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

Established problem but “New” patient since it has been over 3 years

If a patient’s PCP is referring him back to our office for re-evaluation of a problem treated by us more than 3 years ago, is that worth 2 points (est. problem worsening) or 4 points (new problem, additional workup planned) under # of diagnoses or treatment options in MDM? The patient would be considered "New" since it has been 3 years, but problem is not new to the provider. Thanks.

Medical Billing and Coding Forum

New Problem to examining MD: Additional Work-up versus No Additional Work-up

Hi! I am a new CPC-A working on the Practicode. I am using the E/M Audit Tool to assign points for MDM. I am also using tools from E/M University. A lot of the cases I am working through are in the ED. I am missing the mark on leveling – I just coded 2 practice cases in a row that I should have coded 99285, but I thought they were 4s. If the examining doctor is discharging a patient because they are stable but advising them to make the next available appointment with a specialist or other physician, is this considered a New Problem with Additional Work Up Planned since the physician is counseling them to see another physician? I thought it was No Additional Work up Planned because the patient was being discharged. Thanks in advance. E/M leveling is a learning process for me :).

Medical Billing and Coding Forum

Problem List

Good Morning,

As I research more on the topic of problem lists, I am finding conflicting information regarding coding from a problem list. Some say we can code from the problem list and others state never unless there is MEAT and or "TAMPER". And is this concept "payer specific"?

Question: If a problem list has a chronic condition and there is an active medication for just that condition, is it appropriate to pick up during the patient encounter even if it is not listed under the assessment and plan with assessment terms and plans?

Thanks!

Medical Billing and Coding Forum

Capturing dx codes from problem list?

Hello,

I am reviewing the CRC study guide for my eventual test. I came across a test question on one of the practice exams which looked like this:

Within the progress note it stated:

PMH:

Medical Problems:

Hypertension, Atrial Fibrillation, Non-insulin Dependent Diabetes

Current Meds: Indomethacin 50 mg. Lanoxin 0.125 mg. Iron 325 mg. Lasic 40 ma Glyburide 2.5mg. Xalatan 0.005 %. Synthroid 125 meg, Lisinopril 40mg, Mag-Tab SR 84 mg. Ditropan 5 mg, Vitamin B-^ 50 mg.

Assessment:

#1 Atrial Fibrillation – on digoxin – Plan = Med Current: Lanoxin 0.125 mg 1 po q d

#2 Arthritis Climacteric Multiple Sites – Plan = Med Current: indomethacin 50 mg take as needed

#3 Congestive Heart Failure Unspecified – Comments: digoxin, no edema

#4 Insomnia

#5 Adjustment Disorder with Depression – Comments: situational, with sleep issues. Med Current: Remeron 15 mg 1 po hs

#6 Cough – Comments: Has infiltrates vs CHF on CXR’s. CXR next week

Choice Answers:

A. I48.91, M13.89, I11.0, I50.9, G47.00, F43.21, R05, E11.9, Z79.84

B. I48.91, M12.9, I50.9, G47.00, F32.9, E11.9, Z79.4, R05

C. I48.91, I50.9, F43.21, G47.00, E11.9, Z79.84

D. I48.91, M12.9, I10, I50.9, G47.00

The correct answer is A.

Question#1: I would like to know what risk adjustment guidelines state as far as "linking" the "Diabetes and Hypertension" mentioned within the "Medical Problems" listed above with the CHF and why the Diabetes was allowed to be included.

Question#2: Since the Hypertensive Heart Failure code (E11.0) and the Diabetes code (E11.9) are also appropriate to code, how does this affect an E/M note…..if the HTN and DM are not under the assessment and plan, wouldn’t an insurance company ding a provider if they included these codes for which there is no stated assessment and plan?

I hope this isn’t too confusing, but I am working in a risk adjustment position at the moment but also am a former E/M coder and am conflicted with this scenario.

Any help clarifying this situation is greatly appreciated.

Thanks!!

