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 left corner of this page

Practice Exam

2016 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

Category Archives: Medical coder certification updates

FB Removal – No Incision

Would coding 10120-52 be appropriate for the following scenario?

"Local analgesia was obtained using 1% lidocaine w/epinephrine, approx 6cc injected around the site of the staple. A foreign body was identified, location right knee just anterior to the patella. I grasped the stable base with a needle nose pliers and removed the staple. The foreign body was successfully removed without complication. The wound was re-explored and no residual foreign bodies noted. The wound was thoroughly cleansed, irrigated and dressed. No complications were noted. Sterile dressing applied."

Thank you!

Medical Billing and Coding Forum – Emergency Department

Job Opportunity HCC Experienced Coder

Fort Lauderdale, FL – Please contact for additional information.

Job Description Details:
Assists ACO/CIN and physician practice leadership with identifying documentation for incomplete or inconsistent documentation in the record which impacts HCC or other risk score coding.
Provides training to health care professionals in ICD-10-CM, CPT, and HCPCS Coding Guidelines, modifier guidelines, documentation guidelines, medical terminology and disease processes.
Conducts pre and post proper coding and documentation review for accuracy.
Reviews charges assigned by providers for accuracy and completeness prior to charge being submitted.
Provides spreadsheets of missing documentation and identifies opportunities for improvement to the ACO/CIN Executive Director and Primary Care leadership.
Assists ACO/CIN and physician practice leadership with quality reviews to validate coding and to ensure compliance with CMS Coding Guidelines and Trinity Standards for Outpatient Physician Services.
Provides training to ACO/CIN physicians and practice leadership on NCQA, Commercial, Medicare Advantage and Medicare Shared Savings Program Quality Metrics.
Participates in Trinity work groups, training, and other efforts and forums to address appropriate coding and documentation for ACO/CIN beneficiaries
Works closely with Hospital Compliance Department

Minimum Education:

Certified Coder with Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) experience
Minimum of 5 years experience with Health Care Plan, Healthcare System, Management Services Organization (MSO) or Managed Care Organizations (MCO)
RHIA, RHIT, CPC or CCS/CCS-P with completion of an associate’s or bachelor’s degree

Medical Billing and Coding Forum – Employment General Discussion

A new sepsis definition: Finding coding compliance at a crossroads

A new sepsis definition: Finding coding compliance at a crossroads

This article is part two of a two-part series on the definition changes for sepsis. Reread part one in the October issue of BCCS.


In my October Clinically Speaking column, we discussed the evolution of the definition of sepsis and its implications in clinical care (Sepsis-1, Sepsis-2, and Sepsis-3), quality measurement (CMS’ SEP-1 core measure), and ICD-10-CM coding compliance.

We emphasized that the February 2016 definition of sepsis (Sepsis-3) as a "life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection," differed from the terminology of sepsis and severe sepsis that has been embraced by many clinicians, CMS, and ICD-10-CM. We also discussed how provider documentation using the Sepsis-3 terminology eliminates the term "severe sepsis," and discussed that the definition change impacted ICD-10-CM code assignment and compliance.

Definitions and clinical indicators in Sepsis-2 are available at, and definitions for Sepsis-3 are available at CMS’ definition of sepsis and severe sepsis for the SEP-1 core measure is available at


Coding Clinic update

Effective September 23, the American Hospital Association (AHA) Coding Clinic for ICD-10-CM/PCS published advice concerning the documentation and coding of sepsis in light of Sepsis-3. In Coding Clinic, Third Quarter 2016, p. 8, they stated "coders should never assign a code for sepsis based on clinical definition or criteria or clinical signs alone. Code assignment should be based strictly on physician documentation (regardless of the clinical criteria the physician used to arrive at that diagnosis)."

Coding Clinic went on to write (emphasis mine):


In my opinion, this means that Coding Clinic is saying ICD-10-CM still embraces the coding of infections without sepsis, with sepsis but without organ dysfunction, and with sepsis resulting in organ dysfunctions (otherwise known as severe sepsis), if the diagnosis is incorporated by the documenting physician. The AHA further stated that if a physician arrives at a diagnosis of sepsis or severe sepsis using whatever criteria he or she wishes, and then documents these terms in the medical record, the coder is to code it, period, end of story.

