Coder Q&A with Pat Macc: Procedure Coding for a Breast Procedure
RHIA, CDIP, CCS, CCS‑P, CIRCC
Executive Director Of Education
AHIMA‑Approved ICD‑10‑CM/PCS Trainer and Ambassador
A patient was admitted for infected/protruding tissue expander and underwent removal of the tissue expander and capsulectomy. The coder has assigned 0HPT0NZ Removal of Tissue Expander from Right Breast, Open Approach and 0HPT0JZ, Removal of Synthetic Substitute from Right Breast, Open Approach. I’m not sure if the synthetic substitute code is assigned for removal of the ADM? When you run capsulectomy through an encoder you do get 0HPT0NZ but I’m not sure why as the capsule isn’t a synthetic substitute. In any event, is 0HPT0NZ the correct code? I’m thinking instead of removal synthetic substitute from breast, should this be removal from chest wall as there isn’t any breast tissue? Would this be an Excision procedure instead of Removal?
Pre-Op Diagnosis Codes:
* Breast implant protrusion, initial encounter [T85.49XA]
Post-Op Diagnosis Codes:
* Breast implant protrusion, initial encounter [T85.49XA]
BREAST TISSUE EXPANDER REMOVAL,CAPSULECTOMY
Anesthesia: General via LMA, converted to ETT
Findings: Large area of skin loss over exposed ADM/tissue expander. Highly calcified capsule Skin unable to be approximated without tension.
EBL: less than 50 mL
Indications for Procedure: is a 44-year-old female with a history of right-sided breast cancer s/p mastectomy with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy with reconstruction via placement of tissue expanders. They were never replaced with permanent prostheses. She had chemoradiation at that time. Recently, she has been found to have metastatic disease and is undergoing chemotherapy. About 1 week ago, she developed an area of erythema along her right breast. This progressed and she was eventually admitted for IV antibiotics on 5/21. The wound opened up and I was consulted for plastic surgical opinion on 5/25. On my initial exam, there was a large area of skin loss centrally on the breast with exposure of the tissue expander. I discussed at length with the patient and her husband regarding the need for removal of the expander in order to remove source of infection. We discussed risks, benefits, and alternatives including, but not limited to, the following: pain, bleeding, infection, delayed wound healing, and need for further procedures. They understood and wished to proceed. Informed consent was obtained.
Procedure in Detail: The patient was properly identified in the preoperative holding area and the right breast was marked to confirm site and side of procedure. The patient was then taken to the operating room and placed supine on the operating room table. All pressure points were padded. General anesthesia via LMA was then induced. The right breast was then prepped and draped in the usual sterile fashion. Surgical timeout was performed to confirm site and side of procedure.
Attention was turned towards the right breast. Again, a large area of skin loss was noted centrally with what appeared to be remnants of ADM present. Exposed tissue expander was also clearly seen. The ADM and continuous anterior capsule were carefully dissected free from the mastectomy flaps and excised. It was heavily calcified. A portion of this was sent for culture and for pathologic examination. An intact tissue expander was then removed and also sent for pathologic examination. A culture swab was taken of the pocket. The pocket was then copiously irrigated with nearly a liter of warm saline solution. Attempts were made to approximate and close the skin, however there was little elasticity to the skin and the edges were unable to be brought together. The wound was then packed with a saline-moistened kerlix and covered with several ABD pads. Patient was sent to recovery room”
I would code 0HPT0NZ for removal of tissue expander from right breast, open and change 0HPT0JZ, removal of synthetic substitute from right breast, open, for removal of the acellular dermal matrix to 0HPT0KZ, Removal of nonautologous tissue substitute from right breast, open approach.
“Acellular dermal matrices are biologic materials, typically of human, bovine, or porcine origin. This tissue is processed to remove cells as well as any antigenic components to prevent an immune reaction, resulting in a dermal matrix that is composed of proteins such as collagen, elastin, hyaluronic acid, fibronectin, and proteoglycans. This matrix then serves as a scaffold for tissue ingrowth and revascularization by the host following implantation, during a process that can take several weeks” per https://www.nursingcenter.com/cearticle?an=00006527-201507000-00010&Journal_ID=496448&Issue_ID=3183560 With increasing frequency, surgeons are electing to use acellular dermis to assist with tissue expander or implant-based primary breast reconstruction.
