decisionhealth Newsletters, Coder Pink Sheets - 2008 Issue 3 (March)
Medical necessity: Physicians and payers re-enact Hatfield/McCoy feud
Subscribe or sign in to view the full article.
Article Overview
This article discusses the common disconnect between physicians and payers over medical necessity, using payer definitions and coverage language to clarify how claims decisions are framed. It also explains the distinction between medical necessity and medical decision-making in the context of CPT E/M coding, making it relevant for pediatricians, coders, auditors, and billing staff who work with denial management and visit-level documentation.
Why This Topic Matters
Understanding the difference between medical necessity, coverage, and coding-based medical decision-making helps readers interpret denials, communicate with payers, and support accurate E/M coding and documentation practices.
Article Sections
-
What constitutes medical necessity
This section compares how different insurers and regulators describe medical necessity and related coverage concepts. It focuses on general payer terminology and the distinction between necessity and benefits coverage.
-
Confusing medical decision-making with medical necessity
This section explains that medical necessity and E/M medical decision-making are not the same concept. It places the discussion in the context of CPT E/M coding and documentation review.
What You Will Learn
- How medical necessity is generally framed by payers and regulators
- Why a service can be considered medically necessary yet still not covered
- How medical necessity differs from medical decision-making in E/M coding
- Why denial disputes may require physician-to-physician discussion
- How broad payer terminology affects claim review and reimbursement discussions
Who Should Read This
- Physicians
- Pediatricians
- Medical coders
- E/M auditors
- Billing staff
- Revenue cycle teams
- Practice managers
Subscribe or sign in to view the full article.
Quick, Current, Complete - www.findacode.com