Alternatively, while Sepsis-3 states that the word "sepsis" requires the presence of acute organ dysfunction, Coding Clinic states that ICD-10-CM does not recognize this clinical concept. Unless the provider documents "severe sepsis" or associates an acute organ dysfunction to sepsis, a code reflecting this concept, R65.20 (severe sepsis), cannot be assigned. Furthermore, if a provider wishes to diagnose and document the term "sepsis" (without organ dysfunction) using Sepsis-2 or other reasonable criteria, the coder is obligated to code it as such in ICD-10-CM.


Coding Clinic, Fourth Quarter 2016

As we discussed last month, the fiscal year 2017 ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines were amended to state (emphasis mine):


In explaining this new guideline, Coding Clinic, Fourth Quarter 2016, pp. 147?149 stated (emphasis mine):


Coding Clinic went on to highlight that this concept applies only to coding, not the clinical validation that occurs prior to coding. Coding Clinic emphasized that clinical validation is a separate function from the coding process and the clinical skill embraced by CMS and cited in the AHIMA practice brief Clinical Validation: The Next Level of CDI. Access these at and


Coding Clinic then went on to say that (emphasis mine) "a facility or a payer may require that a physician use a particular clinical definition or set of criteria when establishing a diagnosis, but that is a clinical issue outside the coding system."

While I agree that facilities should standardize clinical definitions for clinical and coding validation purposes, note how Coding Clinic gave tremendous power to a payer to define any clinical term any way they want to. This may differ from that of a duly-licensed physician charged with direct face-to-face patient care responsibilities using the definitions of clinical terms he or she learned in medical school or read in the literature.

As such, while our facilities may implement clinical validation prior to ICD-10-CM code assignment, a payer that is not licensed to practice medicine and has no responsibilities for direct patient care can require a provider or facility to use a completely different clinical definition that serves only one purpose in my mind, and that is to reduce or eliminate payment for care that was properly rendered, diagnosed, documented, and coded. I’m sure that legal battles will ensue, given this caveat written by Coding Clinic.

Solving the problem

In developing a sepsis strategy in light of these Coding Clinics, allow me to remind all of you that there are three environments by which we must consider disease terminology and supporting criteria. One cannot talk about sepsis, severe sepsis, or septic shock unless he or she states what environment they are in. These are:

  • Clinical language ? Physicians have a language that we use in direct patient care that communicates well with other physicians; we learned this language in medical school, in residency training, and in reading our literature. Every physician knows what "urosepsis," "unresponsiveness," and "neurotoxicity" is; however, ICD-10-CM does not recognize these terms for coding purposes, thus we ask physicians to use different words so that we can report them using the ICD-10-CM conventions. Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine — Clinical Terms (SNOMED-CT) is a clinical language we use in our problem lists and so is Sepsis-3. ICD-10-CM is not. Not all physicians embrace Sepsis-3, thus some may wish to label a patient as having sepsis even if they don’t have organ dysfunction, which makes clinical sense to them. See the articles listed above.
  • Coding language ? As discussed, Sepsis-3 amends clinical language only; however, for coding purposes we must still document using ICD-10-CM’s language, which still recognizes sepsis without and with organ dysfunction, bases coding on the individual physician’s criteria and documentation, and requires clinical validation using reasonable criteria prior to code assignment.
  • Core measure language ? Defining cohorts with core measures, such as SEP-1, is a clinical abstraction based on clinical criteria and not necessarily based on what a physician writes. For example, the definition of severe sepsis and septic shock is completely different in SEP-1 than that of Sepsis-3. Remember, however, that in 2017, if a physician documents severe sepsis and R65.20, and severe sepsis is coded, that record will be held accountable for the SEP-1 even if it doesn’t meet the SEP-1 criteria. View this regulation at

Therefore, allow me to suggest the following strategy to ensure a balance of compliance with all three of these environments:

1.Standardize the definition and documentation of severe sepsis first. I believe that the Recovery Auditors (RA) are looking for records with sepsis codes that do not have R65.20 or R65.21 (septic shock) as a secondary diagnosis as to deny these codes and their resultant DRGs. In so doing, I believe that the definition of severe sepsis should be negotiated with and standardized by the medical staff, which could incorporate any or all of the following three criteria:


No matter what criteria is used, be sure to coordinate its development and deployment with your quality, clinical documentation integrity, and coding staff so that if a physician documents severe sepsis or septic shock, the SEP-1 algorithm can be implemented.

