Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) coding is not an exact science. Although the CPT code set was developed to describe clearly and comprehensively services provided by health care professionals, the intended application of individual codes is not always clear. In addition, coding that may be correct in terms of CPT definitions and instructions may contradict instructions from payment policies set by insurers. This article provides answers to the gastroenterologists' most commonly asked questions and provides primary sources for coding and payment policies when possible. Answers to the questions are accurate as of the date of publication but may be subject to change.

Biopsy↗

PubMed2006

Current procedural terminology, Resource-based Relative Value Scale, and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services: overview.

Coding and payment methodology for physician professional services has been standardized through the introduction of the Current Procedural Terminology, which is maintained by the American Medical Association. The codes contained within this dataset are used by health care professionals to describe their services to payers. Inherent in the development of the procedural codes, the Resource Based Relative Value Scale Update Committee recommends physician work relative value units and practice expense and professional liability inputs to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. This article provides an overview of the processes in place that permit regular updates in physician payment continually to be updated.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S.↗

PubMed2006

Endoscopic full-thickness plication for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease: A randomized, sham-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of endoscopic full-thickness plication for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in comparison with a sham procedure. METHODS: Patients with symptomatic GERD requiring maintenance proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy were entered into a randomized, single-blind, prospective, multicenter trial. Seventy-eight patients were randomly assigned to undergo endoscopic full-thickness restructuring of the gastric cardia with transmural suture. Eighty-one patients underwent a sham procedure. Group assignments were revealed following the 3-month evaluation. The primary end point was > or =50% improvement in GERD health-related quality of life (HRQL) score. Secondary end points included medication use and esophageal acid exposure. RESULTS: By intention-to-treat analysis, at 3 months, the proportion of patients achieving > or =50% improvement in GERD-HRQL score was significantly greater in the active group (56%) compared with the sham group (18.5%; P < .001). Complete cessation of PPI therapy was higher among patients in the active group than in the sham group by intention-to-treat analysis (50% vs 24%; P = .002). The percent reduction in median percent time pH < 4 was significantly improved within the active group versus baseline (7 vs 10, 18%, P < .001) but not in the sham group (10 vs 9, -3%, P = .686). Between-group analysis revealed the active therapy to be superior to the sham in improving median percent time pH < 4 (P = .010). There were no perforations or deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic full-thickness plication more effectively reduces GERD symptoms, PPI use, and esophageal acid exposure than a sham procedure.

Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal↗

PubMed2006