I think this conversation is a bit confused or I do not understand the question.
CPT is considered HCPCS level 1 codes and are sanctioned by CMS for billing and reporting of clinical professional services - that is billing by the clinician. HCPCPS level 2 are codes generally issued by carriers, Medicaid or CMS itself and are for many services/procedures that are covered by CMS but not inherently level 1 - like ambulance services or regional administrative procedures. HCPCS level 3 are regional or local codes for Medicare/Medicaid covered services. http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coding/MedHCPCSGenInfo/index.html?redirect=/medhcpcsgeninfo/ Institutional billing for procedures has been ICD-9-CM (PCS) and the institutional component of many procedures like colonoscopy or cardiac catheterization done I hospital labs have two levels of billing - CPT and ICD-9-CM. These are scheduled to be replaced by ICD-10-PCS but I don't know that a compliance data has been established yet. For our Epic colleagues we will be posting our Clarity ETLs for procedures to the Userweb for perusal. UNMC has deployed CPT and ICD-9-CM(PCS) using the metadata we received from (I think - Hubert correct me if error) Colorado and we have all our billed procedures deployed from Epic using that metadata. We are also rolling out SNOMED CT procedures and will be deploying our surgical history data using SNOMED coding. Jim ________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of Bos, Angela [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 1:05 PM To: [email protected] Subject: CPT codes for procedures When building UTHSCSA UMLS-CPT terms, we used only CPT2014. But based on today’s gpc-dev conversation, it seems like HCPCS is preferred. HCPCS level 1 codes are 5-digit numeric HCPT codes. HCPCS level 2 are a letter followed by four numeric digits as the HCPCS code. I think I should rebuild our terms with this order of precedence: HCPCS > HCPT > CPT. In doing so, we should end up with terms that are more aligned with the current UTSW hierarchy. For i2b2, we should prepend the codes to the browse-able terms, similar to UTSW but maybe omitting the ‘Level 1’ for subfolders, and postfix codes in the i2v2 search paths. Questions/comments on this course of action? -Angela | UTHSCSA The information in this e-mail may be privileged and confidential, intended only for the use of the addressee(s) above. Any unauthorized use or disclosure of this information is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please delete it and immediately contact the sender.
_______________________________________________ Gpc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev
