Quick CPT Link

I just want to refer anyone who is interested to the blog, Shrink Rap, for 4 quick video tutorials on CPT and E&M coding.
And a shout out to Dinah for mentioning Psych Practice at the end of the last video.
The videos are clear, and Dinah claims they're boring, but they're not because of her fun style.

Abilif-Eyeballs

What's up with the eyeballs in Abilify ads?  Like this one:

Are they supposed to be cute?

A pair of eyeballs following around someone taking an antipsychotic. Seriously?

Oh yeah! This isn't an ad for Abilify the antipsychotic. It's an ad for Abilify the antidepressant augmentation med.

And if you watched through the ad, did you notice that 40 of the 90 seconds are spent describing side effects? Okay, you probably didn't bother to count like I did, but you get the idea.

I do not like drug ads on TV. But why?

Is it because they're a blatant manipulation of lay people by Big Pharma? Well, there is that.

Dammit, if pharmaceutical companies are going to manipulate people, then by golly let those people be doctors so we can get free pens and clipboards out of it.

Did you know that the amount of money pharmaceutical companies spend on advertising is 19 times what they spend on research? Huffington Post Link

One figure I found (click here) is 4.8 Billion dollars spent annually on direct to consumer marketing. That doesn't even include pens.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't hate pharmaceutical companies the way I hate insurance companies. After all, the meds we prescribe have to come from somewhere. And some of them actually work. You can't blame a trillion-dollar conglomerate for tryin' to make a buck. They have  products to offer that actually do some people some good. Unlike insurance companies, which offer a product designed to do as little as possible of the job it was purchased to do (i.e. reimburse).

Plus, drug companies will take you out to dinner every now and then. When was the last time United Healthcare bought you so much as a cookie?

I think it bothers me that the ads are misleading. Depression not improving? Here, this'll fix it.

In a recent study (2012), Fava, et al assessed the efficacy of low-dose aripiprazole added to antidepressant therapy (ADT) in 225 major depressive disorder (MDD) patients with inadequate response to prior ADT.They concluded that low-dose (2-5mg) aripiprazole was well-tolerated, but had only marginal efficacy in augmenting ADT.

The commercial never mentioned that. Nor did it state, or even imply, that abilify's original indication was for psychosis. It's as though, just when you thought antidepressants were inadequate to the task of treating depression, a magical pill appeared and saved everyone.

So they're lying. Or exaggerating. But is this really any worse than advertising candy bars, or laundry detergent, or tires?

I think there's a fine line between empowering people to be active participants in their health care, and convincing them they have greater expertise than they do, which is the real way drug ads mislead. You don't need to know much about candy bars to chose one. And maybe you should do a little research when you're purchasing new tires. But you don't need years of education and hands-on experience to make those decisions.

If I needed my car fixed, I wouldn't go to a mechanic and say, "I know what's wrong with my car and which components you need to fix it." And Google is not the great equalizer people would like it to be.

So watch out for those eyeballs.

Artwork for the Office

Enough already with the E&M coding. It's time for some pretty pictures.

What artwork do psychiatrists have in their offices?

I always wonder what the impact of the artwork is, which has made me very particular about what I choose to put on my walls.

In my first office, which was in the hospital I was working for, I had a painting that I bought from a man in the park across from the hospital. His name is Alan Streets, and here's a link to his site.

This is a painting he did of the Brooklyn Bridge, in the same style:

The one I have is this awesome painting of the buildings on the park across from the hospital, except that everything is just a little crooked, like the one above, and I watched him paint it.

But when I moved to my own office, it seemed a bit too personal (and a little too creepy), to put on my wall. I wanted something brighter, and maybe thought provoking. But not too thought provoking.

Well, I couldn't find anything like that, so then I just bought some nice paper that I happened to like and framed it.

It seemed fairly innocuous, and I still think it looks like balanced stones. My patients commented on it occasionally.

In my current office, I really wanted something special, that I liked looking at. But it couldn't be too personal or showcase my tastes too much. It could be thought provoking for my patients, but not too controversial or "out there". I wanted it to be colorful. I wanted it to be a real "work", but not too valuable, especially since I can't afford anything like that. And I wanted it to not scare anyone.

