CODING Q&A

Modifier 25, Intravitreal Injections, and NCCI Bundles Clinical Applications

INFORMATION PROVIDED BY RIVA LEE ASBELL

This column will focus on clinical applications relating to the use of Modifier 25 associated with intravitreal injections. The most important one is: “The initial evaluation is always included in the allowance for a minor surgical procedure.” Intravitreal injections are classified as minor, not because of a lack of respect for the seriousness of the procedure, but simply as a definition due to the 0-day global period. By having a 0- or 10-day global period, the physician can bill for the office visits and subsequent procedures performed within a reasonably short period of time — in the case of intravitreal injections (0-day global period), even the next day.

USE OF MODIFIER 25

The National Correct Coding Initiative (NCCI) has three modifier-indicators, one of which is appended to every code pair edit. Indicator 1 is used to break the bundle for a sound medical reason. Indicator 0 indicates that the code pair edit can never be broken. Indicator 9 shows the edit has been deleted and is no longer relevant. Just because a methodology to break the code pair edit (bundle) exists does not mean it should be broken.

Modifier 25 is used to break bundles for minor surgical procedures, making the office visit eligible for payment (“Guidelines and Regulations Source Material,” page 14). Modifier 25 has been incorporated into the NCCI edits. However, its use has been necessary since 1999 whenever you wanted to receive payment for the office visit separately from the minor procedure.

For established and new patients, unbundling the office visit from the intravitreal injection is hardly ever warranted unless a different problem or emergent new symptoms occurs in the fellow eye. A new patient does not necessarily mean you are entitled to be reimbursed for the office visit separately.

When the RUC (Relative Value Update Committee) establishes a value for an eye examination, the typical patient is considered to have both eyes examined. An extra practice expense in processing a new patient is irrelevant to the bundling issue.

MEDICAL NECESSITY AND CODE SELECTION

Medicare’s primary dictum is that any service billed must be medically reasonable and necessary, not that it be “good medicine.” Regarding office visits, not only does the service itself have to be medically necessary, so also must the performance of elements within the service for that specific visit.

If you believe you have a medically necessary visit you wish to bill in addition to the intravitreal injection, you must deduct all the history, examination, and medical decision-making that applies to the office visit performed for in the injection; you may only code what remains. This would usually be a level 2 or 3 E/M code or intermediate eye code. Comprehensive eye codes (CPT codes 92004/92014) have the mandatory elements of confrontation visual fields and evaluation of extra-ocular muscle balance. What would be the medical necessity of repeating these elements on a monthly or other short-interval basis, without identifying specific new symptoms warranting the tests?

APPLYING THE CODES IN REAL PATIENT CASES

Wet AMD, established patient

An established patient with wet AMD in both eyes being treated on a “treat and extend” basis returns for OCT. Assessing the OCT results, you then decide that you will give an intravitreal injection in the right eye today, with the patient returning for an injection in the left eye in two weeks. You have examined both eyes during the visit. Should you use modifier 25 to unbundle the office visit, making both the procedure and the visit eligible for payment? No. There is not “enough left over” from the included examination to bill for a separate office visit.

New patient with BRVO

A medical retinal specialist refers a new patient as an emergency after the patient had a recent onset (within the past five days) of BRVO in the right eye. The surgeon administers an intravitreal injection of bevacizumab (Avastin, Genentech, South San Francisco, CA) in the right eye after examining the patient (both eyes). No other significant ocular findings warrant treatment. May you bill for the office visit? The answer is no, as in the above case.

Retinal detachment found

An established patient presents for a scheduled intravitreal injection of ranibizumab (Lucentis, Genentech) in the left eye for wet AMD. The patient complains of flashes and floaters in the right eye, accompanied by decreased vision. You find an inferior retinal detachment. May you bill for the office visit?

Yes, because this is a significantly separate condition that is new to the examiner. Can you bill for the extended ophthalmoscopy on the right eye? Yes, it is definitely warranted, but only for the right eye. Because it is bundled, you will have to use modifier 59 on the extended ophthalmoscopy.

Furthermore, you should use 92225, because this is the initial presentation of this problem.

Tips for using Modifier 25

Medicare’s RUC assigns values to codes, including office visits, based on the examination of both eyes. It assigns values based on examination of a typical patient. The level of visit you choose must be based on what is left over after the examination performed for the problem that involves the procedure. CPT code 67028 already has examination time built into it.

Coding for a new patient does not necessarily warrant billing for the office visit when performed at the same session unless the examination uncovers new symptoms, diagnoses, or problems unrelated to its purpose and the procedure performed, namely the intravitreal injection. RP