Codapedia is now a division of Find-A-Code

Billing Incident to Services-Whose Number Should Be Used?

December 29th, 2015 - Seth Canterbury, CPC, ACS-EM
0 Votes - Sign in to vote or comment.

Should You Bill Incident to Services for a Medicare Patient Under The Number of the “Supervising Physician” or the “Ordering Physician”?
 
This issue was first clarified in the preamble of the 11/1/01 Federal Register (available here on p. 23 of the file, p. 55267 of the document):
 
Comment: Several commenters requested that we clarify and distinguish between the physician (or other practitioner) ordering the incident to service and the physician (or other practitioner) supervising the auxiliary personnel who perform the incident to service. They stated that confusion exists as to whose Medicare Part B billing number should be used on the claim form.
 
Response: Inherent in the definition of an incident to service is the requirement that the incident to service be furnished incident to a professional service of a physician (or other practitioner). When a claim is submitted to Medicare under the billing number of a physician (or other practitioner) for an incident to service, the physician is stating that he or she either performed the service or directly supervised the auxiliary personnel performing the service. Accordingly, the Medicare billing number of the ordering physician (or other practitioner) should not be used if that person did not directly supervise the auxiliary personnel. We added language to the supervision requirement set forth in § 410.26(b)(5) to reflect this clarification.
 
The language added to the federal regulation mentioned above (found on p. 2 here) was this:
 
(5) Services and supplies must be furnished under the direct supervision of the physician (or other practitioner). The physician (or other practitioner) directly supervising the auxiliary personnel need not be the same physician (or other practitioner) upon whose professional service the incident to service is based.
 
This clarification was manualized via Transmittal 148 (Change Request 3138) on 4/23/04. The field designations mentioned in that transmittal have since changed, so instead of quoting from that, here are relevant excerpts from the current [as of 10/16/09] manual (Claims Processing Manual, Chapter 26, Section 10.4 here):
 
Ordering physician - is a physician or, when appropriate, a non-physician practitioner who orders non-physician services for the patient.
 
When a service is incident to the service of a physician or non-physician practitioner, the name of the physician or non-physician practitioner who performs the initial service and orders the non-physician service must appear in item 17
 
Item 17b Form CMS-1500 – Enter the NPI of the referring/ordering physician listed in item 17. All physicians who order services or refer Medicare beneficiaries must report this data.
 
Item 24J - Enter the rendering provider’s PIN in the shaded portion. In the case of a service provided incident to the service of a physician or non-physician practitioner, when the person who ordered the service is not supervising, enter the PIN of the supervisor in the shaded portion.
 
Enter the rendering provider’s NPI number in the lower unshaded portion. In the case of a service provided incident to the service of a physician or non-physician practitioner, when the person who ordered the service is not supervising, enter the NPI of the supervisor in the lower unshaded portion.
 
Item 31 - Enter the signature of provider of service or supplier, or his/her representative, and either the 6-digit date (MM | DD | YY), 8-digit date (MM | DD | CCYY), or alpha-numeric date (e.g., January 1, 1998) the form was signed.
 
In the case of a service that is provided incident to the service of a physician or non-physician practitioner, when the ordering physician or non-physician practitioner is directly supervising the service as in 42 CFR 410.32, the signature of the ordering physician or non-physician practitioner shall be entered in item 31. When the ordering physician or non-physician practitioner is not supervising the service, then enter the signature of the physician or non-physician practitioner providing the direct supervision in item 31.
 
NOTE: This is a required field, however the claim can be processed if the following is true. If a physician, supplier, or authorized person's signature is missing, but the signature is on file; or if any authorization is attached to the claim or if the signature field has "Signature on File" and/or a computer generated signature. [All emphasis (in red) in the manual quote above was added.]
 
