new facet guidelines

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

bedrock

Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Messages
7,224
Reaction score
4,757
What are the new facet joint guidelines that keep being referenced?

I saw something a while back regarding limiting the numbers of facet procedure per rolling twelve months, but are there new medicare rules regarding therapeutic IA facet injections vs diagnostic?

Is this just medicare for now or have some of the national carriers also changed their facet guidelines this year?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Basically medial branch blocks only, and they must be done at least 2 weeks apart then RFA. Everything bilateral.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
Interestingly, Evicore has updated their Facet joint guidelines again - previously had verbiage about facet joint injections being diagnostic and not therapeutic, the use of steroid injections for therapeutic purposes was specifically disallowed


Now it appears you can do a facet joint injection with steroid and call it diagnostic as a step towards RFA

Our local Aetna use Evicore as their 3rd party reviewer
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I've googled this but can't find what I'm looking for. Can you point me to the new medicare language on IA facet vs MBB?
It's in my work email. Will try to paste here on Monday.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Interestingly, Evicore has updated their Facet joint guidelines again - previously had verbiage about facet joint injections being diagnostic and not therapeutic, the use of steroid injections for therapeutic purposes was specifically disallowed


Now it appears you can do a facet joint injection with steroid and call it diagnostic as a step towards RFA

Our local Aetna use Evicore as their 3rd party reviewer
I have been specifically calling my IA facets diagnostic over the past year and this has been accepted by Cigna, BCBS.

Clinically I find that many commercial patients under 65
1- do well with IA facets and prefer those and minimal downtime with IA injections Q 6-8 months vs annual RFA
2- younger patients often freak out at the idea of nerve ablation, but will try IA facets and then are willing to consider RFA if they feel great, but only for 2 months after IA facet injections.

I also prefer to start with IA facets instead of MBB/RRFA on patients with supratentorial pathology because if they come up with BS side effects after IA facets then I never give them the chance to blame something on their "burnt off nerves"
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I've googled this but can't find what I'm looking for. Can you point me to the new medicare language on IA facet vs MBB?
I know we talked about it extensively on this forum but I can’t find the thread. The new guidelines kicked in May 1.
 
What are the new facet joint guidelines that keep being referenced?

I saw something a while back regarding limiting the numbers of facet procedure per rolling twelve months, but are there new medicare rules regarding therapeutic IA facet injections vs diagnostic?

Is this just medicare for now or have some of the national carriers also changed their facet guidelines this year?
 
often notes need to say diagnostic, and considering RFA; 2 weeks apart is how alot of private insurers are going but not all
 
I have been specifically calling my IA facets diagnostic over the past year and this has been accepted by Cigna, BCBS.

Clinically I find that many commercial patients under 65
1- do well with IA facets and prefer those and minimal downtime with IA injections Q 6-8 months vs annual RFA
2- younger patients often freak out at the idea of nerve ablation, but will try IA facets and then are willing to consider RFA if they feel great, but only for 2 months after IA facet injections.

I also prefer to start with IA facets instead of MBB/RRFA on patients with supratentorial pathology because if they come up with BS side effects after IA facets then I never give them the chance to blame something on their "burnt off nerves"
These are the same people who blame all of their pain on their labor epidurals
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Random question- probably silly but just want to make sure i'm coding correctly.
What's the way to bill for b/l L4, L5 and Ala MBNB (for joints L4-L5 and L5-S1 bilaterally)
Is it
64493 (mod 50) + 64494 (mod 50)
OR
64493 (mod 50) + 64494 (quantity two)
OR
65593 (mod 50) + 64494
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
64493 (mod LT, RT) + 64494 (mod LT, RT)

some insurances will pay more for RT, LT so I was told by my coders to always bill bilateral procedures as LT and RT
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Random question- probably silly but just want to make sure i'm coding correctly.
What's the way to bill for b/l L4, L5 and Ala MBNB (for joints L4-L5 and L5-S1 bilaterally)
Is it
64493 (mod 50) + 64494 (mod 50)
OR
64493 (mod 50) + 64494 (quantity two)
OR
65593 (mod 50) + 64494

It's billed by number of joints, not number of nerves (needles). So #1 is correct.
 
I had been doing #2, but coding person at my new practice said our payors are still respecting #1, which pays us more, so keep doing that until they start declining it, then go back to #2.
Might have to look into this rt, lt thing...
 
