AMA CPT® Assistant - 2005 Issue 3 (March)
Medicine (March 2005)
March 2005 page 17 Coding Consultation:Questions and Answers Medicine, 95900, 95903, 95904 (Q&A) Question Is it appropriate to report multiple units of code 95900, Nerve conduction, amplitude and latency/velocity study, each nerve; motor, without F-wave study, when multiple sites on the same nerve are stimulated or recorded? AMA Comment Within the CPT codebook, the parenthetical note following code 95904 states: "Report 95900, 95903, and/or 95904 only once when multiple sites on the same nerve are stimulated or recorded." The purpose of this note is to clarify that when a nerve conduction study is performed on the same...
Subscribe or sign in to view the full article.
Article Overview
This article presents a Coding Consultation Q&A from Medicine focused on CPT reporting for nerve conduction studies. It explains the general topic, the type of documentation support provided by the AMA, and why the guidance matters for coders, auditors, and clinical practices that bill electrodiagnostic services. The piece is aimed at readers who need to understand how the CPT Assistant discussion applies to service reporting in routine coding workflows.
Why This Topic Matters
It helps coding professionals recognize when nerve conduction study reporting falls within a single-service framework versus when separate reporting is discussed in the article, making it relevant for compliance and claim accuracy review.
Article Sections
-
Coding Consultation: Questions and Answers
An AMA-style Q&A format centered on CPT coding guidance for nerve conduction study reporting. The discussion addresses general reporting context and related documentation considerations.
-
Question
The user question frames a scenario involving repeated stimulation or recording at multiple sites on the same nerve. It sets up the coding issue discussed in the article.
-
AMA Comment
The AMA response provides interpretive guidance from the CPT codebook and discusses when reporting should be limited versus when separate reporting may be considered. It also references related procedural distinctions and modifier usage in a general compliance context.
What You Will Learn
- How the article frames CPT guidance for nerve conduction study reporting.
- What broad circumstances prompt discussion of separate reporting for electrodiagnostic services.
- How the article situates modifier use in relation to CPT Q&A guidance.
- Why bilateral or multiple-site testing is relevant to the coding discussion.
Who Should Read This
- Medical coders
- Billing staff
- Compliance auditors
- Electrodiagnostic practices
- Physician documentation staff
Codes Discussed
Code Ranges Discussed
Modifiers Discussed
Subscribe or sign in to view the full article.
Quick, Current, Complete - www.findacode.com