I had purchased another painting on the street about a year before the Alan Streets one. It was by a man named Ivan Jenson. It's very similar to this one:

I really like it, and I had intended it for my office, but on looking at it, there's something disturbing. Maybe that's what I like about it. But I couldn't see subjecting paranoid patients to it, or even regressed analytic patients on the couch.

I also bought a poster from him, that looks a lot like this, except with bolder strokes and more brown than blue:

This one's called "Bearded Man", and I suspect mine is, too, and that they're not intended to be anyone in particular. A little Van Gogh, a little Stalin when he still had hair. But it was a little too "Freud" for me to be comfortable putting it in my office with my analytic couch. I already feel like something out of a Woody Allen movie.


I thought about going the standard New Yorker route. You know:

Or:

They were just too predictable. And I didn't want anything silly.

I liked the idea of having something New Yorky, though. Ikea has this one:

But it's a bit too Ikea.


I did buy a little 10x8 painting from a young man who was selling his work on Union Square. The poor guy was trying to make rent, and I didn't have much cash on me, so he sold it to me for whatever I had, I think $30. I offered to bring him more money the next day-he was just a kid-but I never saw him again. It's a great painting of the Bushwick Subway Station, slightly impressionistic, in muted blues and purples, like it was raining the day he painted it. But it's tiny, and it sits on my desk. I doubt most of my patients can even see it well.  I don't remember his name or I'd list it, because the kid has talent.

Then what?

I love Charlie Harper

but I thought that would be too specialized.

I think Banksy is great

But he's a little sarcastic.

I'm a huge animation fan

But in my office?

For quite a while, I just left the walls completely blank, other than my diplomas and license registration. Admittedly, there was something soothing about the plain white walls.

Then one day, I was in a store that sells used house stuff, and I saw this up on the wall:

The walls were very high, so I couldn't see it well, and I almost walked away. But I couldn't stop looking at it, and I finally asked the guy to take it down. He wanted $10 for it, and it was already framed, so I figured the frame alone was worth 10 bucks.

I took it home, dusted it off, and looked it up online. It's a poster Frank Stella did for the, obviously, Lincoln Center Festival '67. I don't know if mine's one of the originals, but they sell for $400-$800 online.

This is the one I put on my wall. It's colorful and interesting. It has an intricate graphic pattern and cool lettering (you can't see it in this image, but the background is graph paper). It's cheerful but not silly, and certainly not scary. It's New Yorky, but not in an in-your-face way. And I like it.

Writing this got me thinking about why what decorates the walls of ones office matters. And to whom.

Am I concerned about influencing my patients too much with my tastes? With my self? Am I worried about criticism or ridicule of the things that are important to me? By hiding my aesthetic preferences, do I want to limit my patients' intrusion into my world? Am I trying to get my patients to comment? Or not to comment?

I was thinking that if I really wanted to be non-comital about it, I'd put up a Rothko poster, which doesn't tell you much about what I like. But which one?

And wouldn't my patients just wonder why I picked the pink one rather than the purple?

So what do other shrinks have on their walls? And why? I'd love to hear about it.

I Was Inspired

In my last post, I simplified the leap from 99212 to 99213:

99213 = 6 exam elements and 1 ROS

So I started to wonder if I could have an equally simple mantra for 99214.

Well...not really.

But let me see what I can do.

The problem is that for a 99214 exam, you need 12 elements from 2 or more organ systems. Not gonna happen. So the Exam is not going to help here, which leaves History and MDM.

History:

You need a Detailed History, which includes 4 elements of HPI, 2 ROS systems, and 1 PFSH.

Can I make that easy for myself?

Hx x 4, Psych + 1, and Allergies.

Not so easy.

The good news is that MDM is not that hard. Either 1 worsening condition or 2 stable conditions counts.

So for MDM: 1 worse or 2 same.

And here's the 99214 Montra:

99214 = Hx x 4, Psych + 1, Allergies, 1 worse or 2 same

Not really jingle-worthy, but could be worse. Could be raining.

