|
Bonnie: We have been billing for upper and lower evaluations, when the
indications are appropriate, by using the modifier -91 to indicate multiple
procedures. We checked with our Medicare Carrier and were told to use this
modifier. The CPT book states "-91 repeat clinical diagnostic lab test".
Has anyone else been using this modifier with any success? Would be
interested in hearing your experiences. Pat Marques, RN, RVT, Vascular
Associates Laboratory, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
-----Original Message-----
From: Bonnie Johnson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 6:16 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: venous insufficiency
Ahhhhhh! We all feel your pain. Sorry pal but it's the same pay for the same
CPT code. To make matters worse the CPT code is the same for the upper
extremity as it is for the lower so can't bill for both those either. Bet
echocardiology does not have this gross inequity in their unbundled
codes!!!!!!!!! (don't get me started) More for our governmental relations
people at SVT, SVS, ISCVS, SDMS etc etc etc to be working on. bj
Bonnie L. Johnson RDMS, RVT, FSVT
Stanford University Medical Center
Director, Vascular Laboratory Services
Division of Vascular Surgery
Stanford, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: UVM Flownet [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Hank
Arellano
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 2:27 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: venous insufficiency
Flownetters,
I have a question re: reimbursement. Are venous studies for DVT and venous
insufficiency charged identically. In other words, can one expect to be
paid
more for the time consuming nature of venous insufficiency (varicose veins,
perforators, etc.) vs. DVT studies. In the good old days we would charge a
bilateral venous insufficiency exam with 93970 and 93965, whereas a DVT
study
would be charged using solely 93970. Unfortunately, most of our volume are
patients with venous insufficiency where DVT (acute) is rarely a
consideration. I would appreciate feedback.
Thank You,
Hank Arellano, BS, RVT
|
