The economic cost of not coding disease-related malnutrition: A study in cancer inpatients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Disease-related malnutrition (DRM) coding rate is usually low in hospitalised patients. The objective of our study was to estimate the percentage of correct DRM coding in cancer inpatients and to calculate the economic losses caused by such lack of coding. METHODS: This was an observational, prospective study that was conducted in patients hospitalised in the Medical Oncology Unit of our hospital. A nutritional assessment was performed through subjective global assessment (SGA). The all patient refined-diagnosis related group (APR-DRG) weights were obtained at the moment of discharge; moreover, recalculation was done after including the diagnosis of malnutrition in the medical record of those patients in whom it had not been initially coded. The associated cost reimbursement were calculated based on the weight before and after revising the diagnosis of DRM. RESULTS: A total of 266 patients were evaluated. From them, 220 (82.7%) suffered from DRM according to the SGA. In 137 (51.5%) of these patients, diagnosis was coded, as opposed to 83 (31.2%) cases (33 subjects with moderate and 50 with severe DRM) in whom it was not coded. The sum of the APR-DRG weights before revising the diagnosis of malnutrition was 343.4 points (mean: 1.29 ± 0.89). Whereas, after revising the diagnosis, it increased up to 384.3 (1.44 ± 0.96). The total cost reimbursement for the hospital before revising the diagnosis of malnutrition was 1,607,861.21€ and after revision it increased up to 1,799,199.69€, which means that 191,338.48€ were not reimbursed to the hospital due to the lack of coding of malnutrition. The cost reimbursement for each admission increased an average of 719.32€. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of DRM in cancer inpatients is high. Nevertheless, the diagnosis is not coded in one third of patients, which results in important economic losses for the hospitals.

How accurate are we? A comparison of resident and staff physician billing knowledge and exposure to billing education during residency training

Background: Practice management is an overlooked and undertaught subject in medical education. Many physicians feel that their exposure to billing education during residency training was inadequate. The purpose of this study was to compare resident and staff physicians in terms of their billing knowledge and exposure to billing education during residency training. Methods: Senior residents and staff physicians completed a scenario-based clinical billing assessment. Posttest surveys were completed to determine exposure to practice management and billing education during training. Results: A total of 16 resident physicians and 17 staff physicians completed the billing assessment. Overall, the billing accuracy of respondents was poor. Staff physicians had a greater percentage of correct billing codes (55.3% v. 37.5%, p < 0.001) and underbilled codes (6.2% v. 3.4%, p = 0.009), with fewer missed billing codes (38.5% v. 59.1%, p < 0.001), compared with resident physicians. The percentage value of correct billings was significantly higher for staff physicians (71.5% v. 56.8%, p = 0.01). In the posttest survey, 100.0% of residents and 79.0% of staff physicians desired more billing education during training. Conclusion: In general, staff physicians billed more accurately than resident physicians, but even experienced staff physicians missed a substantial amount of potential revenue because of billing errors and omissions. The majority of the residents and staff physicians who participated in our study felt that current billing education is both insufficient and ineffective. Incorporating practice management and billing education into residency training is critical to ensure that the next generation of medical trainees possess the financial competence to required to manage a successful medical practice.

Contexte: La gestion médicale est un sujet souvent oublié et trop peu enseigné durant les études de médecine. Beaucoup de médecins ont l'impression que la formation sur la facturation offerte durant leur résidence était insuffisante. L'objectif de cette étude était de comparer les connaissances sur la facturation et l'exposition, durant la résidence, à la formation sur ce sujet des résidents et des médecins membres du personnel. Méthodes: Les résidents seniors et les médecins membres du personnel ont effectué une évaluation de facturation clinique à partir de mises en situation. Ils ont répondu à un sondage après le test pour déterminer leur exposition à la formation sur la gestion médicale et la facturation durant leurs études. Résultats: Au total, 16 médecins résidents et 17 médecins membres du personnel ont fait l'évaluation de facturation. Dans l'ensemble, l'exactitude de leur facturation était faible. Les médecins membres du personnel avaient un pourcentage plus élevé de codes de facturation corrects (55,3 % contre 37,5 %, p < 0,001) et de codes de facturation insuffisants (6,2 % contre 3,4 %, p = 0,009), et avaient moins de codes manquants (38,5 % contre 59,1 %, p < 0,001), comparativement aux médecins résidents. Le pourcentage de facturations correctes était significativement plus élevé chez les médecins membres du personnel (71,5 % contre 56,8 %, p = 0,01). Dans le sondage post-test, 100,0 % des résidents et 79,0 % des médecins membres du personnel désiraient avoir davantage de formation sur la facturation durant les études. Conclusion: En général, les médecins membres du personnel ont produit des factures plus exactes que les médecins résidents, mais même des médecins membres du personnel expérimentés ont perdu des revenus potentiels considérables en raison d'erreurs de facturation et d'omissions. La majorité des résidents et des médecins membres du personnel qui ont participé à l'étude avaient l'impression que la formation actuelle sur la facturation était à la fois insuffisante et inefficace. Il est essentiel d'intégrer la formation sur la gestion médicale et la facturation dans la résidence pour garantir que la prochaine génération de futurs médecins possède les compétences financières nécessaires pour gérer un cabinet prospère.

Clinical coding and data quality in oculoplastic procedures.