A Simplified 99213

Okay. I've plowed through figuring out how to E/M code three different notes. And in case you were wondering, I can't remember what to do from one note to the next. I have to keep referring back to my own posts. I imagine after I've done it 100 or so times, I will remember. But the whole process is so meaningless, so devoid of context and content, that I can't retain it.

(I've decided there should be a new way of swearing at people: "Oh yeh!? Well E/M code you!")

I can't do this for every single note I write. I NEED a shortcut.

So here it is:

With few exceptions, all my notes will be either a 99212 or a 99213. On the rare occasion when I think I've spent a lot of time on complicated issues, especially psychopharm, I'll code formally and see if it's worth a 99214.


How to differentiate 99212 from 99213?

Well, since you only need two out of the three key components to meet any level, I'm going to ignore the most convoluted one, MDM, and just focus on History and Exam.

And I absolutely refuse to include another E/M@!3#&%#  Table.

Exam is the easiest. You need at least 6 elements for a 99213.  So my note template should look like this:

General Appearance:
Speech:
Thought Process:
Thought Content:
Associations:
Judgment:
Insight:
Mood/Affect:
Other:

Even in the most Freudian session, I should be able to come up with 6 of these.

Exam? Check!

Now History. You may recall, or not, that a 99212 History is Problem Focussed, and a 99213 History is Extended Problem Focussed.

So what's the difference between a Problem Focussed History and an Extended Problem Focussed History?

1 ROS!

That's it!

Both require a brief HPI, including 1-3 elements,  and no PFSH. So just 1 ROS.

Now I'm really disgusted.


And now that I've uber-simplified things, these are some questions I have:

1. Does insight count as its own exam element?
2. Does writing, "ROS negative for anxiety or depressed mood," constitute a valid ROS?
3. What am I missing?
4. Can I list defenses as "Other" on the exam?
5. Do dreams count as one element of the history?


And once again, to summarize:

99213=6 exam elements and 1 ROS.

Now I need a template I can use. Maybe next post.

E/M Psychoanalysis Note-Tuesday

Here's the second note of the week:


Name: Socrates     DOB: 469 BCE      Date of Service: 11.27.12

Start time: 2:30pm  Stop Time: 3:15pm.  Total Face Time: 45 minutes

CPT: 90836, E/M ?????

CC: F/U for "Self Knowledge"

Interval History: Patient's checking behavior has not worsened. He met with one of his students yesterday, about whom he has had some homosexual fantasies, and had a dream last night in which he was trapped in a cave where he could only see shadows. 

ROS: none

PFSH: The patient works closely with his students.

PME: 

• Speech-Greek
• Thought processes-logical
• Thought Content: Focussed on dream
• Affect: Mildly Anxious
• General Appearance: Wearing toga
• Other: Uses intellectualization and reaction formation as defenses

Dx: Anxiety NOS, consider OCD

Current Meds: none

Labs: Ordered-none; reviewed-none

Allergies: Hemlock

Psychotherapy Note: Interpreted dream in the context of the patient's concerns regarding his homoerotic fantasies.

Plan:

Continue psychoanalysis 4x/week


And here we go again with the coding:

The interval history has, maybe 1 or 2 elements, say associated symptoms (checking), and timing (an implicit "overnight"). In any case, it certainly doesn't have 4 elements, so it's a brief history.

There is no ROS.

And there is one element in PFSH.

So for the level of history,

Level of Hx	HPI	ROS	PFSH
Problem Focussed	Brief	None	None
Extended Problem Focussed	Brief	1 System	None
Detailed	Extended	2 Systems	1

we end up with "problem focussed".

Once again, the Exam has 6 elements.

And for the MDM:

You get 1 problem point for checking, an established, stable problem. 

There are 0 data points.

And the risk is low, for one stable, chronic illness.

Making the MDM straightforward.


In summary, then:

Level of Care	Hx	Exam	MDM
99212	Problem Focussed	1-5	Straightforward
99213	Extended Problem Focussed	>6	Low Complexity
99214	Detailed	12 from 2 or more organ systems	Moderate Complexity
99215	Comprehensive	2 from each of 9 organ systems	High Complexity

This gives us a 99212 E&M code.  

