Advertisement

Thoughts on Coding and Reimbursement

  • Adefolakemi Babatunde
  • Pamela K. WoodardEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Contemporary Medical Imaging book series (CMI)

Abstract

Accurate Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) (American Medical Association Current Procedural Technology Professional Edition; 2013) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD) coding ([cited 2018 October 30]; Available from: http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/ ) along with documentation within the report are critical parts of the reporting and billing processes. Errors in coding ultimately lead to denial of claims from Medicaid and Medicare and insurance payers. CPT codes provide third-party payers with information about the procedure that was performed, while ICD codes provide them with the indication for the procedure.

Keywords

Current procedural terminology for cardiac imaging International Classification of Diseases (ICD) coding for cardiac imaging Cardiac CT coding and reimbursement Coding and reimbursement for cardiac CT ICD coding for cardiac CT 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    American Medical Association Current Procedural Technology Professional Edition; 2013.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    International Classification of Diseases (ICD), 11th Revision (ICD-11) [Cited 2018 October 30]. Available from: http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/
  3. 3.
    Wolk MJ, Bailey SR, Doherty JU, Douglas PS, Hendel RC, Kramer CM, et al. ACCF/AHA/ASE/ASNC/HFSA/HRS/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2013 multimodality appropriate use criteria for the detection and risk assessment of stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(4):380–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Agatston AS, Janowitz WR, Hildner FJ, Zusmer NR, Viamonte M Jr, Detrano R. Quantification of coronary artery calcium using ultrafast computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1990;15(4):827–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hecht HS. Coronary artery calcium scanning: past, present, and future. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2015;8(5):579–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kopp AF, Ohnesorge B, Becker C, Schroder S, Heuschmid M, Kuttner A, et al. Reproducibility and accuracy of coronary calcium measurements with multi-detector row versus electron-beam CT. Radiology. 2002;225(1):113–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hoffmann U, Truong QA, Schoenfeld DA, Chou ET, Woodard PK, Nagurney JT, et al. Coronary CT angiography versus standard evaluation in acute chest pain. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(4):299–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Litt HI, Gatsonis C, Snyder B, Singh H, Miller CD, Entrikin DW, et al. CT angiography for safe discharge of patients with possible acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(15):1393–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hoffmann U, Bamberg F, Chae CU, Nichols JH, Rogers IS, Seneviratne SK, et al. Coronary computed tomography angiography for early triage of patients with acute chest pain: the ROMICAT (Rule Out Myocardial Infarction using Computer Assisted Tomography) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53(18):1642–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Douglas PS, Hoffmann U, Patel MR, Mark DB, Al-Khalidi HR, Cavanaugh B, et al. Outcomes of anatomical versus functional testing for coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(14):1291–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stillman AE, Gatsonis C, Lima JA, Black WC, Cormack J, Gareen I, et al. Rationale and design of the Randomized Evaluation of patients with Stable angina Comparing Utilization of noninvasive Examinations (RESCUE) trial. Am Heart J. 2016;179:19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boden WE, O’Rourke RA, Teo KK, Hartigan PM, Maron DJ, Kostuk WJ, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(15):1503–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sellers MB, Newby LK. Atrial fibrillation, anticoagulation, fall risk, and outcomes in elderly patients. Am Heart J. 2011;161(2):241–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Friedman PA, Asirvatham SJ, Grice S, Glikson M, Munger TM, Rea RF, et al. Noncontact mapping to guide ablation of right ventricular outflow tract tachycardia. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;39(11):1808–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cronin P, Sneider MB, Kazerooni EA, Kelly AM, Scharf C, Oral H, et al. MDCT of the left atrium and pulmonary veins in planning radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation: a how-to guide. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183(3):767–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nishimura RA, Otto C. 2014 ACC/AHA valve guidelines: earlier intervention for chronic mitral regurgitation. Heart. 2014;100(12):905–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Khan S. Long-term outcomes with mechanical and tissue valves. J Heart Valve Dis. 2002;11(Suppl 1):S8–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hammermeister K, Sethi GK, Henderson WG, Grover FL, Oprian C, Rahimtoola SH. Outcomes 15 years after valve replacement with a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve: final report of the veterans affairs randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36(4):1152–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grunkemeier GL, Li HH, Naftel DC, Starr A, Rahimtoola SH. Long-term performance of heart valve prostheses. Curr Probl Cardiol. 2000;25(2):73–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cannegieter SC, Rosendaal FR, Briet E. Thromboembolic and bleeding complications in patients with mechanical heart valve prostheses. Circulation. 1994;89(2):635–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Symersky P, Budde RP, Prokop M, de Mol BA. Multidetector-row computed tomography imaging characteristics of mechanical prosthetic valves. J Heart Valve Dis. 2011;20(2):216–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Konen E, Goitein O, Feinberg MS, Eshet Y, Raanani E, Rimon U, et al. The role of ECG-gated MDCT in the evaluation of aortic and mitral mechanical valves: initial experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(1):26–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Habets J, Symersky P, van Herwerden LA, de Mol BA, Spijkerboer AM, Mali WP, et al. Prosthetic heart valve assessment with multidetector-row CT: imaging characteristics of 91 valves in 83 patients. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(7):1390–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Habets J, Mali WP, Budde RP. Multidetector CT angiography in evaluation of prosthetic heart valve dysfunction. Radiographics Rev Publ Radiological Soc North Am Inc. 2012;32(7):1893–905.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Litmanovich DE, Ghersin E, Burke DA, Popma J, Shahrzad M, Bankier AA. Imaging in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR): role of the radiologist. Insights Imaging. 2014;5(1):123–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Blanke P, Schoepf UJ, Leipsic JA. CT in transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Radiology. 2013;269(3):650–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cardiovascular Division, Department of MedicineWashington University School of MedicineSt. LouisUSA
  2. 2.Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of MedicineSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations