Written and maintained by CASRAI Editorial Board
Last updated
A child comes in for a scheduled well-child visit. Partway through, the parent mentions that the cough has not settled in three weeks, or the growth chart shows a fall across two centile lines, or a screening questionnaire returns a positive result that needs working up. The visit is now two visits. Whether the practice gets paid for both — and whether that payment survives review — depends on a rule that is far more permissive than most paediatric practices believe, and on documentation that most practices do not produce.
The prevailing folklore is that you cannot bill a preventive visit and a problem-oriented visit on the same day, or that you can bill both but only one will ever be paid. Both beliefs are wrong, and the American Medical Association has published a resource specifically to dislodge them.
Verified against the American Medical Association’s “Can physicians bill for both preventive and E/M services in the same visit?”, part of the AMA Debunking Regulatory Myths series, updated 2 December 2025; and the Medicare National Correct Coding Initiative Policy Manual treatment of the significant, separately identifiable test. CPT codes and descriptions are copyright the American Medical Association. Commercial and Medicaid payer behaviour varies and is flagged below.
The Rule, Stated Plainly
The AMA’s position is unambiguous: “Physicians are not prohibited from coding and billing for both preventive and problem-focused Evaluation and Management (E/M) services when they are performed during the same appointment.”
The AMA then sets out the CPT mechanism, and this sentence is the operative one:
“If an abnormality is encountered or a preexisting problem is addressed in the process of performing a preventive/wellness visit, and the problem or abnormal finding is significant enough to require additional work to perform the key components of a problem-focused E/M service, then the appropriate office/outpatient E/M code should also be billed. Modifier-25 should be added to the office/outpatient code to indicate that a significant, separately identifiable E/M service was provided on the same day as the preventive medicine service. The appropriate preventive medicine service is additionally reported.”
Three structural points fall out of that paragraph, and each of them is a place practices get it wrong.
Modifier 25 goes on the office/outpatient E/M code, not on the preventive medicine code. This is the single most common mechanical error. The preventive service is reported clean; the problem-oriented visit carries the modifier. Our guide to modifier 25 and the significant, separately identifiable test works through why the modifier lives on the E/M line and what the NCCI Policy Manual requires it to assert — that reasoning applies here without modification, and this page does not restate it.
Both services are reported. The preventive medicine service does not shrink or disappear because a problem was also addressed. The AMA is explicit: “The appropriate preventive medicine service is additionally reported.”
The trigger is additional work, not the existence of a problem. The threshold is that the finding is “significant enough to require additional work to perform the key components of a problem-focused E/M service.” A problem mentioned and dismissed is not additional work. A problem that generates its own history, its own examination and its own management decision is.
What “Additional Work” Actually Means
The preventive medicine service already contains a great deal. An age-appropriate history, a comprehensive examination, anticipatory guidance, risk-factor counselling and ordering of appropriate immunisations and screening are all inside the preventive code. Work that is part of that package cannot be counted twice to justify a second line.
The question is therefore not “did we discuss anything other than routine prevention?” but “did a problem generate history-taking, examination or medical decision making that the preventive service does not already include?”
The AMA adds a note on how to gauge it: “The significance of the problem addressed and the amount of time and medical decision-making required help determine how the services are most appropriately billed.”
The Under-Coding Problem
The AMA resource makes a point that is unusual in compliance writing, and it is worth repeating because paediatrics is where it bites hardest:
“Many physicians, usually motivated by a desire to avoid audits, tend to under-code for the work they have performed, resulting in significant amounts of uncompensated care.”
The instruction the AMA gives is “to accurately and completely document all medically appropriate and necessary care performed during a patient encounter, and to bill for what is documented.” Systematically declining to report the problem-oriented visit is not a conservative choice; it is an inaccurate one, and it produces a claims history that misrepresents the practice’s actual case mix.
Worked Example One: Clearly Two Services
A four-year-old attends a scheduled well-child visit. The preventive components are completed: interval history, full examination, growth and development review, vision and hearing screening, anticipatory guidance, immunisations ordered.
During the visit the parent reports six weeks of nocturnal cough disturbing sleep, worse after running. The clinician takes a focused respiratory and atopy history, examines the chest specifically for wheeze and prolonged expiration, considers and documents a differential of asthma versus post-viral cough, initiates a trial of an inhaled bronchodilator with a spacer, demonstrates technique, and arranges review in four weeks.
