Querying when a Pending COVID-19 Test Returns Results

Don’t query for every result.

There are many different ways we investigate infectious diseases with current technology. In the case of COVID-19, research labs might culture the living organism, the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The widely used Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR, or PCR) test qualitatively detects nucleic acid from the viral ribonucleic acid (RNA), requiring viral genetic material. There are now rapid antigen tests, which can detect fragments of proteins found on or within the virus. Finally, there are antibody, or serological, tests, which assess whether or not antibodies have been made in an immune response to the viral infection.

Each of these tests has its own accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and challenges. Not all test results come back in a clinical timely fashion. We are having issues with availability of COVID-19 testing, nationally and globally. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been issuing emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for tests at an unprecedented pace, but there are still many tests that have not been approved.

The tests to diagnose current COVID-19 infection have significant false negative rates. The PCR testing has up to 30 percent, and the rapid antigen testing is noted to have a 15-20-percent false negative rate. Some of these tests take hours, and some take days to yield results.

This means that patients will sometimes be discharged or die prior to the results of their COVID-19 tests being known. The American Hospital Association/American Health Information Management Association (AHA/AHIMA) guidance advises developing facility-specific coding guidelines to hold back coding of inpatient admissions and outpatient encounters until test results are available. They recommend querying the provider if the test results come back negative, even if the provider documented a diagnosis of COVID-19 on a clinical basis, to give them “the opportunity to reconsider the diagnosis based on the new information.”

In my opinion, as a physician and an ex-physician advisor, I can categorically assure you that it would irritate a provider to get queried to confirm a diagnosis they had already made clinically and documented in a codable format. I agree with developing facility-specific coding guidelines, but they should be sensible and reasonable.

Here are my suggestions:

Concordant documentation and testing (they match):

  • “COVID-19 by clinical judgment” test returns positive: code without query. Send feedback notification informing the provider of a positive result. The provider may addend the record with the confirmatory result if they so choose.
  • “Acute gastroenteritis. Doubt COVID-19” test returns negative: do not code COVID-19 (code symptoms and exposure). Do not query. Notification is not necessary, but could be done on an informational basis.
  • “Fever and cough, probable COVID-19” test returns positive: code without query. Send confirmatory notification informing provider of positive result. The provider may addend the record with the confirmatory result if they so choose.

Discordant documentation and testing (they don’t match):

  • “COVID-19 by clinical judgment” test returns negative:
    • If clinical indicators are supportive, code without query. Send feedback notification informing provider of positive result. It would be best practice for them to document the negative result and explain that they think it is a false negative.
    • If clinical indicators do not support diagnosis, generate a clinical validation query.
  • “Acute gastroenteritis. Doubt COVID-19” test returns positive: code COVID-19. Send notification informing provider of positive result and request addendum for the record.
  • “Fever and cough, probable COVID-19” test returns negative: query for clarification if they haven’t proactively addressed likelihood of false negative test result. Does the provider believe this is a false negative? Do they want to revise their diagnosis? Without a definitive diagnosis, this should be coded as signs and symptoms and Z20.828, the exposure code.

No mention of COVID-19 or testing in documentation, but testing done: this may ultimately result in denial of payment for the testing if there is no clearly identifiable justification for why the test was performed.

  • If positive: code COVID-19. Send notification informing provider of positive result and request addendum for the record. This notification should educate that best practice is to always document a reason as to why COVID-19 testing is being done (e.g., due to potential exposure, patient request, etc.).
  • If negative: send notification informing the provider that best practice is to always document a reason as to why COVID-19 testing is being done (e.g., due to potential exposure, patient request, etc.). Code exposure (since we are in pandemic situation).

Don’t query for every result. Providers will change their behavior if they understand why it is being asked of them, and if it isn’t an excessive encumbrance. They do not appreciate additional documentation burden for no good reason. Give them a good reason.

Example of verbiage for notification/request for addendum due to return of pending test results:

Positive results:

Dear Dr. Doe,
Patient X, MRN 12345, was seen on (date) and a COVID-19 test was performed. They were discharged/died prior to the return of the results (i.e., results were pending).
Your diagnosis was (diagnosis).
The results of the test were positive.
□  Coding rules permit coders to pick up the diagnosis of COVID-19 based on a positive test. You did not make the diagnosis during the encounter. This notification is to inform you of the results of the test and to ask you to addend the medical record according to facility coding guidelines.
□  Coding rules permit coders to pick up the diagnosis of COVID-19 based on a positive test. You made an uncertain diagnosis, which has now been confirmed. This notification is to inform you of the results of the test and to give you the opportunity to addend the medical record if you are so inclined.
□  Coding rules permit coders to pick up the diagnosis of COVID-19 based on a positive test. Since you made the clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, no action is necessary at this time. This notification is informational only, although you may addend the record with the results of the test if you so choose.
□  Coding rules permit coders to pick up the diagnosis of COVID-19 based on a positive test. There was no mention of COVID-19, and the documentation in the record did not give a rationale for why the test was done. This notification is to inform you of the results of the test and to ask you to addend the medical record accordingly. In the future, please document the medical necessity for ordering and performing the test. For COVID-19, the rationale may be potential exposure during pandemic/epidemic and/or signs/symptoms.