Also, be sure that physicians explicitly link organ dysfunctions to sepsis, or preferably, use the term "severe sepsis" so that R65.20 is not inadvertently missed by the coders. If a clinical documentation specialist or coder obtains a record supporting R65.20, be sure to notify the SEP-1 manager to determine if it qualifies for the SEP-1 core measure.


2.Develop a facilitywide definition for sepsis without organ dysfunction. As noted last month, many physicians do not believe that organ dysfunction is required to diagnose sepsis. Given that RAs are likely to use Sepsis-3 as a foundation for denying claims, we must have the statements of your internal medicine, critical care, and other physician committees as to what the definition of sepsis is for clinical and coding validation purposes. When it is documented by a provider without evidence of acute organ dysfunction, this statement can be used to rebut the RA’s denials. These will be handy if we are appealing beyond the first level.

3.Remind the RA that the ICD-10-CM guidelines are part of HIPAA and that coding is based on provider documentation. I’m sure that all of our contracts with private payers state that we will comply with federal laws, such as HIPAA. Given that the 2017 ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines state that we are to assign codes based on provider documentation, and not so much on what the RA thinks, and that Coding Clinic, First Quarter 2014, pp. 16?17, states that "the official guidelines are part of the HIPAA code set standards," we don’t want the RAs to violate HIPAA or our contracts with payers. This may require that our hospital attorneys or compliance officers weigh in, given that RAs have been known to deny codes based on provider documentation and want us to do the same.



Please recognize that this topic is very controversial and that the opinions expressed here are solely my own. I encourage all of us to discuss Sepsis-2, Sepsis-3, SEP-1, the 2017 Official ICD-10-CM Guidelines, and these Coding Clinics with our compliance officers and/or attorneys so that we can best support policies and procedures ensuring complete, precise, and compliant coding of sepsis in light of Sepsis-3. If you have success stories, please share them with me and the editor here at BCCS.


Editor’s note:

This article was part two of a two-part series. You can read part one in BCCS’ October issue. Dr. Kennedy is a general internist and certified coder, specializing in clinical effectiveness, medical informatics, and clinical documentation and coding improvement strategies. Contact him at 615-479-7021 or at Advice given is general. Readers should consult professional counsel for specific legal, ethical, clinical, or coding questions. For any other questions, contact editor Amanda Tyler at Opinions expressed are that of the author and do not necessarily represent HCPro, ACDIS, or any of its subsidiaries. – Briefings on Coding Compliance Strategies

Accountable care units can help streamline communication and reduce length of stay

Accountable care units can help streamline communication and reduce length of stay

Learning objective

At the completion of this educational activity, the learner will be able to:

  • Identify the potential advantages and challenges involved with establishing a hospitalist accountable care unit


Opening the lines of communication between clinicians and specialists to make care more efficient can be a sizable challenge.

At many facilities, hospitalists shuttle from floor to floor to see patients, each time trying to track down the nurse and other professionals working on each case. Information is typically transferred through an inefficient system of pages and phone calls?sometimes taking hours at a time to deliver crucial pieces of information.

Enter the accountable care unit?a new way of configuring care systems that can help to uncoil tangled communication wires between clinicians and support staff to provide care that is more efficient and streamlined.

In this model, hospitalists work with patients in a specified geographical area of the hospital in conjunction with interdisciplinary teams.

Having patients in one area helps make care more efficient, and as one hospital system in New Mexico learned, can also reduce length of stay and increase cost-efficiency.


A push toward regionalization

Regionalization of hospitalist patients is becoming more common today, because of the benefits it’s been shown to bring, says Stefani Daniels, RN, MSNA, ACM, CMAC, founder and managing partner of Phoenix Medical Management in Pompano Beach, Florida. Those benefits include:

  • Improved teamwork, care coordination, and communication
  • Fewer readmissions
  • Improved resource management to lower cost of care
  • Improvements in patient satisfaction
  • Reduction in inefficiencies

"I’m pushing accountable care units at all my hospital clients," says Daniels. But while the will is there in many cases to make the change, it’s not always an easy conversion.

Sometimes these initiatives face pushback from physicians concerned about personnel or scheduling issues.