Now, this was interesting as an exercise, but I don't really want to do this kind of careful review for every note I write. It would be easier to keep the note to a minimum and bill as a 99212, which most notes will probably turn out to be, anyway. But then, sometimes, it's possible to eke out a 99213, or even a 99214, and this makes a very real financial difference. 

So is it worth it to comb through every note? I don't know. Thoughts?

E/M Psychoanalysis Note-Monday

In my last post, I included an example of what I think would be a reasonable 99213 note.

But that example is most suitable for psychopharm or psychotherapy of low frequency. I've been trying to figure out what to do for my psychoanalysis patients, who I see 4 times per week.

This is my attempt at 2 such notes for the same patient. I'll include the Monday note in this post, and the Tuesday note in my next post:


Name: Socrates     DOB: 469 BCE      Date of Service: 11.26.12

Start time: 2:30pm  Stop Time: 3:15pm.  Total Face Time: 45 minutes

CPT: 90836, E/M ?????

CC: F/U for "Self Knowledge"

Interval History: The patient expressed conflict over homosexual impulses.  He also c/o increasing obsessional thoughts over the weekend, in which he worries about being poisoned, and checks his food and drink 4-5 times before partaking of them. He is increasingly argumentative, particularly with authority figures.

ROS: Patient reports increased checking behavior, as well as insomnia.

PFSH: Patient has difficult relationship with his wife.

PME: 

• Speech-Greek
• Thought processes-logical
• Thought Content: Obsessional thinking and compulsive checking
• Affect: Anxious
• General Appearance: Wearing toga
• Other: Uses intellectualization and reaction formation as defenses

Dx: Anxiety NOS, consider OCD

Current Meds: none

Labs: Ordered-none; reviewed-none

Allergies: Hemlock

Psychotherapy Note: Interpreted patient's defenses, encouraged less intellectualization, and further exploration of his emotional life.

Plan:

Continue psychoanalysis 4x/week



Now to determie the E/M code: 

The Interval History includes 4 elements:

• Severity- "Increasing" and checking 4-5 times
• Timing-"Over the weekend"
• Context-"With authority figures"
• Associated Syptoms-Checking

So this is an extended Interval History.

The ROS includes 1 system-Psychiatric.

And the PFSH includes 1 element of Social History.

Looking at Table 2, History, from my last post:

Level of Hx	HPI	ROS	PFSH
Problem Focussed	Brief	None	None
Extended Problem Focussed	Brief	1 System	None
Detailed	Extended	2 Systems	1

Since 3 out of 3 elements are needed for History, this note would have an 
Extended Problem Focussed History.

Next is the Psychiatric Exam, which includes 6 elements.

And finally, the MDM.

Since obsessional thoughts are an established problem that is worsening, this would earn 2 problem points.
In addition, since the patient is increasingly argumentative, that is another established problem that is worsening, worth another 2 points. So there are a total of 4 problem points.

There are 0 data points, since I didn't review labs or call anyone etc.

And the Level of Risk is moderate, since there are one or more established conditions that are worsening. I don't think I can call this a "severe exacerbation", but if I could, then the level of risk would be high.

Looking at the Table for MDM, we have:

Overall MDM	Problem Points	Data Points	Risk
Straightforward	1	1	Minimal
Low Complexity	2	2	Low
Moderate Complexity	3	3	Moderate
High Complexity	4	4	High

Since only 2 out of 3 elements are needed for MDM, this would qualify as Moderate Complexity.

Finally, summing it all up :

Level Of Care Requirements (2 out of 3 needed)

Level of Care	Hx	Exam	MDM
99212	Problem Focussed	1-5	Straightforward
99213	Extended Problem Focussed	>6	Low Complexity
99214	Detailed	12 from 2 or more organ systems	Moderate Complexity
99215	Comprehensive	2 from each of 9 organ systems	High Complexity

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is a 99213 note. Ta Da!

E&M Coding, in All Its Glory

There are three key components to E&M level of care: history, exam, and medical decision making. Each of these components has requirements for meeting the various levels of care. You need 2 out of 3 of these components to reach a specified level of care. For example, if you have an extended problem focussed history, but only 2 exam elements, you can still meet criteria for a 99213 provided your medical decision making is of low complexity. It sounds confusing, but it’ll become clearer as we move along. The details for each of these components follow, after which I’ll give some examples.

