding Forum

Colonoscopy Diagnostic vs Preventative – What’s your Opinion

Hello Everyone,

I wanted to get other’s opinions on the much debatable issue of diagnostic versus preventative colonoscopy in my office. I have several providers within my office that like to order "screening" colonoscopies for the below scenarios.

1. Pt says they are here for a screening colon, first colon ever, but in the medical record physician documents symptomatic issues of constipation, rectal bleeding, diarrhea, etc. My provider feels that since the patient has not had a screening colon that they can order the procedure as such. I advise the provider that since the patient presented with symptoms then it is not a screening, per several articles I have found on the web from AAPC. How many other coders/billers have come across this issue and how did you handle this situation?

2. Patient comes in for screening colonoscopy. Provider documents that patient has "stable" chronic constipation. How would you code? In my opinion, patient has an issue and thus would be diagnostic, but the providers states that since it is stable it can be coded as a screening. Opinions?

Thank you all for your thoughts and opinions.

Medical Billing and Coding Forum

Coding Opinion: Intermittent claudication and DM type II

Question: How would you code the following:

1. Claudication is documented in the patient assessment.
2. Diabetes type II is documented in the patient assessment.
3. There are no medications or test results to support peripheral angiopathy/peripheral vascular disease.
4. Claudication indexes to I73.9, and is considered as a symptom of Peripheral Vascular Disease or PVD. PVD also indexes to I73.9,
however, the term "claudication" itself is not listed under the ICD 10 Diabetes "with" manifestation list.
5. The term "claudication" is not considered a "peripheral angiopathy" and would not be linked to the DM type II based upon causal relationship.

Would it be correct to code DM type II "with" claudication as E11.51 or would it be correct to code E11.9 and I73.9?

Medical Billing and Coding Forum

Second opinion needed on earwax removal

I would like the opinion from other coders on this scenario:

Patient presented to our urgent care center, where he was seen by a provider who is new to him. (He has previously been seen by other providers within the group practice.) Patient had a comprehensive history and comprehensive exam done. Patient received a prescription for pain medication, and he had impacted cerumen removed bilaterally by curette. I coded this as 99214-25 and 69210-50. My supervisor argues that we cannot bill the 69210, with her reasoning being that BCBS denied the charge as incidental, and that the diagnosis code for the E/M ended up only being the impacted cerumen, with nothing else wrong with the patient. My argument is that just because something isn’t "payable" by a particular carrier doesn’t mean that it isn’t "billable." The patient did receive a full work-up prior to having the cerumen removed, so I feel that it justifies billing both services. What does everyone else think?

Medical Billing and Coding Forum

need opinion on op note

hi,

would you code the fulgration of the endometrial implants and if so what code would you use. ive highlighted in red. thanks

PREOPERATIVE DIAGNOSIS: Endometrial polyp.
POSTOPERATIVE DIAGNOSES: Lower segment endocervical polyp and cervical
endometriosis.
PROCEDURES PERFORMED: 1. Operative hysteroscopy with polypectomy
and endometrial biopsy.
2. Fulguration of cervical endometriosis
implants.

OPERATIVE FINDINGS: Exam under anesthesia revealed the uterus is in slightly mid to retroverted
position, deviated to right and normal size, shape, movable and regular. Right adnexa was free and the left
adnexa was free. There was some thickening noted in the posterior left cul-de-sac.
On visualization of the uterine and endometrial cavity, both tubal ostia were visualized and appeared
normal, and the endometrial cavity appeared normal. There was a small area of polypoid area noted in the
lower uterine segment and a pedunculated polyp was noted in the upper endocervical canal. Rest of the
endometrial cavity appeared normal.

There was superficial endometriosis implants noted on the portio of the cervix at 3 o’clock and from 10 to
1 o’clock position and then at 6 o’clock position.
OPERATIVE PROCEDURE: After the patient had general anesthesia induced by LMA, she was
placed in modified lithotomy position using Smith-Allen stirrups to avoid any pressure points. The
perineum and vagina were prepped and a Foley catheter was placed after usual sterile prepping and
draping and bimanual exam revealed the findings as mentioned above.
Then, the surgeon proceeded with the procedure.

A bivalved open-ended speculum was positioned. The cervix was held with a tenaculum clamp. We
attempted to pass a small Hanks dilator. There was some resistance noted in the endocervical canal, so in
order to avoid creation of a false passage, I used a diagnostic hysteroscope and used Smith & Nephew
Medtronic fluid management system and normal saline to distend the endometrial cavity. So using the
diagnostic hysteroscope, hysteroscopy procedure was carried out and the internal os location was noted.
Under direct vision, the hysteroscope was advanced into the endometrial cavity. The findings were as
mentioned above. At this stage, diagnostic hysteroscope was removed and the cervix dilated with Hanks
dilator to #14. Then, we used a Gynecare SlimLine operative hysteroscope and normal saline for
distention medium, the hysteroscopy procedure was carried out. Using a hysteroscope for this, the polyp
in the endocervical canal was excised and the polypoid area in the lower uterine posterior segment was
excised. These specimens were collected. All the fluids used during hysteroscopy were accounted for.
There was no active bleeding observed. We used 1220 cc of normal saline and then 620 cc was suctioned
out. There was a deficit of 600 cc.
Following the hysteroscopy procedure using a small curette, endometrial biopsy was obtained.
Using a monopolar Bovie with a coagulation current at 20 to 30 watts and using the needle tip Bovie, the
endometriosis implants and the portio of the cervix were fulgurated
. Blood loss during the procedure was
5 cc and clear urine was noted in the Foley bag. The urine output was 600 cc. Specimen consisted of
endocervical polyp and endometrial biopsy. The patient tolerated the procedure well and transferred to the
recovery room in good condition.

Medical Billing and Coding Forum