Physical therapy evaluation CPT codes

2026-09-04 · 9 min read

Three evaluation tiers and a re-evaluation. The tier is decided by four documented elements, not by how long the visit took — and a chart where every evaluation is the middle tier is a chart that has stopped deciding.

Ink-and-wash drawing of an evaluation form with a goniometer and a tape measure
An evaluation form, a goniometer and a tape measure: everything the tier is decided by.

The three tiers

CodeComplexityThe picture it describes
97161LowStable presentation, one or two body-structure elements, no personal factors complicating the plan
97162ModerateEvolving presentation, three or more elements, moderate clinical decision making
97163HighUnstable or unpredictable, four or more elements, comorbidities that change the plan

The codes pay differently, which is why the tier attracts attention. They are not, however, a judgement about how hard you worked; they describe how complicated the patient was.

The four elements

History with or without personal factors and comorbidities. Examination of body systems and the number of elements measured. The clinical presentation — stable, evolving, or unstable. And clinical decision making. Every tier is a combination of those four, and the record has to show each of them in the words of the evaluation, not in a code box.

The presentation element does most of the work

“Stable”, “evolving” and “unstable” are the words that separate the tiers most cleanly. Use them explicitly in the assessment and the tier becomes readable rather than inferred.

Ink-and-wash drawing of three folders of increasing thickness
Three folders of increasing thickness — the complexity tiers, roughly.

97164 re-evaluation

97164 is a formal re-examination triggered by something clinical: new findings, a failure to progress, a change that alters the plan of care. It is not the ten-visit progress note, and billing it on a calendar rather than on a finding is the commonest misuse.

The test is whether the plan changed as a result. If the frequency, the goals or the interventions moved, you re-evaluated. If the note simply summarises where things stand, that is a progress note and it is not separately billable.

The pattern problem

Every evaluation coded 97162 for two years is a pattern, and patterns get sampled. So does the opposite — a practice where every evaluation is high complexity. Neither is inherently fraud and both invite the question, which then costs a week of pulling charts.

A distribution that never varies is a template, not a set of judgements.

Ink-and-wash drawing of a blank wall chart in a treatment room
A blank wall chart in an empty treatment room.

A worked case

A 54-year-old with four weeks of unilateral low back pain, no radicular signs, well-controlled hypertension, working full time. History has one comorbidity that does not change the plan. Examination measures lumbar range, a lower-limb neurological screen and two provocation tests — three elements. The presentation is evolving; it has changed twice since onset. Decision making is moderate. That is 97162, and the assessment should say “evolving” in so many words.

Change one fact — the same patient with poorly controlled diabetes, a previous failed episode of care and a night-pain pattern that has not settled — and the presentation is unstable, the comorbidity now changes the plan, and the tier moves. Write down which fact moved it.

The plan that follows the evaluation is a separate document with its own requirements; the plan of care builder covers frequency, duration and goals.

Red flag — refer out

An unstable presentation is a coding tier. Progressive neurological deficit, unexplained weight loss, night pain with a cancer history or bladder change is a referral, whatever tier the evaluation would have been.

CPT is a trademark of the American Medical Association; the descriptions here are our own summaries, not the AMA descriptors. Payer interpretation varies by contract.

Sources

Published 2026-09-04 · reviewed 2026-09-04