>>is it justifiable to charge for the marker a second time. >> Example: in this 4 tube panel of CD3/CD19, CD5/CD19, CD10/CD19, and >> CD5/CD23 would this be correctly billed as CPT-88180 (X5) or would it be >> understandable and justifiable to bill CPT-88180 (X8). >The rule of thumb we use here is,1) can you clinically justify it as >medically necessary (there is ample published literature to support >the usefulness of the combinations you mentioned)2) did you perform >the test 3) did you report the results. Joanne, Thanks for the info. My advice to the issuer of the original question was to look into 3-color testing, since that would obviate the need for at least some of the repeated markers. Should the two-color labs be "allowed" to charge for additional combinations because they aren't motivated to perform three-color? Two-color flow, with the described billing method, fails to serve the patient very well. Three-color testing, while attainable, is no cure-all as not everyone chooses the same combinations, some labs have 4-color capability, etc. We should consider this more evidence for pursuit of some kind of consensus regarding antibody selection and billing. sharon Sharon F. Vogt, MT (ASCP) Pathology/Special Oncology Dekalb Medical Center 2701 N. Decatur Road Atlanta, GA 30033 PH: 404-501-5253 FAX: 404-297-0444 svogt@earthlink.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 03 2002 - 11:52:57 EST