Medical Billing and Coding Forum

Aetna denying problem visits as part of global ob

We are having a problem with Idaho Aetna denying OB problem office visits as part of the global ob care, when clearly they are not. ie: URI, Headaches, skin rash, etc. Even after going through their "reconsideration" request (first level of appeal), with supporting documentation including CPT definition of ob global care and proof that we can charge separate office visits for unrelated problems, they are still denying it. It’s like they aren’t even reading my letters! We only get 2 appeals with Aetna, and this is a huge amount of money we are loosing. Now, they have started going back through visits they have already paid on, and taking their money back. I’ve audited all of these visits and they truly are reimbursable services.

I am at my wits end. Does anyone have any suggestions? Does anyone have this problem as well? We don’t have a provider relation rep assigned to us so I can’t complain to them, but seriously, Aetna can’t be withholding payments on billable services like this! HELP!

Medical Billing and Coding Forum

Using E/M codes or CC cpt with 36556 and 31500 for Medicare PROBLEM!

Good evening!

I am hoping for some help on this. I am billing for a pain management doctor/anesthesiologist that goes to the hospital and will see a patient earlier in the day (E/M Codes- 99233/99232/99223) and then insert a catheter (36556) later on in the day (or vice versa) OR he will do an emergency intubation (31500) along with 99291 (critical care code). BOTH of theses combinations are getting denied for Medicare in the clearinghouse although I have switched around modifiers 25 and 59 on each code for each "set". Any advice on billing these codes together?? I understand that normally 99223 and 36556 are bundled but technically the physician doesn’t perform these at the same time. HELP!

Thanks,

Cora B.

Medical Billing and Coding Forum

Modifier 78 for return to surgery by different MD for related problem

Please help to clarify what modifier, if any is appropriate for return to surgery post op, during the global period for complications of original surgery by a DIFFERENT surgeon. Since it is not the original surgeon, would a modifier 78 still
be required? If the second surgeon is not in the same group, it seems no modifier is needed. Modifier 79 is not appropriate since the return to surgery was due to a complication of the first.

Medical Billing and Coding Forum

Small breaches could become a big problem

HIPAA enforcement

Small breaches could become a big problem

In a year of high-profile, multimillion dollar settlements for large HIPAA breaches, OCR raised the stakes in a big way—by taking a harder line on small breaches. OCR announced plans to crack down on smaller breaches—those affecting fewer than 500 individuals—in August. Although all breaches must be reported to OCR, generally only breaches affecting 500 or more individuals are regularly investigated, while small breaches are investigated only as resources permit. OCR instructed its regional offices to increase investigations of small breaches to discover the root causes. Identifying common root causes will help the agency better measure HIPAA compliance throughout the industry and address industrywide compliance gaps, OCR said. Regional offices may obtain corrective action if an investigation of a smaller breach reveals noncompliance.

Regional offices were instructed to take several factors into consideration when investigating smaller breaches and determining potential corrective action. These are:

  • The size of the breach
  • Whether a single entity reports multiple small breaches with a similar root cause
  • Whether the breach involves theft or improper disposal of PHI or hacking

 

A closer look

OCR has come under fire for its handling of small breaches. In late 2015, a joint Pro Publica/NPR investigation analyzed federal data on HIPAA complaints and requested documents from OCR, including letters sent to entities that were the subject of HIPAA complaints (www.propublica.org/article/few-consequences-for-health-privacy-law-repeat-offenders). The investigation identified the top serial HIPAA violators, including the Department of Veterans Affairs and CVS. OCR generally responded to these complaints by sending letters reminding the entity of its obligation to protect patient privacy and follow HIPAA, and warned that if OCR received another complaint it may take more serious action. However, OCR rarely took any further or more serious action.

One reason could be that many of these breaches affect fewer than 500 individuals. Both large and small breaches must be reported through OCR’s web portal (www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/breach-notification/breach-reporting/index.html) but there are different deadlines for reporting each and, previously, they were not equally prioritized by OCR.