I would not use the chest or skin section code here even if the breast had been removed previously. Since the tissue expander is functioning as a “breast” so to speak, it would be coded in the body site of breast for any procedures. Refer also to AHA Coding Clinic for ICD-10-CM/PCS, Third Quarter 2018: Page 13. As for the ACM removal, that was placed to help serve as scaffold for tissue ingrowth, and this tissue is essentially acting as “Breast” tissue. For that reason, I would assign the code that is for right breast rather than skin of chest wall, 0HPT0KZ as stated above. Although in AHA Coding Clinic Fourth Quarter 2013, page 107, the initial insertion of ACM is not coded, I think that since the surgeon is having to remove the ADM remnants, that code 0HPT0KZ is warranted. I also think this code would include any calcified areas removed attached to the ADM.
We know that every case is unique. The above post is simply our opinion based on the information we have received. We encourage readers to research subsequent official guidance in the areas associated with this topic as they can change rapidly.
The Circulatory chapter is one that is identified every year as having a large number of coding changes. Many of these changes are related to documentation providing more specificity and, in some cases, less specificity than the codes reported. Below we will discuss some of the areas of opportunity in this chapter.
In 2019, we reviewed over 50,000 diagnosis codes from many different specialties for our Professional Fee clients. Here are the top three ICD-10-CM chapters where HIA identified coding opportunities: Z00-Z99 – Factors influencing health status and contact with health services; I00-I99 – Circulatory system and; R00-R99 – Symptoms, signs and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings, not elsewhere classified.
This is Part 5 of a five part series on the new 2020 CPT codes. For the remaining areas we will just briefly summarize the section. Due to the intricate nature of these sections in CPT, it is recommended that the coder read the entire section notes associated with the new codes.
This is Part 4 of a five part series on the new 2020 CPT codes. In this series we will explore the CPT changes for FY 2020 and include examples to help the coder understand the new codes. There is 3 new digestive system codes with 1 deletion and 2 revised; 1 revised urinary system codes with new category III codes; 6 new with 20 deleted nervous system codes with 3 revisions; 2 new eye codes with 3 revisions; and finally a new category III auditory code.
This is Part 3 of a five part series on the new 2020 CPT codes. In this series we will explore the CPT changes for FY2019 and include examples to help the coder understand the new codes. There are 11 new cardiovascular CPT codes added with 8 deletions and 2 revisions.
This is Part 2 of a five part series on the new 2020 CPT codes. In this series we will explore the CPT changes for FY2020 and include some examples to help the coder understand the new codes. There are 11 new musculoskeletal CPT codes added with 1 deletion and 0 revisions.
This is Part 1 of a five part series on the new 2020 CPT codes. In this series we will explore the CPT changes for FY2020 and include examples to help the coder understand the new codes. For 2020 in general, there were 248 new CPT codes added, 71 deleted and 75 revised.
This is Part 6 of a 6-part series focusing on CPT coding of breast procedures. There are many different types of breast reconstruction procedures, each having potential stumbling-blocks for coders. Part 6 focuses on revision of a reconstructed breast.
This is Part 5 of a 6-part series focusing on CPT coding of breast procedures. There are many different types of breast procedures, each having potential stumbling-blocks for coders. This series will address several of the more confusing topics. Part 5 focuses on the coding of different types of autologous tissue breast reconstruction procedures.
Part 4: CPT Breast Education Series | Use of Acellular Dermal Matrix with Breast Implant Reconstruction
This is Part 4 of a 6-part series focusing on CPT coding of reconstructive procedures following mastectomy. There are many different types of breast reconstruction procedures, each having potential stumbling-blocks for coders. Part 4 focuses on the use of acellular dermal matrix with breast implant reconstruction.
Part 3: CPT Breast Education Series | Immediate Versus Delayed Permanent Breast Implant Reconstruction
This is Part 3 of a 6-part series focusing on CPT coding of breast procedures. There are many different types of breast procedures, each having potential stumbling-blocks for coders. This series will address several of the more confusing topics. Part 3 focuses on the difference between immediate and delayed permanent breast implant reconstruction.