Other challenges include:

  • The lack of diagnostic diversity that results from having set teams on a unit
  • The challenge of deciding whether teams should be flexible or static
  • Hammering out logistical issues, such as how patients should be triaged and how beds are managed


Despite the challenges these initiatives can face, Presbyterian Medical Group in Albuquerque, New Mexico successfully implemented a unit-based model with multidisciplinary rounds about six years ago, says David J. Yu, MD, MBA, FACP, SFHM, medical director of adult inpatient medicine service for Presbyterian Healthcare Services.

The initiative was prompted by a desire to improve inefficiencies and streamline care. "We basically needed to improve patient flow and communication," says Yu. "But we also realized it was a very large process because it involved almost every department, including case managers, physical therapy, nursing, and ancillary services."

To overcome that daunting multi-departmental challenge, officials enlisted the hospital’s Lean Six Sigma group to help coordinate the project.

Presbyterian sought to trade its outmoded care model for something more efficient; one that would improve communication and eliminate delays related to breakdowns in this area.

The changes began as a unit-based project with multidisciplinary whiteboard rounds, a daily meeting that included the hospitalist, nursing staff, care coordination, physical therapy, and other specialists. They discuss the treatment plan and the goals related to the patient care both for that day and the hospitalization for each patient, he says.

The success of that pilot program led officials to implement the same unit-based model in eight of the medical floors at the hospital.

The payoff for the organization has not only been a huge boost in the efficiency of communication, but reduced length of stay for patients. "We’ve seen significant improvements in the average length of stay. This is not because we’ve reduced therapeutic time, but because we’ve reduced inefficiencies," says Yu. Lag time created by communication gaps has been tightened up, allowing patients to move through the system more quickly and efficiently.

To ensure that these new efficiencies weren’t resulting in quality reductions, Yu says the organization also tracked readmissions, which remained steady, confirming that faster discharges weren’t compromising patient care.


Overcoming obstacles

Presbyterian has managed to overcome many hurdles that can make this model a challenge. Although these changes have been successful, they have not necessarily been quick.

"I think in many cases people are just interested in a quick fix," says Yu. This process has been anything but. More than half a decade in, Yu says the program is still a work in progress and the team is continually looking to make improvements.

The initiative took time because it addressed the underlying structure of the organization and didn’t just make surface changes that can’t be sustained.

"I like to use the analogy of painting a wall. The painting is the easiest part. What takes time is all the prep work getting the surface ready," he says.

Most organizations just want the paint on the wall?they aren’t willing to address work needed to fix the underlying structure. "This really is a foundational project that takes months and years to develop and mature," he says.

This project not only solved many communication problems at the organization, but it also helped to ready the facility for the new era in healthcare ahead?one where revenue is driven by quality, not volume.

Organizations that want to thrive in this new model will need to rethink antiquated processes and systems going forward, he says. Those that don’t may not survive in this model.


Steps to success

For an initiative like this one to be successful, it has to be well designed and have support?both in commitment and in terms of dollars?from upper management.

"A lack of resources is another reason why a lot of these projects fail," says Yu. "The hospital doesn’t want to fund it. If only one department is very excited about the project, it won’t work."

The model involves a major change that requires support from multiple disciplines. "Without the support of leadership it’s not going to succeed," he says.

You also have to give hospital staff members a reason to support it, which may be the biggest challenge.

"It has to successfully answer the question, ‘What’s in it for me?’ " says Yu.

If the changes are onerous and provide little benefit to the people they affect, there’s little incentive for anyone to support it.

"Understand your worker and your project," he says. And overcoming barriers may involve system and even contract changes, he says.

If you can get that support, you can make changes that will improve communication and consequently care at your organization?and help ready it for the changing healthcare landscape of the future. – Case Management Monthly

Updated 2017 ICD-10-CM guidelines come ‘with’ controversial changes

Updated 2017 ICD-10-CM guidelines come ‘with’ controversial changes

by Shannon E. McCall, RHIA, CCS, CCS-P, CPC, CPC-I, CEMC, CRC, CCDS


Just like the lyrics to the popular Gap Band song say, "You dropped a bomb on me… I won’t forget it," there are definitely some changes in the 2017 ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting that some of us may wish the Cooperating Parties will forget were ever mentioned.

Generally, changes to the guidelines are minor and rarely cause the chaos and confusion that will certainly ensue with the most recent release, effective October 1. This release includes some contradictory guidance and downright concerning statements that appear as if no one really thought through the repercussions. These revisions will certainly have an impact not only on code assignment, but also specifically on reimbursement.


