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 question asked in a physician query may be the most important element of the document. Query questions need to be as simple and concise as possible. The physician should have no doubt what the coder is asking.
Coding complications of transplanted organs has always been a coding dilemma. With the implementation of ICD-10-CM that didn’t change. However, coders have multiple directives to help in determining what a complication of the transplant is vs. non-transplant conditions and diseases.
We interviewed our most productive coders, reviewers and members of our education team, asking them what steps they take to find a rhythm that works for them. This week, we talked with Beth Martilik, MA, RHIA, CDIP, CCS, Assistant Director of Education, about the steps she takes to find her routine.
With the implementation of ICD-10-CM came more codes for reporting many different conditions and diseases, and atrial fibrillation is one of those. For many years there was only one code available for reporting this condition, even when the physician further specified the type of atrial fibrillation that the patient had. In ICD-10-CM, there are four codes to report atrial fibrillation.
We have a case where the physician removes mucoid casts found during bronchoscopy. We have also seen mucus plugs removed during bronchoscopy. The MD performs bronchial washings then removes a large amount of tenacious and thick mucoid casts via bronchoscopy. Is this coded drainage, extirpation or excision? What body part is used?
The key to making the query process more efficient is to look for words or documentation while reviewing the record that may signal a potential query opportunity and to note the finding at that time. By the time a coder reaches the end of a record, documentation may have been found to eliminate the need for the query.
Question: This patient is noted to have “Lymphangitic carcinomatosis of lungs with mediastinal lymph nodes.” How would I code the diagnosis? Would I code metastatic cancer to the lung (C78.01) or metastatic cancer to the lymph nodes (C77.1)?
Coding these can be challenging for coders when trying to decipher the operative notes and terms that are used. The physicians are still using the terms excision and resection interchangeably and review of the entire operative note is required to select the appropriate root operation. Remember, it is the coder’s responsibility to determine the root operation based on the details from the physician in the operative report.
This would be considered a “mechanical” complication of the stent graft since the MD states it is a fracture of the endograft and it is folded over on itself. I would change T82.898A TO T82.598A for Other mechanical complication of other cardiac and vascular devices and implants, initial encounter. I did not use “displacement” because the surgeon did not state that the graft was displaced, only that it collapsed upon itself causing obstruction.
We interviewed our most productive coders and reviewers, asking them what steps they take to find a rhythm that works for them. This week, we talked with Valerie Abney, CDIP, RHIT, CCS, about the steps she takes to find her routine.
Osteoporosis alone is responsible for over a million fractures every year. Stress fractures are not as common but they do occur. There are more than 1 million total joint replacements in the U.S. each year, so there was a need to create codes for injuries that occur around or near the prosthesis. These are called “periprosthetic” fractures.
Back in April, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) published a report detailing its findings from a review of two groups of high-risk diagnosis codes, acute stroke and major depressive disorder. The objective was to determine whether selected diagnosis codes submitted to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for use in CMS’s risk adjustment program complied with Federal requirements.
There seems to be differences of opinions on the issue of a 40w0day gestation Can you clarify if P08.21 should be assigned for 40w0day infant or if it would not be assigned unless the infant’s gestation age was 40w1day or greater?
Coders may find situations where a patient is documented as meeting SIRS or sepsis criteria, or has some clinical indicators reflective of possible sepsis, but the physician never documents sepsis as a diagnosis. Should the coder always query for sepsis in these instances?
In this example, would it be appropriate to code the complication code T82.03XA, Leakage of heart valve prosthesis, initial encounter as the principal diagnosis over the HFpEF (heart failure exacerbation) code?
We interviewed our most productive coders and reviewers, asking them what steps they take to find a rhythm that works for them. This week, we talked with Kerry Atkins, CDIP, CCS‑P, COC, CPC, CPCO, CPMA, CEMC, COBGC, RMB, Physician Services Consultant at HIA, about the steps she takes to find her routine.
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.
With the implementation of ICD-10-PCS more codes were developed in order to accurately report procedures. Spinal fusion coding is still a problematic coding issue and at times, even a coder’s nightmare. Coders often report only the code for the fusion thinking that one code would include all of the other procedures that are performed.
There are certain conditions that have instructional notes in the ICD-10-CM tabular/coding conventions that guide the coder in sequencing. This is especially true when the condition has a common manifestation or underlying conditions of a chronic disease. If there is a “code first” note in the tabular, the coder should follow this instruction and sequence the underlying etiology or chronic condition first followed by the manifestation as an additional diagnosis.
When it comes to coding and documentation, finding your own rhythm can lead to positive results. For our series, Find Your Routine, we interviewed our most productive coders and reviewers and asked them what steps they take to find a rhythm that works for them. This week, we talked with Meghan Schumacher, CPC, CPMA, Provider Coding Consultant at Health Information Associates, Inc., about the steps she takes to find her routine.
Last year, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) performed an investigation that found, “between 2014 and 2016, Medicare Advantage organizations overturned 75% of their preauthorization and payment denials upon appeal,” which is why, at HIA, we always advise our clients to engage in the appeals process.
There may be instances where a coder will suspect the patient has acute kidney injury (AKI), but the physician has failed to document the diagnosis. In another scenario, the physician may have made the diagnosis, but there is a question of clinical validity. In either case, a query would be justified.
Changes to CC/MCC designations included in the proposal could have a potentially dramatic effect on casemix. The presence of a major complication or comorbidity (MCC) or complication or comorbidity (CC) generally is representative of a patient that requires more resources.
The reimbursement landscape is already a complicated one – and the highly-complex claims denials process only adds fuel to the fire. A denied claim is one that has been determined by a payor to be in appropriate. Once a coding specialist amends the errors on a rejected claim, they can resubmit it for consideration. The time-intensive process has a significant impact on the cash flow for any setting in the healthcare environment. They are also very costly to appeal.
When a practitioner documents a diagnosis that does not appear to be supported by the clinical indicators in the health record, a coder has four choices: (1) Code the diagnosis; (2) Ignore the diagnosis; (3) Generate a query to confirm clinical validation of a diagnosis; (4) Follow the facility’s escalation policy for clinical validation.
A California-based healthcare services provider and several of its affiliates have agreed to pay $30 million to resolve allegations they submitted inaccurate information about the health status of beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Advantage Plans, according to the Department of Justice.
Happy National Volunteer Week! This week we celebrate the impact volunteer work has on building stronger communities. We know that our staff have a positive impact while they’re on the job, and we are proud to share a few ways our #PeopleBehindTheNumbers are taking time to volunteer in their own local communities.
Scrutiny of coding compliance in the growing ambulatory surgical center (ASC) market has increased in recent years from both Medicare and private payers. This will only increase as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) moves towards value-based care.
Patients being admitted for acute renal failure due to dehydration have been happening for many, many years now. Typically what happens is a patient gets dehydrated for one reason or another. Once dehydration sets in, it can quickly start to affect many body organs. This can lead to acute renal/kidney failure/injury.