Downcoded E/M Visit After an Audit Flag
A chart auditor reviews a 62-year-old established patient visit for a Medicare Advantage payer. The provider documented a 25-minute visit for uncontrolled type 2 diabetes with new neuropathy symptoms and medication adjustment. The note includes a detailed history of present illness, a full review of systems, and a detailed exam of two body systems. Medical decision making shows one chronic illness with exacerbation plus a prescription drug management decision. The claim was submitted as 99214 but the auditor flags it as 99215 based on time. The provider insists the documentation supports the higher level. The practice's internal audit threshold requires a 90 percent accuracy rate, and this provider is currently at 88 percent.
1. Determine whether the visit should be coded by time or by medical decision making, and justify the level selected.
Read the worked answer
Under current E/M rules for established patients, the coder may select the level based on either medical decision making or total time on the date of the encounter, whichever supports the level. The documentation must support the chosen method.
Time analysis: The provider documented 25 minutes. The 99214 time threshold is 30 to 39 minutes for established patients, and 99215 begins at 40 minutes. A 25-minute visit cannot support 99214 by time and certainly not 99215. If time were the basis, the visit would fall at 99213 (20 to 29 minutes).
MDM analysis: The note shows one chronic illness with exacerbation (moderate) and prescription drug management (moderate). Two moderate elements yield a moderate level of MDM, which supports 99214.
Conclusion: The 99214 claim is correct. The auditor's suggestion of 99215 by time is wrong because 25 minutes does not meet the 99215 threshold. The provider's instinct to upcode is not supportable. The coder should document the MDM basis in the audit response and use this case in provider education about time thresholds.
2. The provider asks how this affects the practice's 88 percent accuracy rate and what corrective action to take.
Read the worked answer
The 99214 claim is accurate, so this encounter should be counted as correct, which would raise the provider's rate slightly rather than lower it. The flag itself was a false positive.
The real issue is the audit process. An auditor who proposes 99215 on a 25-minute visit is applying the time rule incorrectly. The practice should:
- Retrain auditors on the time thresholds and on the rule that either MDM or time can support a level, but the documentation must match the method selected.
- Add a required field to the audit worksheet where the auditor states which method (MDM or time) supports the level and the specific supporting elements.
- Recalculate the provider's accuracy rate excluding this false positive.
- Provide targeted education to the provider on documenting total time when time is the basis, since 25 minutes appears in the note without a clear start and stop statement.
Because the provider is below the 90 percent internal threshold, the practice may still need a focused education plan, but it should be based on genuine errors, not this one.