NMM/OMTORIGINAL ARTICLE
Survey of Billing and Coding for Counterstrain Tender Points
J Osteopath Med; 112(6): 356-365
Abstract
Context: The names of certain counterstrain tender points are incongruent with their physical locations because of an assumption that these points are reflective of dysfunction in neighboring body areas. Because the body area that is physically examined does not always match the body region in which somatic dysfunction is diagnosed for these tender points, it is not always clear which evaluation and management service codes should be used for billing physician services.
Objectives: To assess the attitudes of osteopathic physicians toward the billing and coding of incongruent counterstrain tender points.
Methods: Physician members of the American Academy of Osteopathy who use counterstrain in clinical practice were surveyed regarding the body area that they would physically examine when assessing for incongruent tender points and, if tender points were present, the body regions to which they would assign somatic dysfunction for billing and coding purposes. Physician responses were categorized as indicating a structural approach (ie, reflective of anatomic location) or a functional approach (ie, reflective of dysfunction in neighboring body areas) to tender point examination and treatment. Associations between sex, specialty, and years in practice with the approach chosen were also examined.
Results: Of 175 physicians who responded to the survey, 156 met the study criteria. Respondents were primarily board-certified in neuromusculoskeletal medicine/osteopathic manipulative medicine (98 [63%]), special proficiency in osteopathic manipulative medicine (30 [19%]), or family practice/family practice and osteopathic manipulative treatment (94 [60%]). Ninety percent of physicians predominantly chose responses indicating a structural approach to the physical examination of tender points and 21% predominantly chose responses indicating a functional approach to somatic dysfunction diagnosis. There were inconsistencies among individual respondents regarding the type of approach chosen for a single tender point. For certain tender points, differences were seen for approach between men and women, specialty, and years in practice.
Conclusions: Our survey respondents had clear differences in opinion regarding physical examination location and somatic dysfunction diagnosis for incongruent tender points. These results suggest inconsistency among physicians in determining the physical examination component of evaluation and management services and the International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision, or ICD-9, diagnostic codes in the assessment of these incongruent tender points.