But that asymmetric enforcement policy left many frustrated and means that OCR may be missing data vital to creating an overall picture of HIPAA compliance and effectiveness. An NPR report released in conjunction with Pro Publica’s investigation revealed the lasting and personal harm done by small breaches (www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/12/10/459091273/small-violations-of-medical-privacy-can-hurt-patients-and-corrode-trust).

Massive breaches caused by hackers will put patients at risk for medical and financial identity theft, but, considering the amount of personal data stored by entities across all industries and the sheer number of data breaches, it’s difficult to tie a specific breach to identity theft (see the July and August issues of BOH for more information on breaches and medical identity theft). Small breaches, however, often expose PHI to people in the community the patient lives and works in, leaving the patient at risk for far more personal harm.

But OCR hasn’t ignored all small breaches. In July, the agency reached a $ 650,000 HIPAA settlement with Catholic Health Care Services of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia (CHCS), a business associate (BA), for a 2014 breach affecting 412 individuals after an unencrypted mobile device was stolen (www.medicarecompliancewatch.com/news-analysis/business-associate-agrees-650000-hipaa-fine).

The agency’s strong action may have been spurred by CHCS’ long-standing organizationwide HIPAA noncompliance. CHCS hadn’t conducted a risk analysis since September 23, 2013, the compliance date of the Security Rule for BAs, and therefore had no risk management plan. CHCS also lacked any policies regarding the removal of mobile devices from its facility. OCR suggested that, due to CHCS’ widespread neglect of basic security measures, the fine could have been even higher and only a consideration of the role CHCS plays in delivering care to at-risk populations, including the elderly, disabled individuals, and individuals living with HIV/AIDS, tempered its decision.

Getting perspective

Implementing OCR’s directive may be a tall order for resource-strapped regional offices and it’s difficult to predict what the outcome will be, Kate Borten, CISSP, CISM, HCISSP, founder of The Marblehead Group in Marblehead, Massachusetts, says.

"I’m not sure it’s actually going to make a huge difference, but I think, from the beginning, those of us who were watching HIPAA enforcement were concerned that, while HHS had good intentions, they just didn’t have the resources," she says.

That’s not surprising: HHS is a huge department with many major priorities, including CMS. But, given that HHS and OCR work with limited resources, the new focus on small breaches could be a significant sign of things to come, Borten says. The agency likely recognizes that small breaches are a huge unknown: There’s no "Wall of Shame" for small breaches and little in the way of accountable reporting.

"I just have the sense that there’s an enormous volume of under 500 breaches that get reported that we don’t hear much about," she says. "So I think it’s very important that they take this step."

Some organizations may have been inclined to brush off small breaches: 499 patients is still shy of the 500 mark, she points out, and an organization could easily add it to the end of the year small breach report and forget about it. Those organizations are the ones that will be in for the biggest wake-up call. "Hopefully they’ll hear this and they’ll think again," she says.

Large breaches often grab the headlines, and with good reason. But massive incidents like the Anthem breach may not provide the most useful data for either OCR or other covered entities (CE) and BAs. Massive breaches are statistically unlikely, according to a June 2015 report by researchers at the University of New Mexico and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (www.econinfosec.org/archive/weis2015/papers/WEIS_2015_edwards.pdf).

"Certainly, you could get hit by one of those big ones," Borten says. "But it’s much more likely, far more likely, you’re going to suffer smaller breaches."

Big breaches come with the risk of big settlements. OCR makes a point of publicizing HIPAA breach settlements and putting the dollar signs front and center. This year alone the agency has levied millions of dollars in HIPAA settlements fines for large breaches. But even as HIPAA breach settlement fines are getting bigger, the numbers don’t stack up against the amount of breaches that are reported each year. Many more organizations get away with little more than a strongly worded letter from OCR. A multimillion dollar fine may be significant for most organizations, but the odds are currently in their favor, Rick Kam, CIPP/US, president and co-founder of ID Experts, says.

"The likelihood that an organization will get fined is so low," he says. "They only catch the big ones, but there are millions of others that are losing data everywhere because nobody’s looking at them."

