E/M Focus: Smash 5 Common E/M Coding Myths

Why This Topic Matters

Misunderstandings about E/M rules can affect patient classification, documentation review, and code reporting accuracy. The article is useful for readers who need to align office practices with payer guidance and reduce avoidable coding errors.

Article Sections

1. Introduction

   Introduces common E/M coding myths and explains why official payer guidance is the preferred source for clarification.

2. Myth 1: Surgical Visits Don't Count Toward "New Patient" Rules

   Discusses how prior face-to-face services and related practice factors can affect patient status under E/M guidance.

3. Myth 2: Switching Practices Restarts the 3-Year Rule

   Reviews how patient status may carry across group practices and providers within the same specialty context.

4. Myth 3: Thick Documentation Leads to a High-Level Code

   Addresses the relationship between documentation volume, medical necessity, and E/M level selection.

5. Myth 4: You Can't Count One Element Toward Both HPI and ROS

   Covers how history elements are discussed in relation to documentation credit for different parts of the E/M history.

6. Myth 5: Documenting "Abnormal" By Itself Is Sufficient in the Exam

   Summarizes guidance on documenting examination findings in the E/M exam portion.