JABFM
HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Rapid Responses: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by King, M. S.
Right arrow Articles by Lipsky, M. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by King, M. S.
Right arrow Articles by Lipsky, M. S.

The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice, Vol 14, Issue 3 184-192, Copyright © 2001 by American Board of Family Practice

ARTICLES

Accuracy of CPT evaluation and management coding by family physicians

M. S. King, L. Sharp and M. S. Lipsky
Department of Family Medicine, Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago, IL, USA.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available on physicians' accuracy in coding for their services. The purpose of this study was to determine the current procedural terminology (CPT) evaluation and management coding accuracy of family physicians and define demographic variables associated with coding accuracy. METHODS: Six hundred randomly selected active members of the Illinois Academy of Family Physicians were sent six hypothetical progress notes of office visits along with a demographic survey. The study group assigned CPT evaluation and management codes to each of the progress notes and completed the demographic survey. Five expert coders also assigned codes to each of the cases. The accuracy of family physicians in determining CPT E/M codes was determined relative to that of expert coders. RESULTS: Family physicians agreed with the experts' CPT evaluation and management codes for 52% of established patient progress notes, the most common error being undercoding. In contrast, for new patient progress notes, family physicians agreed with the experts only 17% of the time, the predominant error being overcoding. No surveyed demographic variable was associated with coding accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: The error rate for physician CPT coding is substantial and occurs more commonly with new patients. The complexity of the CPT coding guidelines, along with limited physician training in CPT coding, likely account for these results.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Am Board Fam MedHome page
S. Mulvehill, G. Schneider, C. M. Cullen, S. Roaten, B. Foster, and A. Porter
Template-Guided Versus Undirected Written Medical Documentation: A Prospective, Randomized Trial in a Family Medicine Residency Clinic
J Am Board Fam Med, November 1, 2005; 18(6): 464 - 469.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2001 by the American Board of Family Medicine.