E/M Coding Alert - 2011 Issue 20
Part B Mythbuster: Get to Know These 2 E/M Myths That Could Be Affecting Your Practice
Subscribe or sign in to view the full article.
Article Overview
This premium article explains common Part B E/M myth corrections for physicians and coding staff. It discusses outpatient office and hospital E/M reporting, incident-to billing concepts, and the difference between critical care and routine ICU evaluation. The piece is relevant for practices that want to review workflow, supervision, and documentation issues tied to E/M services.
Why This Topic Matters
Misunderstandings about E/M reporting can lead to incorrect claim submission, supervision problems, and documentation gaps. This article helps readers identify the general areas where practices may need to review internal billing processes and clinical documentation for compliance.
Article Sections
-
Myth 1: Incident-to billing under the physician's name
This section discusses billing workflow for a nurse or office visit reported incident to a physician and the related supervision issue. It focuses on a common practice-management misunderstanding involving physician attribution and oversight.
-
Myth 2: ICU visits are not automatically critical care
This section covers the difference between being seen in an intensive care setting and reporting critical care services. It explains the broad documentation and clinical context considerations discussed in the article.
What You Will Learn
- How the article frames common Part B E/M billing myths
- Why incident-to billing can create supervision and attribution confusion
- How critical care differs from simply evaluating a patient in the ICU
- What general documentation themes are emphasized for higher-level E/M services
Who Should Read This
- Physicians
- Medical coders
- Billing staff
- Practice managers
- Compliance staff
Codes Discussed
Code Ranges Discussed
Subscribe or sign in to view the full article.



Quick, Current, Complete - www.findacode.com