Table 1

Level Of Care Requirements (2 out of 3 needed)

Level of Care	Hx	Exam	MDM
99212	Problem Focussed	1-5	Straightforward
99213	Extended Problem Focussed	>6	Low Complexity
99214	Detailed	12 from 2 or more organ systems	Moderate Complexity
99215	Comprehensive	2 from each of 9 organ systems	High Complexity

Let’s look at each of the three components.

1. History:
History is broken into 4 parts, namely, CC, HPI (or Interval History for an established patient), ROS, and PFSH (past medical, family, and social history).

CC is the presenting complaint for that session, and can be related to the diagnosis. 

Examples: “Anxiety”, or “F/U for Anxiety”

In case you were wondering, a CC is required for all notes, not just the initial evaluation.


HPI or Interval History is comprised of the following elements:
• Location 
• Quality
• Severity 
• Duration 
• Timing
• Context
• Modifying Factors
• Associated Signs and Symptoms

HPI is considered “Brief” if it includes 1-3 of these elements, and “Extended” if it includes > 4 elements or 3 stable conditions.

Example: The patient c/o worsening anxiety x 1 week with panic symptoms that occur intermittently, on average once per day, last for 5 minutes, and are brought on unexpectedly by unclear precipitants.

This would qualify as an extended interval history because it includes 4 elements: severity, duration, timing, and context (or 5 if you include modifying factors).


ROS includes pertinent positives and negatives. There are fourteen individual systems recognized by the E/M guidelines:
• Constitutional (e.g., fever, weight loss) 
• Eyes
• Ears, Nose, Mouth, Throat
• Cardiovascular
• Respiratory
• Gastrointestinal
• Genitourinary
• Musculoskeletal
• Integumentary (skin and/or breast)

• Neurological
• Psychiatric
• Endocrine
• Hematologic/Lymphatic 
• Allergic/Immunologic

Even in Psychiatry, it is possible to review more than one organ system.

Example: ROS positive for GI upset, SOB, diaphoresis, and dissociative feelings.

This example could arguably include GI, Respiratory, and Psychiatric. However, it’s unclear what the liability is if you’re calling SOB respiratory, and then not listening to the patient’s lungs.


PFSH-Pertinent Past Medical, Family, Social History


Past Medical History: a review of past illnesses, operations or injuries, which may
include:

• Prior illnesses or injuries  
• Prior operations
• Prior hospitalizations
• Current medications
• Allergies
• Age appropriate immunization status
• Age appropriate feeding/dietary status

Family History (FH): a review of medical events in the patient’s family which may include information about:

• The health status or cause of death of parents, siblings and children
• Specific diseases related to problems identified in the Chief Compliant, HPI, or ROS
• Diseases of family members which may be hereditary or place the patient at risk

Social History (SH): An age appropriate review of the patient’s past and current activities which may include significant information about:

• Marital status and/or living arrangements 
• Current employment
• Occupational history
• Use of drugs, alcohol or tobacco
• Level of education
• Sexual history
• Other relevant social factors

Example: Patient is a graduate student in Physics, about to defend his dissertation.

Note: You DO NOT need to re-record a PFSH if there is an earlier version available on the chart. It is acceptable to review the old PFSH and note any changes. In order to use this shortcut, you must note the date and location of the previous PFSH and comment on any changes in the information since the original PFSH was recorded. For example, if you are seeing an established patient in the office you can write: “Comprehensive PFSH which was performed during a previous encounter was re-examined and reviewed with the patient. There is nothing new to add today. For details, please refer to my previous note in this chart, dated 11/23/2004.” (From EMUniversity.com)

Table 2

Levels Of History (3 out of 3 needed)

Level of Hx	HPI	ROS	PFSH
Problem Focussed	Brief	None	None
Extended Problem Focussed	Brief	1 System	None
Detailed	Extended	2 Systems	1

An example to clarify: In order to be able to bill for an E/M 99213 code, you need to refer to Table 1, above, where you note that the required history is an extended problem focussed history. In order to determine what constitutes an extended problem focussed history, you refer to Table 2, where you note that a brief HPI and 1 ROS are enough to qualify.

