Sep 2003 Table of Contents

LETTERS

Fam Pract Manag. 2003 Sep;10(8):16.

Coding controversy



FREE PREVIEW Log in or buy this issue to read the full article. AAFP members and paid subscribers get free access to all articles. Subscribe now.


FREE PREVIEW Subscribe or buy this issue. AAFP members and paid subscribers get free access to all articles.

To the Editor:

I enjoyed “An Update on the E/M Codes and Documentation Guidelines” [May 2003, page 14] by Kent Moore, but it induced a panic attack. I have read various versions of the vignettes proposed to help describe each level of service, and they seem capricious, arbitrary and very subjective. I don’t think I could ever use them to justify coding a higher level, as any auditor could have a different opinion that I would have no way to objectively dispute. Although the current guidelines are far from perfect, I have learned to use them to objectively support my coding. I hope they remain unchanged until I can retire out of this mess.

Author’s response

The AAFP shares your concerns. The Academy believes that, like you, family physicians have adapted to the current evaluation and management (E/M) codes and the associated documentation guidelines for E/M services. Also, like you, the Academy questions the proposed dependence on brief clinical examples to guide coding. Such examples may make choosing E/M codes more intuitive for physicians, but the Academy believes they will provide precious little defense in an audit situation. The AAFP also has doubts about the ability of clinical examples to ensure work equivalency across specialties under the resource-based relative value scale (RBRVS).

The Academy and other national specialty societies have communicated these concerns to the AMA CPT Editorial Panel and have urged the Panel, as a prerequisite to implementation, to get in writing from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) a commitment to 1) accept the new code descriptors for Medicare and Medicaid and not create its own coding system for E/M services and 2) officially indicate what, if any, set of documentation guidelines it will use based on these new code descriptors. In the meantime, if the Panel continues in its present direction, the Academy does plan to participate in developing the clinical examples and would also plan to assist in reviewing draft proposals for the new code descriptors so that the results are as useful to family physicians as possible.

WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU

Send your comments to fpmedit@aafp.org. Submission of a letter will be construed as granting AAFP permission to publish the letter in any of its publications in any form. We cannot respond to all letters we receive. Those chosen for publication will be edited for length and style.

Copyright © 2003 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact fpmserv@aafp.org for copyright questions and/or permission requests.

Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions


Article Tools

  • Print page
  • Share this page
  • FPM CME Quiz

Information From Industry