Too often, organizations assume that if the volume of patients affected by a breach is low, the impact is also low, Borten says, and that’s simply not true. Even a breach involving a single individual’s record can have serious consequences.

As physician practices and local hospitals are absorbed into large corporate health systems, executive perspective on small breaches can become even more skewed, Borten cautions. Executive officers overseeing multiple hospitals, clinics, and physician practices may be more interested in overall numbers and the big picture. A clinical summary handed to the wrong patient at a physician office across the state may simply not register and the impact on the patient will be invisible.

But it’s the duty of privacy and security officers to avoid making that same mistake, she says. "They should be wiser than to fall into that thinking. It falls to them to take a case to the senior leadership or the board of directors and make them recognize that it isn’t just the big breaches," she says. "We worry about the little ones, too."

Privacy and security officers should help provide C-suite the perspective to recognize small breaches and give them the proper weight. A small breach can be just as serious as a large one, Borten says. If an employee posts a patient’s PHI on a social media site, for example, the organization could find itself fighting a lawsuit; even if the case is dismissed, direct legal expenses and time and resources spent preparing documents add up fast. And, as the NPR report showed, it’s not only the patient’s reputation in the community that may suffer; an organization can easily earn a reputation as careless and unconcerned with its patients’ well-being after a small breach.

Small breaches, little data

Because small breaches aren’t investigated to the same standards as large breaches, it’s difficult to measure just how HIPAA-compliant most organizations are and what the real HIPAA pain points are. Another problem is the underreporting of small breaches, Borten says. In 2013 when the HIPAA omnibus rule was released, HHS strengthened the language describing what constitutes a reportable breach. However, HHS also commented at the time that it was concerned there was a significant amount of underreporting. Borten says her experience working with CEs and BAs proves HHS was right to be concerned.

"I think there’s a tendency for underreporting to be more common when there are just one or two patients involved," she says.

In the early days of HIPAA breach notification, some may have been under the impression that CEs and BAs were not required to report breaches affecting fewer than 500 individuals at all, she adds. But that’s never been the case. Although large and small breaches are reported to OCR according to different systems and time frames, organizations are required to treat any breach the same regarding notification to patients.

 

Adding up

Small breaches are likely more typical than large ones, Kam says. Since 2009, roughly 230,000 breaches have been reported to OCR. But only approximately 1,000 have been breaches affecting over 500 individuals and subject to the more stringent investigation procedure. Investigating all HIPAA breaches would be a daunting task for any agency, but by almost exclusively looking at large breaches, OCR left the door open for repeat HIPAA offenders. Small breaches are reported to the agency at the end of the year, but each breach is counted separately, meaning an organization could experience multiple small breaches that add up to well over 500 individuals affected—yet still not be investigated because no single breach hit the 500 mark.

"It turns out that for breaches in healthcare, most of the time, the record count is under 500 records," Kam says. "So you have these organizations that are breaching multiple times and not really correcting the situation because it doesn’t get highlighted or investigated."

OCR’s instructions to its regional offices appear aimed to close that loophole. Along with phase two of the HIPAA audit program, this could be a sign that OCR is getting serious about collecting facts on HIPAA compliance in the real world and improving education and enforcement. The agency might be realizing that it’s time to change if it expects organizations to take HIPAA compliance seriously.

"If you’re seeing the same problem over and over, you’ve got to do something to change," Kam says. "So far, nobody’s listening."

HCPro.com – Briefings on HIPAA

NC Medicaid Modifier Problem

Dear Coding Friends,

I am experiencing NC Medicaid rejections on the following:

45385 43248
45380-59 43239 59

They kept denying for wrong modifier. I poured over their manuals, modifier lists, and realized based on the modifier list they want 51 on the second procedure. A few paid, most have rejected. When I call they certainly won’t point me in the right direction, just that we’re using the wrong modifier. They don’t recognize XS either. Does anyone have experience with NC Medicaid billing multiple endo procedures?

Grateful for your thoughts,
Linda

Medical Billing and Coding Forum