The guidelines state:

The classification presumes a causal relationship between the two conditions linked by these terms in the Alphabetic Index or Tabular List. These conditions should be coded as related even in the absence of provider documentation explicitly linking them, unless the documentation clearly states the conditions are unrelated. For conditions not specifically linked by these relational terms in the classification, provider documentation must link the conditions in order to code them as related.


I consider this paragraph the most controversial addition to the guidelines. We’ll look at the impact the guideline has on previous examples relating to conditions such as diabetes mellitus, hypertensive heart disease, and some other conditions.

The guidance most commonly discussed is that for "diabetes with," which was stated in the AHA’s Coding Clinic for ICD-10-CM/PCS, First Quarter 2016, and reconfirmed in the following quarter. To summarize, the AHA guidance stated:

The classification assumes a cause-and-effect relationship between diabetes and certain diseases of the kidneys, nerves, and circulatory system and ANY condition listed under the term "with" in the Alphabetic Index is intended to be interpreted as a related condition/manifestation.


It appears that someone has never looked in the actual ICD-10-CM index file, because all conditions related to diabetes mellitus are indented under the word "with," not just isolated ones as in the ICD-9-CM manual.

Here is the comparison (from the ICD-9-CM index):

Diabetes, diabetic (brittle) (congenital) (familial) (mellitus) (severe) (slight) (without complication) 250.0

Compare to this excerpt from the ICD-10-CM Alphabetic Index:

The most surprising aspect to me in the repeated guidance is the contradiction to not assume a relationship between osteomyelitis and diabetes mellitus, which Coding Clinic originally stated in Fourth Quarter 2013 and reiterated in First Quarter 2016, writing:

ICD-10-CM does not presume a linkage between diabetes and osteomyelitis. The provider will need to document a linkage or relationship between the two conditions before it can be coded as such.


Coders understood back in 2013 to not assume relationships between diabetes and other conditions that coexist in a diabetic patient. But this recent guidance creates more questions than answers. This very specific guidance about osteomyelitis leads me to imagine the scenario of a patient who has a relationship created between osteomyelitis and diabetes mellitus by a provider documenting "osteomyelitis due to diabetes mellitus." What codes would be reported?

The correct answer would be to assign the code for other specified complication (e.g., E11.69) since there is no entry specifically for osteomyelitis under diabetes mellitus. It would be classified to the "other" category per the ICD-10-CM conventions. If we examine this a bit closer, E11.69 is listed under the word "with" in the Alphabetic Index.

So, is it assumed or not? The guidance and guidelines directly contradict each other.

Some have argued that the ICD-9-CM index included a specific entry for diabetes with osteomyelitis, and I agree that the word "osteomyelitis" is there in black and white, but take a look at the code title: 250.8 (other specified manifestation of diabetes mellitus). There wasn’t a specific code in ICD-9-CM that said "diabetes with osteomyelitis," just like there isn’t in ICD-10-CM.

Diabetes, diabetic (brittle) (congenital) (familial) (mellitus) (severe) (slight) (without complication) 250.0

I suggest if the Cooperating Parties truly plan on keeping osteomyelitis separate, there should be a separate entry in the Alphabetic Index where it is not at the second indentation level under the word "with," but is under diabetes as a main term with a singular indentation.

The "with" guidance extends much further than I think the Cooperating Parties have considered. For risk-adjusted plans, the assumption of linking diabetes and other related conditions (acute and/or chronic) without necessitating providers document it will have a direct impact on a patient’s overall risk score.

The risk score uses many factors, but chronic conditions like diabetes mellitus are a key component in determining how much CMS should pay an insurance plan for care for Medicare beneficiaries covered under plans like Medicare Advantage (i.e., Part C). Being able to assume a relationship is a major change and will ultimately have a big impact on spending for any risk-adjusted plan, considering diabetes is such a common condition.

The reason this hasn’t really been considered an issue yet is that Medicare Advantage data is compiled based on the previous year’s diagnosis codes to prospectively estimate spending in the upcoming year.

Therefore, CMS is currently using ICD-9-CM data for encounters through September 30, 2015. Hopefully, this new guidance valid for encounters as of January 1, 2016, will be considered a factor, because patients with diabetic complications are certain to increase.

