Pearl, 
In my experience, current cpt coding practice with 3 specimens coming to the
lab as; a)uterus, b)Rt ovary, c) Lt ovary would be not to "unbundle" the
code and charge the appropriate code as to the diagnosis 88307 or 88309 for
the three specimens, UNLESS there is significant pathology in one or both of
the ovaries, i.e., (neoplasic) then I would add 88305 for the neoplastic
ovary. If both ovaries were Non-neoplastic, I would stick to only one of the
the above cpt codes. I know many labs/pathologists would beg to differ and
charge 3 cpt codes whether or not neoplastic, however in today's environment
I prefer to take the "safer" side of coding. 
 
 
Regards,
 
 
Michael LaFriniere, PA, HT(ASCP)
Manager Pathology
Memorial Hospital 
Chattanooga TN  

-----Original Message-----
From: Gervaip@aol.com [mailto:Gervaip@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 11:04 PM
To: Histonet@pathology.swmed.edu
Subject: Need help with cpt codes and bundling


Presently if the lab receives 3 specimens from one patient and they are
labeled as 1 uterus, 2 rt tube and ovary & 3 lt tube and ovary there are 3
cpt codes, 88307, 88305 x 2.  And the report will automatically generate as
specimen parts 1, 2 and 3 in the gross description and the microscopic.   
Some Pathologists want to charge only one code, such as 88309, for all three
specimens.  
Should you not have 3 codes if you have three specimens.  Is it not just as
bad to under code as it is to over code?  But then again, I have read that
some specimens that come separately need to be bundled, such as, if a rt
tube is submitted separately from a rt ovary.  What is everyone out there in
HistoLand doing?    Are you combining the specimens during accessioning or
are you making those changes in the final report?  
I am close to retiring and really don't want to end up in jail for fraud!  
Pearl from New Orleans