Molecular diagnostic assays are one of the fastest growing segments for clinical diagnostics. Advancements in testing capabilities allows for rapid determination by simultaneously assessing multiple genes, which for some patients will have life changing effects, by identification of low prevalence inherited and environmentally induced diseases, syndromes and conditions.
The advancements in testing capabilities are exciting for clinical outcomes, the unfortunate flip side of these advancements is the fact that the issuance of codes, guidelines and payer policies have not kept pace with the development of new technology (i.e., next generation sequencing [NGS]) or the rapid expansion of medically indicated use for gene-based test results. Further, there is a lag in recognition of medically indicated testing, pushing payers to classify the current technology for gene sequencing procedures (GSP) as “investigational” or “research only.”
The information gained is truly beneficial in further understanding previously unidentified or misunderstood diseases, syndromes and conditions, and provides useful information for increased treatment options and improved patient outcomes – so why is reimbursement lacking for this testing?
Application of Coding Logic
There is an industry-wide need to improve coding knowledge for DNA and RNA based testing. The published guidance for CPT codes is limited and does not provide sufficient rationale for the creation of the code, or it’s intended use. Accurate code selection requires review of multiple resources and correlation of information for labs to have any confidence in their billed claims, and with an overall lack of industry guidance to support coding accuracy – that confidence is difficult to have.
Codes Have Not Kept Up with Technology
CPT code options do not include all scenarios where multi-gene panels are available, and issuance of new codes has not kept pace with technology or the rapid expansion of medically indicated use for gene-based testing. Coding options are based on when genes are assessed either simultaneously or sequentially. New technology allows for simultaneous testing of multiple genes, but available code choices do not include many scenarios where multi-gene panels are available – leaving labs with no accurate option for CPT code assignment.
Denial of Payment
Labs that attempt to comply with payer expectations of sequential testing, or application of complex testing cascades, are challenged by the knowledge that sequential analysis can sometimes add weeks to reporting the results. Not to mention that codes may not be available for multi-gene panels, or payer coverage guidelines may be unclear. By applying the incorrect coding logic (stacking of CPT codes) to the simultaneous analysis of multiple genes (multi-gene panels), billed charges are inadvertently increased – resulting in either overpayment (and probably later recoupment) or denials.
Payer Recoupment Following Post-Payment Audits
In recent months (yes, even during the current public health emergency) payers have been auditing claims for DNA and RNA based testing dating back to 2014. To further complicate matters, these audits have been applying coding guidelines that were not published until 2019. The reasoning: an assumption that laboratories “should have understood” coding limitations, even though guidance was lacking or confusing.
Payer Policies are Out of Sync with Technology
Recent payer policies, NCCI policy statements and AMA coding guidelines are pushing labs to increased use of the unlisted molecular pathology – CPT code 81479. This could be the “kiss of death” for laboratories performing multi-gene sequencing procedures where all genes are analyzed simultaneously. Since the subsection for Molecular Pathology Tier 1/Tier 2 codes was introduced, CPT code 81479 has been the go-to for “undefined” genes or variants. The established MUE limitations have stipulated that the unit of service is limited to 1, regardless of the number of unlisted genes analyzed. When the subsection for GSP was added, the coding options did not include an unlisted panel code option for billing of multi-gene panels. Instead, labs have two options – 1. stack multiple Tier 1/Tier 2 CPT codes to represent codable genes/variants tested (which is not compliant); or 2. submit one unit of code 81479 – often resulting in $0.00 payment.
Another consequence of increased reporting of unlisted codes has significant implications for the future of molecular testing: use of the unlisted code complicates the ability to share details of the testing performed, masking cost data behind the limited description of an unlisted code. Laboratories and payers remain at odds over the hidden cost of this testing and payer resistance to reimbursements.
As testing continues to advance, the need for education and guidance is only becoming more urgent.
Check out this on-demand webinar consolidating the information you need to ensure confidence in your workflows and code selections for DNA and RNA based tests.
There is a lot of talk lately about the need to follow orders given by a member of law enforcement. I would like to explore
In January 2026, the White House released a fact sheet announcing a call by Donald J. Trump for Congress to enact the “Great Healthcare Plan.”