Negative results:

Dear Dr. Doe,
Patient X, MRN 12345, was seen on (date) and a COVID-19 test was performed. They were discharged/died prior to the return of the results.
Your diagnosis was (diagnosis).
The results of the test were negative.
□  You made a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, and the results are discordant.
      • If you believe this is a false negative, best practice would be to addend the medical record accordingly.
      • If a negative result has made you reconsider the diagnosis, please addend the medical record and update your diagnosis.

□  You made an uncertain diagnosis of COVID-19, and the results are discordant.

      • If you believe this is a false negative, best practice would be to addend the medical record accordingly.
      • If a negative result has made you reconsider the diagnosis, please addend the medical record and update your diagnosis.
□  You did not mention COVID-19. The documentation in the record did not give a rationale for why the test was done. This notification is to inform you of the results of the test and to ask you to addend the medical record accordingly. In the future, please document the medical necessity for ordering and performing the test. For COVID-19, the rationale may be potential exposure during pandemic/epidemic and/or signs/symptoms.
□  You ruled out the diagnosis of COVID-19 during the encounter. No action is necessary at this time. This notification is informational only, although you may addend the record with the results of the test if you so choose.

One of our Talk Ten Tuesdays listeners shared with me that her facility uses a query when a COVID-19 test returns negative, but the provider documents that COVID-19 is still suspected in an uncodable format. I have made some minor tweaks:

Query for negative COVID-19 test results with uncertain COVID-19 documentation:

This patient presented with (include symptoms/conditions) and was worked up for COVID-19. Negative COVID-19 test results were acknowledged, and it is documented that COVID-19 is still suspected (uncertain diagnosis verbiage).

Based on clinical impression at the time of discharge, please select the most appropriate contributing etiology:

() COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2), although testing was negative

() Possible COVID-19, uncertainty remains

() Other contributing organism (please specify)…

() Unable to clinically determine

() Other (please specify)…

Programming Note: Listen to Dr. Erica Remer every Tuesday on Talk Ten Tuesdays, 10-10:30 a.m. EST.

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Erica Remer, MD, FACEP, CCDS, ACPA-C

Erica Remer, MD, FACEP, CCDS, ACPA-C has a unique perspective as a practicing emergency physician for 25 years, with extensive coding, CDI, and ICD-10 expertise. As physician advisor for University Hospitals Health System in Cleveland, Ohio for four years, she trained 2,700 providers in ICD-10, closed hundreds of queries, fought numerous DRG clinical determination and medical necessity denials, and educated CDI specialists and healthcare providers with engaging, case-based presentations. She transitioned to independent consulting in July 2016. Dr. Remer is a member of the ICD10monitor editorial board and is the co-host on the popular Talk Ten Tuesdays weekly, live Internet radio broadcasts.

Related Stories

Leave a Reply

Please log in to your account to comment on this article.

Featured Webcasts

Mastering Principal Diagnosis: Coding Precision, Medical Necessity, and Quality Impact

Mastering Principal Diagnosis: Coding Precision, Medical Necessity, and Quality Impact

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.

December 3, 2025

Proactive Denial Management: Data-Driven Strategies to Prevent Revenue Loss

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.

November 25, 2025
Sepsis: Bridging the Clinical Documentation and Coding Gap to Reduce Denials

Sepsis: Bridging the Clinical Documentation and Coding Gap to Reduce Denials

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.

September 24, 2025

Trending News

Featured Webcasts

AI in Claims Auditing: Turning Compliance Risks into Defensible Systems

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.

January 13, 2026
Surviving Federal Audits for Inpatient Rehab Facility Services

Surviving Federal Audits for Inpatient Rehab Facility Services

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.

November 13, 2025
E/M Services Under Intensive Federal Scrutiny: Navigating Split/Shared, Incident-to & Critical Care Compliance in 2025-2026

E/M Services Under Intensive Federal Scrutiny: Navigating Split/Shared, Incident-to & Critical Care Compliance in 2025-2026

During this essential RACmonitor webcast Michael Calahan, PA, MBA Certified Compliance Officer, will clarify the rules, dispel common misconceptions, and equip you with practical strategies to code, document, and bill high-risk split/shared, incident-to & critical care E/M services with confidence. Don’t let audit risks or revenue losses catch your organization off guard — learn exactly what federal auditors are looking for and how to ensure your documentation and reporting stand up to scrutiny.

August 26, 2025

Trending News

Prepare for the 2025 CMS IPPS Final Rule with ICD10monitor’s IPPSPalooza! Click HERE to learn more

Get 15% OFF on all educational webcasts at ICD10monitor with code JULYFOURTH24 until July 4, 2024—start learning today!

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