2. Psychiatric Medical Exam-Includes the following elements:
• Speech
• Thought Processes
• Abnormal/Psychotic Thoughts 
• Associations
• Judgement
• Orientation Time/Place/Person 
• Memory
• Attention Span/Concentration 
• Language
• Fund of Knowledge
• Mood/Affect
• General Appearance
• Muscle Strength/Tone
• Gait/Station
• Vital Signs (> 3)
• Other

Table 3

Levels of Psychiatric Exam

Level of Care	# elements on exam
99212	1-5
99213	>6
99214	12 from 2 or more organ systems

Example:
• Speech-normal rate, rhythm, volume, speaks English with an accent 
• Thought Processes-coherent
• Judgement-good

• Fund of Knowledge-excellent
• Affect-anxious
• General Appearance-messy hair, not wearing socks, otherwise well-groomed.

This example includes 6 Psychiatric exam elements, and would therefore qualify as a 99213 level of care exam.


3. Medical Decision Making- EMUniversity MDM

This part is a little tricky. You can check out the link, but I’ll try to summarize.
It seems as though you can raise the E/M code depending on the complexity of your decision-making. But how the complexity is determined is, well, complex.

Referring back to Table 1, you’ll note that there are 4 levels of MDM: 

• Straightforward
• Low Complexity
• Moderate Complexity
• High Complexity

Each of these, in turn, is broken down into 3 parts: 

• Problem Points
• Data Points
• Risk

So get ready for more tables.

Table 4, Levels of MDM (2 out of 3 needed)

Overall MDM	Problem Points	Data Points	Risk
Straightforward	1	1	Minimal
Low Complexity	2	2	Low
Moderate Complexity	3	3	Moderate
High Complexity	4	4	High

Let’s look at how each of these parts is determined.

Table 5 Problem Points

Problem	Points
Self Limited or Minor (max of 2), e.g. common cold	1
Established Problem, Stable or Improving	1
Established Problem, Worsening	2
New Problem, no additional w/u planned, (max of 1)	3
New Problem, additional w/u planned	4

Example: “Patient with h/o anxiety, worsening over the last week,” would generate 2 problem points.

Table 6, Data Points

Data Reviewed	Points
Review or order clinical labs (1 pt total, not 1 for each)	1
Review or order radiology (except echo or heart cath)	1
Review or order medicine tests (e.g. PFTs, EKG)	1
Discuss test with performing physician	1
Independent review of image, tracing or specimen	2
Decision to obtain old records	1
Review and summation of old records	2

Example: “Ordered PFTs for SOB,” would earn 1 data point.

Table 7, Risk-only need 1 from any level, use highest risk present (from EMUniversity.com)

Minimal Risk	Low Risk	Moderate Risk	High Risk
•One self- limited or minor problem (e.g., cold, insect bite, tinea cor- poris) •Labs: EKG, E EG, CXR, UA, Ultrasound Echo, KOH prep •Rest •Gargles •Elastic bandages Superficial dress- •ings	•Two or more self- limited or minor problems •One stable chronic ill- ness, (e.g., well con- trolled HTN, DM2) •Acute uncomplicated illness or injury (e.g., cystitis/ rhinitis) •Physiologic tests without stress •Non- cardiovascular imaging with contrast •Over the counter drugs •Minor surgery without •risk factors •PT/OT •IV fluids without additives	•One or more chronic illness, with mild exacerbation or progression •Two or more stable chronic illnesses •Undiagnosed new problem with uncer- tain prognosis (e.g., lump in breast) •Acute illness with systemic symptoms (e.g., pyelonephritis, colitis) •Physiologic tests with stress •Prescription drug management •Minor surgery with risk factors •Elective major surgery without risk •factors •IV fluids with additives	•Chronic illness with severe exacerbation or progression •Illness with threat to life or bodily function (MI, ARF, PE) •Abrupt change in neurological status (TIA, weakness) •Cardiovascular imaging with contrast (arteriogram, cardiac cath) with risk factors •Elective major surgery with risk factors •Emergency surgery •Parenteral controlled substances •Drugs requiring intensive monitoring for toxicity •Decision for DNR or to de-escalate care

 Example: “Worsening anxiety,” would qualify as moderate risk.