Please log in to your account to comment on this article.
Expert presenters Kathy Pride, RHIT, CPC, CCS-P, CPMA, and Brandi Russell, RHIA, CCS, COC, CPMA, break down complex fracture care coding rules, walk through correct modifier application (-25, -57, 54, 55), and clarify sequencing for initial and subsequent encounters. Attendees will gain the practical knowledge needed to submit clean claims, ensure compliance, and stay one step ahead of payer audits in 2026.
Accurately determining the principal diagnosis is critical for compliant billing, appropriate reimbursement, and valid quality reporting — yet it remains one of the most subjective and error-prone areas in inpatient coding. In this expert-led session, Cheryl Ericson, RN, MS, CCDS, CDIP, demystifies the complexities of principal diagnosis assignment, bridging the gap between coding rules and clinical reality. Learn how to strengthen your organization’s coding accuracy, reduce denials, and ensure your documentation supports true medical necessity.
Denials continue to delay reimbursement, increase administrative burden, and threaten financial stability across healthcare organizations. This essential webcast tackles the root causes—rising payer scrutiny, fragmented workflows, inconsistent documentation, and underused analytics—and offers proven, data-driven strategies to prevent and overturn denials. Attendees will gain practical tools to strengthen documentation and coding accuracy, engage clinicians effectively, and leverage predictive analytics and AI to identify risks before they impact revenue. Through real-world case examples and actionable guidance, this session empowers coding, CDI, and revenue cycle professionals to shift from reactive appeals to proactive denial prevention and revenue protection.
Sepsis remains one of the most frequently denied and contested diagnoses, creating costly revenue loss and compliance risks. In this webcast, Angela Comfort, DBA, MBA, RHIA, CDIP, CCS, CCS-P, provides practical, real-world strategies to align documentation with coding guidelines, reconcile Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 definitions, and apply compliant queries. You’ll learn how to identify and address documentation gaps, strengthen provider engagement, and defend diagnoses against payer scrutiny—equipping you to protect reimbursement, improve SOI/ROM capture, and reduce audit vulnerability in this high-risk area.
Stay ahead of the 2026-2027 audit surge with “Top 10 Audit Targets for 2026-2027 for Hospitals & Physicians: Protect Your Revenue,” a high-impact webcast led by Michael Calahan, PA, MBA. This concise session gives hospitals and physicians clear insight into the most likely federal audit targets, such as E/M services, split/shared and critical care, observation and admissions, device credits, and Two-Midnight Rule changes, and shows how to tighten documentation, coding, and internal processes to reduce denials, recoupments, and penalties. Attendees walk away with practical best practices to protect revenue, strengthen compliance, and better prepare their teams for inevitable audits.
As AI reshapes healthcare compliance, the risk of biased outputs and opaque decision-making grows. This webcast, led by Frank Cohen, delivers a practical Four-Pillar Governance Framework—Transparency, Accountability, Fairness, and Explainability—to help you govern AI-driven claim auditing with confidence. Learn how to identify and mitigate bias, implement robust human oversight, and document defensible AI review processes that regulators and auditors will accept. Discover concrete remedies, from rotation protocols to uncertainty scoring, and actionable steps to evaluate vendors before contracts are signed. In a regulatory landscape that moves faster than ever, gain the tools to stay compliant, defend your processes, and reduce liability while maintaining operational effectiveness.
Get clear, practical answers to Medicare’s most confusing regulations. Join Dr. Ronald Hirsch as he breaks down real-world compliance challenges and shares guidance your team can apply right away.
Federal auditors are zeroing in on Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) and hospital rehab unit services, with OIG and CERT audits leading to millions in penalties—often due to documentation and administrative errors, not quality of care. Join compliance expert Michael Calahan, PA, MBA, to learn the five clinical “pillars” of IRF-PPS admissions, key documentation requirements, and real-life case lessons to help protect your revenue.
CYBER WEEK IS HERE! Don’t miss your chance to get 20% off now until Dec. 1 with code CYBER25
CYBER WEEK IS HERE! Don’t miss your chance to get 20% off now until Dec. 2 with code CYBER24
