


|
|
|
|
Search
07/29/2002 David Davidson, DPM
Codes Bundled to CPT 28299
Query: Codes Bundled to CPT 28299 From: David Davidson, DPM
I billed a first metatarsal base osteotomy with an Akin bunionectomy as CPT 28298 (correction, hallux valgus - bunion - with or without sesamoidectomy; by phalanx osteotomy) and CPT 28306 (osteotomy, with or without lengthening, shortening or angular correction, metatarsal; first metatarsal).
The insurance company bundled the two codes and paid the procedures as CPT 28299 (correction, hallux valgus - bunion - with or without sesamoidectomy; by double osteotomy).
I asked for a review because I felt that CPT 28299 was for a double osteotomy, as exampled by an Austin bunionectomy and an Akin osteotomy. My codes were for an Akin bunionectomy (distal) and a proximal first metatarsal osteotomy - a more complex procedure. I feel it is important to appeal this decision otherwise it will become "the law of the land" unless it is changed. I need help with my appeal. Does anyone have any thoughts? Thank you.
David Davidson, DPM Buffalo, NY
---------------
Codingline(L) response:
We have had several posted messages regarding the change in the 2002 CPT description of CPT 28299 to "correction, hallux valgus (bunion) with or without sesamoidectomy; by double osteotomy" and exampled by 1) a bunionectomy double osteotomy - proximal and distal - of the first metatarsal and 2) a bunionectomy with distal first metatarsal osteotomy and a proximal hallux phalanx osteotomy.
In your scenario, you performed a hallux valgus (bunion) correction with a double osteotomy - one at the proximal first metatarsal and the second at the proximal hallux phalanx.
The clarification of the "double osteotomy" by example in the 2002 CPT would, in my opinion, include your variation of the "double osteotomy" theme. With the examples (illustrations) given, the "double osteotomy", again, in my opinion, can include any double osteotomy variation bunionectomy on the first ray. Please understand that my opinion changed with the 2002 CPT change.
In terms of complexity, I would probably argue that the relative complexity in performing an "Akin-type" bunionectomy with a first metatarsal base osteotomy is no greater than performing an "Austin-type" bunionectomy with a first metatarsal base osteotomy (CPT 28299).
I believe the payer was correct in their determination, and this would not be worth appealing to the payer. Just my opinion.
Harry Goldsmith, DPM – Codingline(L) Expert
Other messages in this thread:
08/01/2002 Harry Goldsmith, DPM
Codes Bundled to CPT 28299 (Shay Fish, DPM)
RE: Codes Bundled to CPT 28299 (Shay Fish, DPM) From: Harry Goldsmith, DPM
Dr. Fish, it is a FACT that CPT 28299 represents both a bunionectomy with double 1st metatarsal osteotomy (Logroscino-type) and an Austin-Akin type bunionectomy. That is the "law of the [CPT] land". That definition was the result of work by the AMA CPT Editorial Panel with input from the AMA CPT Advisory Committee. While specialty associations have opportunities to supply their opinions on coding matters, their input is not always enough to change the AMA CPT Editorial Panel's decision.
As far as the degree of relative difficulty between performing a 1st metatarsal base-wedge osteotomy versus a proximal hallux phalanx osteotomy, no one will argue that the phalangeal osteotomy is equivalent to a 1st metatarsal proximal osteotomy in terms of work, "real" difficulty, risk, follow-up care...or our individual perceptions of the procedures' value. Ultimately, it is CMS that assigns Medicare value for this codes. And many non-Medicare payers use Medicare values in formulating their fee schedules.
While most of us are not pleased with the CPT 28299 definition equating value of a Logroscino bunionectomy to an Austin-Akin bunionectomy, it is currently the "law of [CPT] land". The only way to change it is to encourage the APMA Coding Committee to submit a request for definition change, or individually submit a request for coding change to the AMA CPT Editorial Panel. Until then you will have to deal with the nonsense.
Harry Goldsmith, DPM Cerritos, CA hgoldsmith@codingline.com
07/31/2002 Shay Fish, DPM
Codes Bundled to CPT 28299 (D. Davidson, DPM, H. Goldsmith, DPM)
RE: Codes Bundled to CPT 28299 (D. Davidson, DPM, H. Goldsmith, DPM) From: Shay Fish, DPM
In regards to Dr. Goldsmith's opinion and remarks on coding 28299 for an Akin and a base wedge osteotomy. I believe this scenario glaringly illustrates some of the nonsense in CPT code definition and RVU determinations. Anyone who has trained residents can tell you that the base wedge osteotomy is not only more difficult to perform, but requires a more lengthy and risky postoperative management period.
Anatomically, the Chevron/Austin osteotomy is not challenged by the proximity of the dorsomedial cutaneus nerve, the deep peroneal nerve or the deep plantar artery to the plantar arterial arch; it does not require maintaining a lateral hinge; it does not typically require templating the amount of medial wedge to me removed; it does not require the extra instrumentation of bone clamping while fixating; it does not require 6 weeks of postoperative casting with all the inherent risks thereof; it does not require more from the patient; the little imperfections are more noticeable in the base wedge and so are the litigious possibilities.
This was the procedure I'd sweat while instructing residents. And for all that additional effort and management one earns just over one additional RVU! I agree with Dr. Davidson. Please help prevent this nonsense from becoming “the law of the land'”
Shay Fish, DPM Springfield, IL FishDPM@aol.com
07/30/2002 Barry Mullen, DPM
Codes Bundled to CPT 28299 (D. Davidson, DPM, H. Goldsmith, DPM)
RE: Codes Bundled to CPT 28299 (D. Davidson, DPM, H. Goldsmith, DPM) From: Barry Mullen, DPM
While the new 2002 CPT version bundles base wedge osteotomies with any 2nd osteotomy on the 1st ray as 1 procedure, I'd be surprised if there's one podiatrist in the world who doesn't think the work, performance & associated complication & morbidity are greater with the proximal-based osteotomies. That increase should ultimately be reflected in the RVU allotment and whomever has assumed negotiating power w/in our profession to try & influence those who set the fees should be pursuing this & the many other discrepancies that continue to exist in the CPT system
Barry Mullen, DPM Hackettstown, NJ YAZY630@aol.com
|
|
|
|
|