Journal Home
Search for

Volume 11, Issue 11, Pages 871-880 (November 2005)


View previous. 8 of 43 View next.

The New Apheresis and Blood and Marrow Transplantation–Related Current Procedural Terminology Codes for Payment of Apheresis and Blood and Marrow Transplantation Services

James L. Gajewski12Corresponding Author Informationemail address, Angela Simmons3, Robert Weinstein4, Edward Snyder5, John McMannis1, Bernard Patashnik6, Samuel Hassenbusch7, C. Frederick LeMaistre8, Tasa Woods1, Corliss Denman1, Samuel Silver9

Received 6 May 2005; accepted 28 July 2005.

Abstract 

To address deficiencies in Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes that describe many of the clinical services offered to patients, several physicians in the blood and marrow transplantation and apheresis field joined with a coalition including the American Society of Hematology, American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation, American Association of Blood Banks, American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Apheresis, National Marrow Donor Program, and American Red Cross to collaborate in addressing these deficiencies by designing new CPT codes. The CPT editorial panel approved 18 new or revised codes. All these codes were given permanent or temporary value by the relative value unit update committee, but not all values were approved by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), in particular, the cell-processing codes and the unrelated donor search code. Further discussions addressing these concerns are under way with the CMS. Use of these new codes allows apheresis and transplant centers to charge appropriately for these services. This will help transplant center contracts with CPT codes, with payers more specifically describing services offered to these patients. In turn, this will give better justification for payment. This may allow certain payments for services to increase and help transplant centers better allocate revenue from fixed global case rate payments. Details about the individual codes and their approval process are reviewed in this article.

1 Department of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas

2 Department of Internal Medicine, Division Hematology–Oncology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC

3 Office of the Chief Financial Officer, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas

4 Saint Elizabeth Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts

5 Department of Transfusion Medicine, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut

6 Marc Associates, Inc., Washington, DC

7 Department of Neurosurgery, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas

8 Texas Transplant Institute, San Antonio, Texas

9 Department of Internal Medicine, Division Hematology–Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Corresponding Author InformationCorrespondence and reprint requests: James L. Gajewski, MD, FACP, Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Georgetown University Hospital, Bles Building, Ground Floor, 3800 Reservoir Rd., N.W., Washington, DC 20007

PII: S1083-8791(05)00502-1

doi:10.1016/j.bbmt.2005.07.014


View previous. 8 of 43 View next.