AMA has big, big plans for changing how it handles AI services (potentially affecting digital pathology and genomics) in terms of policy and coding, possibly even with whole new classes of codes.
These come under the headline of "Revising Appendix S," which has been a topic for several AMA CPT meetings in a row.
You can register with AMA to view and comment on Appendix S plans, under the heading "Tab 67" of the next AMA CPT meeting. Instructions here.
New News: April 16:
AMA has just announced a special public meeting on Thursday April 16, from 430-600pm Central Time (530-700 ET, 230-400 PT).
Here's the AMA text and links. Further below, I give you a very short AI summary of Appendix S.
See an essay from AMA policy participant Richard Frank MD - here.
###
Greetings,
The AMA will be hosting a virtual meeting to discuss Tab 67-Appendix S Revisions with Interested Parties and CPT Advisors ahead of the May 2026 CPT Editorial Panel Meeting. Due to interest in this tab, this session will serve as an opportunity for stakeholders to comment prior to the Panel meeting. While time may not permit all participants to speak, it is our goal to hear a broad range of perspectives.
Join us on Thursday, April 16th from 4:30 – 6:00 PM CT. Registration for this meeting is required.
Participants will be required to comply with the CPT confidentiality policy. Meeting details will be sent to your registration email prior to the start of the meeting.
Background
The CPT Editorial Panel created the Digital Medicine Coding Committee in 2024. The committee responds to requests from the Panel and supports the Panel on coding issues involving digital medicine or artificial intelligence. It does this by providing or obtaining subject matter expertise and advice.
Since its formation, the Digital Medicine Coding Committee (DMCC) has been planning an update to clarify and strengthen Appendix S: AI Taxonomy for Medical Services & Procedures, based on stakeholder feedback, applicant responses to AI-specific questions in the code change application (CCA), and needs identified by the Panel. The DMCC is actively seeking stakeholder feedback to ensure that revisions to the taxonomy in this code change application address longstanding areas in Appendix S that require clarification.
If you would like to attend, please register for this meeting here. Your input and thoughts are very important to the CPT Process.
####
###
AI MIni Notes
From 2025 Publication to 0326 Proposal: summary (about 150 words):
The March 26, 2026 revision of Appendix S is not just an edit of the 2025 version; it is a substantial effort to turn Appendix S from a simple taxonomy into a more operational CPT policy framework for software-intensive services. The 2025 version mainly defined assistive, augmentative, and autonomous services at a high level. The 0326 version keeps those categories but adds much more about software outputs, reference services in current clinical practice, and the types of evidence needed to justify each category. It narrows assistive by warning that terms like “risk for” or “suggestive of” may require clinical validation. It raises the threshold for augmentative by demanding outputs that are not merely statistical but clinically meaningful, clinically important, and pertinent to the CPT descriptor. It also tightens autonomous claims by emphasizing transparency, guidelines, and clinical utility, suggesting the drafters want stricter boundaries and stronger evidentiary discipline.
From Feb 02 Version to 0326 Proposal: summary (about 150 words):
The March 26, 2026 version is best seen as a tightening and sharpening of the February 4, 2026 draft rather than a wholesale rewrite. By February, Appendix S had already begun evolving beyond a simple AI taxonomy toward a framework about software outputs, evidence, and coding boundaries. The March draft pushes this further. It drops more of the device-oriented/FDA-style language and speaks more clearly in CPT terms, focusing on software outputs and their relationship to a reference service in current clinical practice. It more carefully restricts assistive status, especially for outputs using predictive language like “likelihood of” or “risk for.” It makes augmentative more demanding by tying clinical meaningfulness directly to the CPT code characteristics. It also removes February language that gave Category III applicants a more permissive developmental pathway. Overall, March appears more conservative, more evidence-calibrated, and more focused on preventing applicants from overclaiming sophistication or autonomy.