Based on the information above, the “rendering provider” (the person you bill under) for the later incident to service is the “supervising physician”—the one meeting the “direct supervision” requirement for the incident to service by being “in the office suite”, not the original “ordering physician”—the one initiating care but not “in the office” for the subsequent encounter. However, the ordering physician’s information must still be noted on the claim when it was a different provider from the one supervising the later incident to service.
 
Seth Canterbury, CPC, ACS-EM
Education Specialist
University of Florida Jacksonville Physicians, Inc.
Clinical Data Quality-Education Department
653 West Eight Street
Tower I, Suite 606
Jacksonville, FL 32209
(904) 244-9643

###

Questions, comments?

If you have questions or comments about this article please contact us.  Comments that provide additional related information may be added here by our Editors.


Latest articles:  (any category)

Q/A: What Diagnosis Codes Should I Use for TMJ Headache Massage for Coverage?
October 16th, 2018 - Wyn Staheli, Director of Research
Question: We have been receiving several DDS referrals to our massage therapists who do intra-oral work. The only problem is that the referral from the DDS lists code R51 for headaches as the only DX code. Since most plans don't cover massage therapy for headaches alone, are there any codes that can distinguish the headaches as ...
Q/A: What Codes do I use for CLIA-Waived Tests?
October 16th, 2018 - Wyn Staheli, Director of Research
Question: I am a certified DOT medical examiner and have applied to get my CLIA lab (waiver) for urinalysis, finger prick blood tests for A1c, cholesterol and glucose. I realize I cannot diagnose patients with these tests, but I am using them to make decisions in the DOT process and with ...
Pelvic Floor Dysfunction Treatment Coverage
October 16th, 2018 - Wyn Staheli, Director of Research
Pelvic floor dysfunction is often the underlying cause of conditions such as pelvic pain; urinary or bowel dysfunction; and/or sexual symptoms. Treatment generally begins with an evaluation and testing (e.g, EMG) followed by a variety of services (e.g., biofeedback, manipulation, pelvic floor electrical stimulation), depending on the findings. Coverage by payers ...
Prolonged Services Its Not Just About Time
October 5th, 2018 - BC Advantage
Time, as it applies to E/M codes, has often been viewed as an "if/then" proposition. "If" the documentation shows that a majority of the encounter was based on counseling and/or coordination of care, "then" we choose the highest level of service based on the total time of the encounter. However, a ...
HCC - Acceptable Provider Interpretation for Diagnostic Testing
October 1st, 2018 - Wyn Staheli, Director of Research
The following table is taken from the Contract-Level Risk Adjustment Data Validation Medical Record Reviewer Guidance dated 2017-09-27 (see References). It is a listing of acceptable provider interpretation of diagnostic testing. Acceptable Examples include: Cardiology and Vascular Surgeons Echocardiogram (including Doppler, Duplex, Color flow of the heart vessels) EKG (electrocardiogram) – Stress test, Cardiac ...
When to Use Modifier 25 and Modifier 57 on Physician Claims
October 1st, 2018 - BC Advantage
The biggest thing modifiers 25 and 57 have in common is that they both assert that the E/M service should be payable based on documentation within the record showing the procedure should not be bundled into the E/M. After that, the similarities end, and it is important to know the...
Chiropractic OIG Audit Recommendations - Lessons Learned
September 28th, 2018 - Wyn Staheli, Director of Research
The OIG recently concluded an audit on a chiropractic office located in Florida and had some significant findings. They recommended the following: Refund to the Federal Government the portion of the estimated $169,737 overpayment for claims for chiropractic services that did not comply with Medicare requirements and are within the 4-year ...



About Codapedia & Find-A-Code Contact Us Terms of Use Privacy Policy Advertise with Us

Codapedia™/Find-A-Code™ - 62 E 300 North, Spanish Fork, UT 84660 - Phone 801-770-4203 (9-5 Mountain) - Fax (801) 770-4428

Copyright © 2009-2018 Find A Code, LLC - CPT® copyright American Medical Association