A common documentation and coding error in cardiac device reporting is the incorrect use of device interrogation (93288) versus programming device evaluation (93279–93285) codes. While the terms might sound interchangeable, they represent distinctly different services, and understanding the requirements can prevent compliance issues.

The Key Difference

Device Interrogation (93288) is a diagnostic review of a device’s data and functionality without making changes to the programmed settings.
Programming Device Evaluation requires documented iterative adjustments to the programmable parameters to determine the optimal settings for the patient. These adjustments may be retained or reverted to their original values, but the process of making and testing changes must be documented in the record.

What Counts as Programming?

According to CPT guidelines, programming device evaluation involves:

Assessing capture thresholds
Progressive changes to pacing output or other parameters
Reviewing all device functions, including battery and leads
Selecting final program parameters based on evaluation results

The purpose is to ensure the device delivers consistent, appropriate therapy tailored to the patient’s needs.

Why It Matters

During audits, a common finding is reporting programming device evaluation without supporting documentation. If your documentation shows iterative adjustments made and tested during the session—you’re in programming territory. If not, stick with the interrogation code.

Meet the Presenter: Deanna Upston, CPC, CCS, CPMA, COSC

Deanna is a Senior Coding Quality Auditor for The Haugen Consulting Group with over 20 years of health care industry experience. Her introduction was through medical assisting, which she enjoyed for several years. Once she was established at a surgeon’s office, she started coding their surgical cases and discovered that was her favorite part of the day. Deanna has experience working on the professional fee side of coding, audit, education and compliance serving coders and physicians. She has put together multiple education sessions for both provider and coder. She also has experience working as an analyst in which she validated the integrity of editing logic during the implementation of claim scrubbing software.