I had been doing #2, but coding person at my new practice said our payors are still respecting #1, which pays us more, so keep doing that until they start declining it, then go back to #2.
Might have to look into this rt, lt thing...
#2 actually pays more. If you do #1, you get 50% for the bilateral side. Whereas if you code with #2 then you are getting paid x2 for the second level without the 50% haircut for bilateral. At least this is what I have seen. But I have been billing as #1 - can anyone confirm that they aren't having issues with reimbursement when coding the #2 style?
 
Per nerve. So billing 64494 x2 is incorrect.

L3MBB on L4TP/SAB, L4 MBB on L5TP/SAP, and L5 dorsal rami (MBB) on sacral ala.
These 3 nerves innervate the L4-5 and L5-S1 facet joints.

You should bill 64493 and 64494 once with 50 mod if b/l.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
We document nerves, but bill by joints. I believe the correct way is none of the above.

Should bill:
64493-50, 64494-LT, 64494-RT
 
Happy to see that insurance has made things so confusing that experienced pain docs can’t come to a consensus on how to bill one of our most commonly performed procedures.

My billers tell me to bill 64493 and 94, right/left for both. They tell me that different insurances have different rules and that they (the billers) take care of the rest after I submit my codes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
From the 2020 handbook. No 50 mod for 94
 

Attachments

  • 9F2CFACE-76E1-4263-A4CF-8CD832B6CF59.png
    9F2CFACE-76E1-4263-A4CF-8CD832B6CF59.png
    260.6 KB · Views: 102
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
It is 64493 (mod 50) + 64494 (mod 50)
from the CMS site:

Diagnostic and Therapeutic injections:
Each facet level in the spinal region is composed of bilateral facet joints (i.e., there are two facet joints per level, one on the right side and one on the left). Unilateral or bilateral facet interventions may be performed during the facet joint procedure (a diagnostic nerve block, a therapeutic facet joint (intraarticular) injection, a medial branch block injection, or the medial branch radiofrequency ablation (neurotomy) in one session. A bilateral intervention is still considered a single level intervention.
Each unilateral or bilateral intervention at any level should be reported as one unit, with bilateral intervention signified by appending the modifier -50.
One medial branch block is counted as two (2) facet joint injections.
Regions:
An anatomic spinal region for paravertebral facet joint block (diagnostic or therapeutic), is defined as cervical\thoracic (CPT codes 64490, 64491, 64492) or lumbar\sacral (CPT codes 64493, 64494, 64495) per the AMA CPT Manual.
Levels:
64490 (cervical or thoracic) or 64493 (lumbar or sacral) reports a single level injection performed with image guidance (fluoroscopy or CT) Procedured performed under ultrasound guidance are not covered.
64491 or 64494 describes a second level which should be reported separately in addition to the code for the primary procedure. 64491 should be reported in conjunction with 64490 and 64494 should be reported in conjunction with 64493.
64492 or 64495 describes a third and additional levels and should be listed separately in addition to the code for the primary procedure and the second level procedure and cannot be reported more than once per day. 64492 should be reported in conjunction with 64490/64491 and 64495 should be reported in conjunction with 64493/64494.
Laterality:
Bilateral paravertebral facet injection procedures 64490 through 64495 should be reported with modifier 50.
One to two levels, either unilateral or bilateral, are allowed per session per spine region (i.e., two (2) unilateral or two (2) bilateral levels per session).
For services performed in the ASC, do not use modifier 50. Report the applicable procedure code on two separate lines, with one unit each and append the -RT and -LT modifiers to each line.
KX modifier requirements:
The KX modifier should be appended to the line for all diagnostic injections. In most cases the KX modifier will only be used for the two initial diagnostic injections. If the initial diagnostic injections do not produce a positive response as defined by the policy and indicative of identification of the pain generator, and it is necessary to perform additional diagnostic injections, append the KX modifier to the line. Aberrant use of the KX modifier may trigger focused medical review.
Therapeutic injections:
Documentation of why patient is not a candidate for RFA must be submitted for therapeutic treatment.
Chemodenervation of nerve:
Codes 64633, 64634, 64635, 64636 are reported per joint, not per nerve. Although two nerves innervate each facet joint, only one unit per code may be reported for each joint denervated, regardless of the number of nerves treated (AMA CPT Manual 2020).