This is Part 2 of a 6-part series focusing on CPT coding of breast procedures. There are many different types of breast reconstruction procedures, each having potential stumbling-blocks for coders. This series will address several of the more confusing topics. Part 2 focuses on the use of tissue expanders in breast reconstruction.
With the implementation of ICD-10-PCS the description of codes became much more detailed to describe exactly what is being performed. Cardiac catheterization is one of the descriptions that changed to further detail exactly what is being performed during the procedure.
This is Part 1 of a 6-part series focusing on CPT coding of reconstructive procedures following mastectomy. There are many different types of breast reconstruction procedures, each having potential stumbling-blocks for coders. Part 1 is an overview of the types of breast reconstruction techniques commonly used. Future topics in this series will go into more detail of each technique and the CPT coding implications.
With Christmas fast-approaching, we’re making a list of our favorite holiday movies and checking it twice. And in the spirit of good humor and cheer, we’ve added some ICD-10 codes to these holiday classics. Have a safe, happy, and healthy holiday everyone!
“Lobar” pneumonia references a form of pneumonia that affects a specific lobe or lobes of the lung. This is a bacterial pneumonia and is most commonly community acquired. Antibiotics are almost always necessary to clear this type of pneumonia.
Why are so many sepsis records denied? It’s hard to say why there seem to be so many sepsis denials of late, but most likely this is due to the multiple sets of criteria for the diagnosis of sepsis, change in definition of sepsis, as well as physician documentation.
In Parts 1, 2 and 3 we learned about what sepsis is, sequencing of sepsis and what documentation is needed to report severe sepsis. In Part 4, we will look at clinical indicators needed to clinically support the diagnosis of sepsis and determine if a query is indicated.
Severe sepsis occurs when sepsis progresses and signs of organ dysfunction/failure develop. One site stated that approximately 30% of patients with severe sepsis do not survive. Patients may develop one organ dysfunction/failure, multi-system organ failure and/or septic shock.
In Part 2 of our Sepsis Series, we are going to focus on sequencing of sepsis when the diagnosis is clearly documented. Later in the series we will look at what to do when the diagnosis is not clearly documented.
In this series, we will learn what sepsis is or causes of sepsis, how to sequence the diagnosis in ICD-10-CM, what are the clinical indicators for sepsis, is a query necessary before reporting the diagnosis of sepsis, and how to prevent denials on sepsis records.
In the previous three parts of this four part series, we discussed the new ICD-10-CM diagnosis code changes, ICD-10-PCS procedure code changes and FY2020 IPPS changes. In this last Part 4 of the series, we will review the NTAP procedure codes and reimbursement add-on payments for FY2020.
In the previous two parts of this four part series, we discussed the new ICD-10-CM diagnosis code changes and ICD-10-PC procedure code changes. In this session we will review the major IPPS changes for FY2020. On August 2, 2019, CMS published the Final Rule for IPPS (CMS-1716) FY2020 IPPS Final Rule.
This is Part 1 of a 4 part series on the FY2020 changes to ICD-10 and the IPPS. In this part, we discuss some of the new ICD-10-CM diagnosis changes. There are 72,184 total ICD-10-CM codes for FY2020.
We have finished with the step-by-step coding tidbits on coding of spinal fusions. If you were not able to catch Parts 1-13 of this series focused on spinal fusions, please visit hiacode.com/topics/series/spinal-fusion-coding/.
In Part 12, we focused on intra-operative peripheral neuro monitoring used during spinal fusion surgery. In Part 13, we are going to focus on harvesting of autograft and is it coded. Remember in Part 6, we learned that autograft is bone from the patient.
In Part 11, we focused on identifying the computer assisted navigation used during spinal fusion surgery. In Part 12, we are going to focus on intra-operative peripheral neuro monitoring.
In Part 10, we focused on identifying whether or not hardware from a previous spinal fusion is coded. In Part 11, we are going to discuss computer assisted navigation.
In Part 9, we focused on identifying if decompression was also performed and if so, on which body part. In Part 10, we are going to focus on identifying if hardware was removed from a previous fusion site.