Comparison · Coding

Modifier 76 vs Modifier 77

Modifier 76 reports a repeat procedure by the same physician. Modifier 77 reports a repeat procedure by a different physician on the same day.

Last reviewed May 24, 2026

Side by side

Option A

Modifier 76

Repeat procedure or service by the same physician or other qualified health care professional, subsequent to the original procedure or service.

Modifier 76
  • Same provider, repeat of an earlier service.
  • Indicates the repeat was not a duplicate-claim error.
Option B

Modifier 77

Repeat procedure by another physician or other qualified health care professional, subsequent to the original procedure or service.

Modifier 77
  • Different provider repeats the service.
  • Common when two ED physicians read serial X-rays on the same patient.
Who repeated the service
Mod 76Same physician as the first one
Mod 77A different physician
Why it exists
Mod 76Distinguishes a clinical repeat from a duplicate claim
Mod 77Same purpose, signals a different reader/operator
Documentation expected
Mod 76Clinical reason for repeat (e.g., post-procedure imaging)
Mod 77Clinical reason + identity of the second provider

When to use Modifier 76

  • The same physician reads a repeat chest X-ray on the same patient later in the day.
  • Repeat EKG by the same cardiologist after intervention.

When to use Modifier 77

  • A second ED physician reads a serial X-ray that a colleague read earlier in the shift.
  • A different anesthesiologist re-administers a service after the first provider went off duty.

Common mistakes

  • Omitting 76/77 on legitimate repeats — the claim system rejects as a duplicate.
  • Using 76 when the second reader was different (should be 77).
  • Using 76/77 to cover up missing documentation of medical necessity.

Sources

Related

More Coding comparisons
Guides
Take it into the workspace

Confirm 76 vs 77 in Ask D3

Open ask d3 →
Authored by D3rx

D3rx is a healthcare-billing and compliance research aid maintained by D3rx Inc. Articles are drafted by an LLM (Anthropic Claude) against primary HHS, OCR, CMS, eCFR, NIST, and state-regulator publications, and reviewed for restraint and source fidelity by the D3rx team.

Reviewer status: a named credentialed reviewer (CHC, CHPC, or healthcare attorney) is being engaged. Until that engagement is finalized, this page does not claim credentialed review.

See reviewer status →Editorial standards →How we research →

This comparison is a research aid for billing and compliance staff. It does not provide legal, medical, or financial advice and does not replace counsel. References cited link to primary sources at CMS, HHS, OCR, eCFR, NIST, and the relevant payer or state regulator. Last reviewed May 24, 2026.