Thanks for the clarification — I didn’t attend the webinar and I’m no longer invested in EIQ, so I’ve only been observing from a distance without doing deep research. I don’t plan to re-invest in the foreseeable future, so I’m not actively across every detail.
That said, if the rejection excerpt you highlighted is accurate, then it reflects a failure of criteria #1 and #4, not #1 and #5 as I previously suggested might be the case.
To be precise:
#1 – Unique, well-defined descriptor: the AMA Panel couldn’t clearly distinguish EchoSolv as a separate service from existing echo procedures.
#4 – Accurate reflection of how the service is performed: the Panel found that the descriptor didn’t match how the technology is typically used in practice (i.e., it may be embedded in or bundled with standard echo workflows).
These aren’t just minor wording issues — they go to the heart of how the service is defined and delivered. Fixing this likely requires more than rephrasing; EIQ would need to restructure how the software is described, used, and billed, and justify why it should be a distinct reimbursable service.
I’m happy to be corrected if I’ve misunderstood anything, but this seems like a fair reading of the AMA feedback.
Have a look at the analyses of AMA rejections; code III should generally be a tick and flick, Code I is comparatively far more difficult.
(20min delay)