 
Last edited:
#2 actually pays more. If you do #1, you get 50% for the bilateral side. Whereas if you code with #2 then you are getting paid x2 for the second level without the 50% haircut for bilateral. At least this is what I have seen. But I have been billing as #1 - can anyone confirm that they aren't having issues with reimbursement when coding the #2 style?
I have a hard time believing that they changed the codes in a way that ends up paying us more. I've heard (on here, I think) of the second 64494 being denied, so you're only getting paid for 64493-50 and 64494x1 for bilateral. I agree though, the amount of confusion about how to bill this properly among a group of experienced doctors is absurd.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I’ve asked my biller for the full pdf. I’ll keep you all posted
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Well just to throw my hat in, I have been billing it as:
64493-50 and 64494-50.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
For medicare plans I bill:
64493-50, KX
64494-50, KX

For commercial insurances I bill:
64493-50
64494-LT
64494-RT

Eventually the commercial insurances will probably adopt the CMS changes which took place in April 2021, but most have not yet. Until then you should bill commercial insurances with the Lt, Rt modifiers for the second level as it reimburses more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
For medicare plans I bill:
64493-50, KX
64494-50, KX

For commercial insurances I bill:
64493-50
64494-LT
64494-RT

Eventually the commercial insurances will probably adopt the CMS changes which took place in April 2021, but most have not yet. Until then you should bill commercial insurances with the Lt, Rt modifiers for the second level as it reimburses more.
Changing your billing to fit the insurance screams fraud.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Changing your billing to fit the insurance screams fraud.

Is it though?

For the longest time a new consult had a 9924x code for a commercial insurance and Medicare said only 9920x for new patients.

We had to change our codes then to fit the insurance.

They made the rules, we are just playing by them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Changing your billing to fit the insurance screams fraud.
I disagree.
We have had commercial insurance companies speak to our billing department and tell them directly that we should bill first level with 50 modifier and second level with LT and RT modifiers.
CMS has clearly told us to bill both levels with 50 modifiers for medicare patients.
It is not fraud to follow the instructions given to us directly by CMS and commercial insurances for patients on their plans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Here’s a question…so 2 weeks between MBBs but any waiting before proceeding to RFA after second MBB?
 
Doesn’t matter what way commercial insurance wants you to bill. I can’t hard get them to authorize jack **** so worrying about the 50 vs LT/RT is pointless.
 
Humana just notified my precert department that it has to be 3 weeks between MBBs now. Midwest region.
 
Admittedly, this whole thing is kind of annoying, and I don’t like being told what to do by insurance companies, though obviously, that is largely what the job is these days. But I don’t think making patients wait is that big of a problem. Most of these people have had back pain for 1 million years. An extra few weeks isn’t going to make a difference. Any patient who is that upset about waiting an extra few weeks to treat their very, very chronic problem likely is being unreasonable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Admittedly, this whole thing is kind of annoying, and I don’t like being told what to do by insurance companies, though obviously, that is largely what the job is these days. But I don’t think making patients wait is that big of a problem. Most of these people have had back pain for 1 million years. An extra few weeks isn’t going to make a difference. Any patient who is that upset about waiting an extra few weeks to treat their very, very chronic problem likely is being unreasonable.

Once they feel what life is like s/p MBB #1, they get a whole lot less patient.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
CMS changed the rules this year, 2021. This is now how they want you to bill bilateral L2-5 mbb:

64493-50
64494 x2 (Rt, Lt)
64495 x2 (Rt, Lt)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
CMS changed the rules this year, 2021. This is now how they want you to bill bilateral L2-5 mbb:

64493-50
64494 x2 (Rt, Lt)
64495 x2 (Rt, Lt)
They don’t want you to bill that…too many levels
 
i agree. you should report it that way, but 64495 is generally not covered.


from CMS:

Group 2​


Group 2 Paragraph
The following CPT/HCPCS codes are non-covered*:
* this is not an inclusive list of non-covered codes
*Note: 64492 or 64495 describes a third and additional levels and should be listed separately in addition to the code for the primary procedure and the second level procedure and cannot be reported more than once per day. 64492 should be reported in conjunction with 64490/64491 and 64495 should be reported in conjunction with 64493/64494. Codes 64492 and 64495 will only be covered upon appeal if sufficient documentation of medical necessity is present.

Group 2 Codes
CodeDescription
64492Inj paravert f jnt c/t 3 lev
64495Inj paravert f jnt l/s 3 lev
 
They don’t want you to bill that…too many levels
Yeah I know, they’re slowly killing our field. Hope you got a back up plan or at the very least an out
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Does anyone know if the KX modifier is required by any non-Medicare insurances? What happens if I bill KX for an insurance that doesn't recognize KX? Do you think they just ignore it or will the claim get denied all-together? Hard to keep these things straight...
 
Top