If the word "with" couldn’t get any more controversial, it ventured out of the endocrine system to the very "heart" of every coder’s cardinal rule. We learned, as fledgling coders, to never assume heart disease (like heart failure) is directly related to hypertension unless the provider documents the two conditions as related, like hypertensive heart failure or heart failure due to hypertension.

Well, no more, my friends?this is the dawn of a new age of coding. We can assume away, not only for hypertension and (chronic) kidney involvement, but also for hypertension and heart involvement because they are both indented under the word "with" in the Alphabetic Index.

The revised guideline states (bolding is mine)’:

The classification presumes a causal relationship between hypertension and heart involvement and between hypertension and kidney involvement, as the two conditions are linked by the term "with" in the Alphabetic Index. These conditions should be coded as related even in the absence of provider documentation explicitly linking them, unless the documentation clearly states the conditions are unrelated.


Please notice that the past statement does identify that if the provider specifically states another cause, the conditions should be coded as unrelated.

The larger issue I have with assuming anything under "with" is seen in the ICD-10-CM Alphabetic Index and is yet another direct contradiction to the guidelines. If the guidance regarding "with" is truly universal within the Alphabetic Index, then it implies a relationship for diseases extending beyond just diabetes mellitus and hypertensive heart disease. For example, it seems that coders could begin to assume, based on the guidelines, that patients who have sepsis with a coexistence of organ dysfunction have severe sepsis, even though the guidelines specifically state "an acute organ dysfunction must be associated with the sepsis in order to assign the severe sepsis code."

Who knew that a little word like "with" could cause so many issues?


Excludes1 notes

The guidelines also include an update on reporting Excludes1 conditions. The updated guidelines state:

An exception to the Excludes1 definition is the circumstance when the two conditions are unrelated to each other. If it is not clear whether the two conditions involving an Excludes1 note are related or not, query the provider.


The Excludes1 conventions clarify what was addressed in the interim guidance provided in October 2015 and in the AHA Coding Clinic for ICD-10-CM/PCS, Fourth Quarter 2015, to address situations where Excludes1 notes should be considered Excludes2 or had other exceptions. Category I63 (cerebral infarction) excludes subcategory I69.3- (sequela of cerebral infarction). This guidance directly contradicted the guidelines for Chapter 9, which state: "Codes from category I69 may be assigned on a health care record with codes from I60-I67, if the patient has a current cerebrovascular disease and deficits from an old cerebrovascular disease."

For 2017, subcategory I69.3- has been revised to be included in an Excludes2 note. Exceptions have been added to the guidelines when the exclusion was for a category that may include a number of different conditions, like the "other" category. Some of those inclusive conditions should never be coded with the diagnosis the Excludes1 note appears under, others may be completely unrelated.

This opens the door for a third-party auditor to debate the application of the Excludes1 note if coding the two conditions separately creates a financial impact.


Edito’?s note

McCall is the director of HIM and coding for HCPro, a division of BLR, in Middleton, Massachusetts. She oversees all of the Certified Coder Boot Camp programs. McCall works with hospitals, medical practices, and other healthcare providers on a wide range of coding-related custom education sessions. For more information, see – Briefings on APCs

IV’s and injectable medication

When a patient comes in for IV therapy due to dehydration and they also administer medication (Phenergan) via IV push, would the Normal Saline be considered the first "medication" and therefor you would code the IV PUSH as 96375 for additional meds?

Thank you for any clarification on this matter.

Medical Billing and Coding Forum – Family Practice

ICD10 coding for woman when male infertility is the cause of treatment

Hi all,

I’m hoping for some input on coding ICD10 for a woman receiving fertility treatment – IUI – when the male is infertile. Our providers keep using N46.9 – Male infertility for the woman, but, of course, it rejects as gender mismatch. Would Z31.81 (Encounter for male factor infertility in female patient) be an appropriate billable code for this situation? Any other input?

Medical Billing and Coding Forum – OB/GYN

Allergy Injections Provided in Outpatient Clinic of Hospital

Hi everyone!

Can anyone tell me how an allergy clinic should be handled within the outpatient setting of a critial access hospital? Is it possible to provide allergy injections (allergist outside of organziation sends drug, we are just admin) in an ouptatient setting of the hospital if there isn’t a provider within the suite? How does this work within a CAH?

Thanks for any help that you may be able to provide.


Medical Billing and Coding Forum – Critical Access Hospitals (CAH)