Report: the age-appropriate preventive medicine service, reported clean; plus the appropriate office/outpatient E/M code with modifier 25 appended.
Why it holds: the respiratory history, the targeted examination and the prescribing decision are not components of the preventive service. They are additional work performing the key components of a problem-focused E/M. The documentation should make the two strands separable on the page — a reviewer should be able to read the note and identify which findings and which decisions belong to which service.
Worked Example Two: One Service, Not Two
A two-year-old attends a well-child visit. The parent asks whether the child’s occasional tantrums are normal. The clinician confirms that they are developmentally typical, offers brief reassurance and a short piece of behavioural advice, and moves on.
Report: the preventive medicine service alone.
Why: anticipatory guidance about normal development is squarely inside the preventive service. Reassurance that a finding is normal is not additional work performing the key components of a problem-focused E/M — it is the preventive service doing its job. Appending a second E/M line here is precisely the pattern that draws review, and it is not supportable.
Worked Example Three: The Chronic Condition Check
A ten-year-old with established, well-controlled asthma attends for a well-child visit. The clinician performs the preventive components, and separately reviews asthma control, checks inhaler technique, reviews the action plan, confirms no change in the regimen is needed, and documents current control status.
This is the genuinely ambiguous case, and it turns on whether the chronic-condition work rose to “additional work to perform the key components of a problem-focused E/M service.” A substantive assessment of a chronic condition — control status assessed, adherence and technique reviewed, a management decision made and recorded, even a decision to continue unchanged — can support a second line. A one-line note reading “asthma stable, continues inhaler” generally cannot.
The honest test is whether the note would stand as a credible problem-oriented visit if the preventive content were deleted from it. If what remains is a fragment, the second line is not supported.
Where the Preventive Side Interacts With Modifiers
Preventive services carry their own modifier questions distinct from modifier 25 — in particular the modifiers that designate a service as preventive for cost-sharing purposes, and the situations where a service that began as preventive becomes diagnostic. Our guide to modifier 33 and modifier PT and deciding when a service is preventive covers that decision, which is separate from — and can coexist with — the modifier 25 decision described here.
The Patient-Facing Consequence
Billing both services correctly frequently produces a bill the family did not expect, because the preventive visit carries no cost-sharing under most plans while the problem-oriented visit does. The AMA notes this directly: practices encounter “patient pushback when they receive a billing statement with charges they were not anticipating.”
This is a communication problem, not a coding problem, and it should not be solved by under-coding. Practices that handle it well tell the family at the point of care that a second issue was addressed and that it may generate a separate charge. Reversing a correctly coded claim because a family complained creates a worse compliance position than the original claim.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the problem need a different diagnosis code from the preventive visit?
A separate diagnosis will naturally attach to the problem-oriented service, but a different diagnosis is not what qualifies the second line. The NCCI Policy Manual is explicit in the general modifier 25 context that different diagnoses are neither required nor sufficient — the test is about work performed, not about diagnosis linkage. Adding a second ICD-10 code to a note that contains no additional work does not create a billable second service.
Which code gets modifier 25?
The office/outpatient E/M code. Never the preventive medicine code. This is stated directly in the AMA guidance and it is the most frequent mechanical error in this area.
Will commercial payers actually pay both?
Many do; some apply their own edits or reduce payment on one line. Payer behaviour here is genuinely variable and is not governed by CPT alone. The correct response to a payer that denies a properly documented pair is to appeal with the documentation, not to change coding practice prospectively. Note also that some Medicaid programmes and managed care plans publish specific instructions for same-day preventive and problem services; where such an instruction exists, it governs.
Can this happen at a visit that was booked as a sick visit rather than a well visit?
Yes, and the analysis is symmetrical. If a child attends for an acute problem and the clinician also completes a full preventive service that was due, both may be reported on the same basis, with modifier 25 on the problem-oriented E/M. What matters is what was performed and documented, not what the appointment was called when it was booked.
Does time spent count toward anything here?
Time may inform the office/outpatient E/M level selection under the ordinary rules for that code family. It does not convert a non-qualifying problem into a qualifying one — the threshold remains additional work performing the key components of a problem-focused E/M service.
What single documentation habit most improves defensibility?
Write the problem-oriented service as a visibly separate section of the note, with its own history, its own findings and its own assessment and plan. A reviewer who can point to a discrete, self-contained problem-oriented note inside the encounter record will approve the pair. A reviewer reading a single blended narrative will not.