Now let’s look at a complete note, and determine which E/M level it qualifies for:

Einstein, Albert     DOB: 03.14.1879     Date of Visit: 11 11 12

Start:1:45p    Stop:2:30p      Total face to face time: 45 min

CPT: 90836, E/M ?????

CC: F/U for Anxiety

Interval Hx: The patient c/o worsening anxiety x 1 week with panic symptoms that occur intermittently, on average once per day, last for 5 minutes, and are brought on unexpectedly by unclear precipitants, in the context of his upcoming dissertation defense.

ROS: Pt. reports intermittent panic symptoms, including GI upset, SOB, and dissociative feelings.

PFSH: Patient is a graduate student in Physics.

PME:

• Speech-normal rate, rhythm, volume, speaks English with an accent
• Thought Processes-coherent
• Judgement-good
• Fund of Knowledge-excellent
• Affect-anxious
• General Appearance-messy hair, not wearing socks, otherwise well-groomed.

Dx: Anxiety NOS 300.00

Current Meds: Zoloft 100mg qd.

Side effects: No side effects or adverse reactions noted or reported.

Allergies: NKDA

Labs: ordered-none, reviewed-none

Psychotherapy Note: Discussed with patient his automatic thoughts, and the specific concerns he has about his dissertation defense. Reviewed relaxation techniques with patient.

Plan:

• Continue current medication
• f/u 1/week psychotherapy

First, the History:

The Interval History includes at least 4 elements-severity, duration, timing, and
context. This makes it extended.

The ROS includes 3 systems, GI, respiratory, and psychiatric.

The PFSH includes one element of Social History, namely, that the patient is a graduate student in Physics. Listing the allergies as NKDA may also qualify as one element of PFSH.

Referring back to Table 2, History:

Level of Hx	HPI	ROS	PFSH
Problem Focussed	Brief	None	None
Extended Problem Focussed	Brief	1 System	None
Detailed	Extended	2 Systems	1

Extended HPI, 2 ROS, and 1 PFSH qualify as a detailed history.

Now the Psychiatric Exam:. 

6 elements are noted, speech, thought, judgement,
fund of knowledge, affect, and general appearance. 

And the MDM:

Anxiety is an existing problem for the patient. Since it is worsening, this earns 2 problem points.

Referring to Table 6, it is clear that there are no data points.

And finally, risk. A chronic illness with mild exacerbation is considered moderate
risk.

Referring to Table 4, levels of MDM:

Overall MDM	Problem Points	Data Points	Risk
Straightforward	1	1	Minimal
Low Complexity	2	2	Low
Moderate Complexity	3	3	Moderate
High Complexity	4	4	High

In this case, the overall MDM would be of Low Complexity, since 2 out of 3 elements are needed. 

To sum it all up, we look at Table 1, Levels of Care:

Level of Care	Hx	Exam	MDM
99212	Problem Focussed	1-5	Straightforward
99213	Extended Problem Focussed	>6	Low Complexity
99214	Detailed	12 from 2 or more organ systems	Moderate Complexity
99215	Comprehensive	2 from each of 9 organ systems	High Complexity

Since there is a detailed history, but only 6 exam elements and MDM of low complexity, this visit would qualify for a 99213 E/M code.

Now, if the patient also carried a diagnosis of depression, and this was stable, this would earn a total of 3 problem points, 2 for the worsening anxiety, and 1 for the stable depression. And 3 problem points would move the MDM up to moderate complexity. And since only 2 out of the 3 key components are required for level of care, a detailed history and MDM of moderate complexity would qualify as a 99214, which is reimbursed at a higher rate.

Overall, this is a pretty complicated business. It adds extra work to note-writing, and it’s not really suited to Psychiatry, and certainly not to high frequency psychotherapy or psychoanalysis. And I suspect that since this is completely new, and doesn’t fit neatly into nice little well-established, categorized boxes, insurance companies will also be confused about it. Or the’ll say they are so they can withhold payment. 

Still confused? Link here for an attempt at E/M coding an analysis session for a Monday, and here for a Tuesday.
Or, if that's all too much for you, you can link here for a simplified 99213 coding method.