SUPS Coding and Billing Position Statement on Ancillary /Adjunct Penile Prosthesis Surgical Procedures: Part I.

Matthew J. Mutter,Rafael Carrion,Marc J. Rogers,Culley C. Carson,Paul H. Chung,Gerard D. Henry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2024.02.038
IF: 1.555
2024-03-03
Urology journal
Abstract:Objective To create a society position statement on common adjunct penile prosthesis (PP) procedures. While the Medicare Current Procedural Terminology (CPT®) code book lists descriptions of procedures, it is very brief and lacks detail in the small subspecialty of prosthetic urology. At educational/research meetings, wide variation was found in how experts in prosthetic urology code the same procedures, and need for a standardized format in billing common ancillary surgery was voiced. Methods A subcommittee within the Society of Prosthetic Urologic Surgeons (SUPS) developed a survey assessing coding options for several procedures commonly adjunct to PP placement, which was distributed in the fall of 2022. The results of the survey were used to develop consensus statements on coding adjunct PP procedures; statements were distributed among society membership and meetings for approval. Results Thirty members replied to the survey; demographics were obtained as follows: 73% were trained in a fellowship, 50% identified as university/academic practitioners, and 50% in community/private practice; and 63% respondents place more than 50 implants annually. Only 1 of the 30 respondents stated confidence in coding for these ancillary procedures. Specifically, differences in how to code curvature correction procedures were observed throughout the survey results. Conclusions Only 1 in 30 prosthetic urologists expressed confidence in coding and billing of adjunct PP procedures, further confirming the need for a society position statement. Therefore, we generated a consensus society position statement on common surgeries that are adjunct to PP placement.
urology & nephrology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?