Choose your specialty from the list below to see how our experts have tackled a wide range of client questions.
Looking for something specific? Utilize our search feature by typing in a key word!
Tongue Lesion
My physician coded a glossectomy but the documentation in the operative report indicated that a tongue lesion was removed. He wants to code 41120 for the glossectomy. I don’t think this meets the definition of a Glossectomy since there was no mention in the operative report that a portion of the tongue was removed.
Question:
My physician coded a glossectomy but the documentation in the operative report indicated that a tongue lesion was removed. He wants to code 41120 for the glossectomy. I don’t think this meets the definition of a Glossectomy since there was no mention in the operative report that a portion of the tongue was removed.
Answer:
Glossectomy codes require removal of a portion of the tongue, not just the lesion. If your physician is removing a lesion on the tongue, you should report CPT code(s) 41110-41114. When reporting a glossectomy, documentation must include what portion and how much of the tongue was removed. Also be sure to document tongue tissue removal and not just the lesion removal.
*This response is based on the best information available as of 2/13/25.
Extruded Tympanostomy Tube
My surgeon removed an extruded tympanostomy tube from a patient’s left ear under general anesthesia. She wants to code this as 69424-LT for removing the tube. Can you clarify if this is the correct code?
Question:
My surgeon removed an extruded tympanostomy tube from a patient’s left ear under general anesthesia. She wants to code this as 69424-LT for removing the tube. Can you clarify if this is the correct code?
Answer:
Since the tube has moved from its original intended position and no longer serves the intended purpose, it is considered a foreign body. The correct code to report is 69205 (Removal foreign body from external auditory canal; with general anesthesia).
Please review the CPT definition of a Foreign Body versus Implant
CPT Surgery Guidelines for “Foreign Body/Implant Definition.”
“An object intentionally placed by a physician or other qualified heal care professional for any purpose (eg, diagnostic or therapeutic) is considered an implant. An object that is unintentionally placed (eg, trauma or ingestion) is considered a foreign body. If an implant (or part thereof) has moved from its original position or is structurally broken and no longer serves its intended purpose or presents a hazard to the patient, it qualifies as a foreign body for coding purposes unless CPT coding instructions direct otherwise or a specific CPT code exists to describe the removal of that broken/moved implant.”
*This response is based on the best information available as of 1/30/25.
Swimmer’s Ear
I am new to ENT coding and am not certain what code I would use. The physician placed an oto-wick in the left ear using the microscope on a patient with swimmer’s ear. Do I just report the microscope code 69990 or do I use a different CPT code?
Question:
I am new to ENT coding and am not certain what code I should use. The physician placed an oto-wick in the left ear using the microscope on a patient with swimmer’s ear. Do I just report the microscope code 69990 or do I use a different CPT code?
Answer:
There is no specific CPT code for ear wick insertion. Ear wick insertion is considered a component of the evaluation and management (E/M) service. If the physician uses the microscope you may report CPT 92504 (Binocular microscopy) in addition to the E/M service.
*This response is based on the best information available as of 1/16/25.
Modifier 80 vs 82
What is the difference between modifier 80 and modifier 82 when a physician is acting as an assistant during surgery?
Question:
What is the difference between modifier 80 and modifier 82 when a physician is acting as an assistant during surgery?
Answer:
While both modifier 80 and modifier 82 are used when a physician is actively participating as an assistant to a primary surgeon during a surgical procedure, modifier 82 is used in teaching or university hospitals that have approved Graduate Medical Education (GME) programs for Residents. In these teaching hospitals, there must be documentation indicating that no qualified resident was available to assist, to allow for another physician to act as the assistant surgeon, and then modifier 82 is appended to that assistant surgeon.
*This response is based on the best information available as of 1/2/25.
Ear Hairs
Ear hair(s) are not considered foreign bodies as they are a natural protectant to the inner ear and function to work with earwax to keep the canal clean and debris away from the eardrum.
Question:
If a patient comes in with ear pain due to loose ear hairs in the ear and the provider removes the hairs with alligator forceps, can it be billed as a foreign body removal?
Answer:
Ear hair(s) are not considered foreign bodies as they are a natural protectant to the inner ear and function to work with earwax to keep the canal clean and debris away from the eardrum.
As such, even though the hair is loose or dislodged, there is not a reportable CPT code for this. The work for removing the hairs is Included in the work for the E/M service, assuming there was a medical necessity for an E/M service (e.g., evaluation of ear pain).
*This response is based on the best information available as of 12/19/24.
“Incident-to” vs “Direct” Billing
Our Nurse Practitioner saw a new patient (Medicare) in the office for evaluation of sinus complaints. He developed the plan of care. The patient was scheduled to follow up with the Nurse Practitioner. The patient returned to the Nurse Practitioner for a return visit with the same problem and no changes in the plan of care. Can he bill this “Incident to” the physician since it is an established patient with an established plan of care and the physician was in the office?
Question:
Our nurse practitioner saw a new patient (Medicare) in the office to evaluate sinus complaints. The nurse practitioner developed the plan of care. The patient was scheduled to follow up with the Nurse Practitioner. The patient returned to the nurse practitioner for a return visit with the same problem, and there were no changes in the plan of care. Can the NP bill this “Incident to” the physician since it is an established patient with an established plan of care and the physician was in the office?
Answer:
This is a great question. While the second visit is for an established patient with no change in the care plan, the nurse practitioner must still bill it as “direct.” To move this to an “Incident-to” encounter, there must be an independent encounter with the physician develops the plan of care.
*This response is based on the best information available as of 12/5/24.