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.
This is Part 5 of a five part series on the new 2021 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 2021 CPT codes. In this series we will explore the CPT changes in the urinary, nervous, ocular and auditory systems. There are 2 new urinary/male reproductive system codes with no revisions or deletions; 3 new female reproductive codes with 2 deletions, 0 new with 4 deleted nervous system codes with 5 revisions; 5 new eye category III codes; and finally a 2 new auditory codes with one deletion.
This is Part 3 of a five part series on the new 2021 CPT codes. In this series we will explore the cardiovascular system CPT changes. There are 5 new cardiovascular CPT codes added with 0 deletions and 4 revisions.
This is Part 2 of a five part series on the new 2021 CPT codes. In this series we will explore the CPT changes for FY2021 and include some examples to help the coder understand the new codes. There are 0 new musculoskeletal CPT codes added with 0 deletions and 2 major revisions along with an extensive update to arthroscopic loose body removal requirements. For the respiratory system, there were 2 new codes, one code deletion and no revisions.
This is Part 1 of a five part series on the new 2021 CPT codes. In this series we will explore the CPT changes for FY2021 and include examples to help the coder understand the new codes. For 2021 in general, there were 199 new CPT codes added, 54 deleted and 69 revised.
In January, new CPT codes were released. There were 248 new CPT codes added, 71 deleted and 75 revised. Most of the surgery section changes were in the musculoskeletal and cardiovascular subsections. These included procedures such as skin grafting, breast biopsies, deep drug delivery systems, tricuspid valve repairs, aortic grafts and repair of iliac artery.
We have seen many updates and changes to COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) since the pandemic started. On January 1, 2021 we will see even more changes as outlined in this post. Also the CMS MS-DRG grouper will be updated to version 38.1 to accommodate the changes.
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 FY2021 IPPS changes. In this last Part 4 of the series, we will review the NTAP procedure codes and reimbursement add-on payments for FY2021.
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 FY2021.
This is Part 2 of a 4 part series on the FY2021 ICD-10 Code and IPPS changes. In this part, the ICD-10-PCS procedure codes are presented. For FY2021 ICD-10-PCS there are 78,115 total codes (FY2020 total was 77,571); 556 new codes (734 new last year in FY2020)…
This is Part 1 of a 4 part series on the FY2021 changes to ICD-10 and the IPPS. In this part, we discuss some of the new ICD-10-CM diagnosis changes. Here is the breakdown: 72,616 total ICD-10-CM codes for FY2021; 490 new codes (2020 had 273 new codes); 58 deleted codes (2020 had 21 deleted codes); 47 revised codes (2020 had 30 revised codes)
Acute pulmonary edema is the rapid accumulation of fluid within the tissue and space around the air sacs of the lung (lung interstitium). When this fluid collects in the air sacs in the lungs it is difficult to breathe. Acute pulmonary edema occurs suddenly and is life threatening.
“Client S” is a small, not-for-profit, 40 bed micro-hospital in the Southeast. HIA performed a 65-record review this year for Client S and found an opportunity with 15 of them. 9 had an increased reimbursement with a total of $43,228 found.
The coma scale codes (R40.2-) can be used in conjunction with traumatic brain injury codes, acute cerebrovascular disease or sequelae of cerebrovascular disease codes. These codes are primarily for use by trauma registries, but they may be used in any setting where this information is collected. The coma scale may also be used to assess the status of the central nervous system for other non-trauma conditions, such as monitoring patients in the intensive care unit regardless of medical condition.
In the past, there had been an Excludes1 note at I46.- Cardiac arrest that excluded R57.0, Cardiac shock. HIA had also received a letter from AHA on a case in the past that had stated that only I46.- Cardiac arrest would be coded if both were documented. In addition, the Third Quarter Coding Clinic page 26 had a similar case that asked if both could be coded, and AHA had instructed that only I46.9, cardiac arrest, cause unspecified would be coded if both were documented and that the CDC would be looking at possible revision to the Excludes1 note.
A higher CMI corresponds to increased consumption of resources and increased cost of patient care, resulting in increased reimbursement to the facility from government and private payers, like CMS. We know that documentation directly impacts coding.
Lately we have seen several cases where the endarterectomy was assigned along with the coronary artery bypass (CABG) procedure when being performed on the same vessel to facilitate the CABG. A coronary artery endarterectomy is not always performed during a CABG procedure, so when it is performed it becomes confusing as to whether to code it separately or not.
Assign code Z20.828, “Contact with and (suspected) exposure to other viral communicable diseases” for all patients who are tested for COVID-19 and the results are negative, regardless of symptoms, no symptoms, exposure or not as we are in a pandemic.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced new procedure codes for treatments of COVID-19 – effective as of August 1, 2020. Among the new codes are Section X New Technology codes for the introduction or infusion of therapeutics including Remdesivir, Sarilumab, Tocilizumab, transfusion of convalescent plasma, as well as introduction of any other or new therapeutic substances for the treatment of COVID-19.
One common element in many value-based programs is risk adjustment using Hierarchical Condition Categories (HCCs) to create a Risk Adjustment Factor (RAF) score. This method ranks diagnoses into categories that represent conditions with similar cost patterns.
Why are so many AKI records being denied? It’s hard to give one answer for why so many AKI records are being denied lately, but most appear to be due to the multiple sets of criteria available for use in determining if a patient has AKI, as well as physician documentation. As stated in Part 3 of this series, there are three main criteria/classifications used to diagnose AKI.
In previous parts of this series we looked at the definitions of AKI/ARF, causes, coding and sequencing, and the common clinical indicators that patients present with that are diagnosed with this condition. In Part 4, we will look at the documentation that should be present to report the diagnosis without fear of denial, as well as when a query is needed to clarify the diagnosis.
If the facility does a COVID-19 test, and test is negative, do I need a diagnosis code. The answer is yes, you will report a Z-code. The Z-code depends on the record documentation and circumstances of testing. For any patient receiving a COVID-19 test, if negative, there MUST e a Z-code to describe why the test was taken. (Test negative for COVID-19 and MD does not override negative results).
The FY2021 IPPS Proposed Rule is out and here are some highlights from it regarding ICD-10 Code proposals. We will know if these changes are permanent after the public comment period is over on July 10, 2020 and CMS prepares the Final Rule, usually out by August 1.
As discussed in Part 1 of this series, AKI/ARF is a common diagnosis that coders see daily. In Part 2, we are going to focus on the different types/specificity of AKI/ARF. We’ll learn what they mean, as well as how to code the diagnosis.
This is part 1 in a series focused on coding of acute kidney injury (AKI) and/or acute renal failure (ARF). AKI/ARF is reported often, but is also one of the most common diagnosis found in denials.
With the proliferation of COVID-19 cases, we thought we would put together a quick reference listing of some of the common scenarios that coders have asked about. As with all coding, coders should follow Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting and the COVD-19 Frequently Asked Questions document by the AHA.
Effective March 1, Medicare will pay physicians for telehealth services at the same rate as in-person visits for all diagnoses, not just services related to COVID-19. This great for providers whose patients are reluctant to visit the office.
The biggest reasons why some hospital systems are moving to single path coding is to eliminate duplicative processes and to optimize productivity. In addition, costs are reduced when only one coder “touches” the record and completes both types of coding.