INTRODUCTION: Hospitals in England are reimbursed via national tariffs set out by NHS England. The tariffs payable to hospitals are determined by the activity coded for each patient's hospital visit. There are no national standards or publications within oculoplastics for coding accuracy. Our audit aimed to determine the accuracy of coding oculoplastic procedures carried out in theatres and to assess the financial implications of any discrepancies. METHODS: We carried out a prospective audit of consecutive oculoplastic procedures performed at one hospital site over a 6-week period. We subsequently created a coding proforma and performed a re-audit using the same methods. RESULTS: In the first cycle, clinical coding was 'correct' in 30.7% of cases, 'incomplete' for 12.9% and 'incorrect' for 56.5%. Of the 'incorrect' codes, 54.3% were coded as non-oculoplastic procedures (e.g. extraocular muscle surgery). We discussed our findings with the coding team in order to address the sources of error. We also created a 'tick box' coding proforma, for completion by surgeons. Our re-audit results showed an improvement of 'correct' coding to 85.7%. CONCLUSION: Clinical coding is complex and vulnerable to inaccuracy. Our audit showed a high rate of coding error, which improved following collaboration with our coding team to address the sources of error and by creating a coding proforma to improve accuracy. Accurate clinical coding has financial implications for hospital trusts and consequently Clinical Commissioning Groups. In times of severe financial pressures, this could be a valuable tool, if rolled out over all specialities, to make much needed savings.

Variations in Medicaid Payment Rates for Radiation Oncology.

PURPOSE: Interstate variations in Medicaid reimbursements can be significant, and patients who live in states with low Medicaid reimbursements tend to have worse access to care. This analysis describes the extent of variations in Medicaid reimbursements for radiation oncology services across the United States. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Current Procedural Terminology codes billed for a course of whole breast radiation were identified for this study. Publicly available fee schedules were queried for all 50 states and Washington, DC, to determine the reimbursement for each service and the total reimbursement for the entire episode of care. The degree of interstate payment variation was quantified by computing the range, mean, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation. The cost of care for the entire episode of treatment was compared to the publicly available Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) Medicaid-to-Medicare fee index to determine if the pattern of payment variation in medical services generally is predictive of the variation seen in radiation oncology specifically. RESULTS: Data were available for 48 states and Washington, DC. The total episode reimbursement (excluding image guidance for respiratory tracking) varied from $2945 to $15,218 (mean, $7233; standard deviation, $2248 or 31%). The correlation coefficient of the KFF index to the calculated entire episode of care for each state was 0.55. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variability in coverage and payments rates for radiation oncology services under Medicaid, and these variations track modestly with broader medical fees based on the KFF index. These variations may have implications for access to radiation oncology services that warrant further study.

Coding in surgery: impact of a specialized coding proforma in hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery.

BACKGROUND: Coding inaccuracies in surgery misrepresent the productivity of hospitals and outcome data of surgeons. The aim of this study was to audit the extent of coding inaccuracies in hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgery and assess the financial impact of introducing a coding proforma. METHODS: Coding of patients who underwent elective HPB surgery over a 3-month period was audited. Codes were based on International Classification of Diseases 10 and Office of Population and Census Surveys-4 codes. A coding proforma was introduced and assessed. New human resource group codes were re-assigned and new tariffs calculated. A cost analysis was also performed. RESULTS: Prior to the introduction of the coding proforma, 42.0% of patients had the incorrect diagnosis and 48.5% had missing co-morbidities. In addition, 14.5% of primary procedures were incorrect and 37.6% had additional procedures that were not coded for at all. Following the introduction of the coding proforma, there was a 27.5% improvement in the accuracy of primary diagnosis (P < 0.001) and 21% improvement in co-morbidities (P = 0.002). There was a 7.2% improvement in the accuracy of coding primary procedures (P = not significant) and a 21% improvement in the accuracy of coding of additional procedures (P < 0.001). Financial loss as a result of coding inaccuracy over our 3-month study period was £56 073 with an estimated annual loss of £228 292. CONCLUSION: Coding in HPB surgery is prone to coding inaccuracies due to the complex nature of HPB surgery and the patient case-mix. A specialized coding proforma completed 'in theatre' significantly improves the accuracy of coding and prevents loss of income.

Improving accuracy of clinical coding in surgery: collaboration is key.

BACKGROUND: Clinical coding data provide the basis for Hospital Episode Statistics and Healthcare Resource Group codes. High accuracy of this information is required for payment by results, allocation of health and research resources, and public health data and planning. We sought to identify the level of accuracy of clinical coding in general surgical admissions across hospitals in the Northwest of England. METHOD: Clinical coding departments identified a total of 208 emergency general surgical patients discharged between 1st March and 15th August 2013 from seven hospital trusts (median = 20, range = 16-60). Blinded re-coding was performed by a senior clinical coder and clinician, with results compared with the original coding outcome. Recorded codes were generated from OPCS-4 & ICD-10. RESULTS: Of all cases, 194 of 208 (93.3%) had at least one coding error and 9 of 208 (4.3%) had errors in both primary diagnosis and primary procedure. Errors were found in 64 of 208 (30.8%) of primary diagnoses and 30 of 137 (21.9%) of primary procedure codes. Median tariff using original codes was £1411.50 (range, £409-9138). Re-calculation using updated clinical codes showed a median tariff of £1387.50, P = 0.997 (range, £406-10,102). The most frequent reasons for incorrect coding were "coder error" and a requirement for "clinical interpretation of notes". CONCLUSIONS: Errors in clinical coding are multifactorial and have significant impact on primary diagnosis, potentially affecting the accuracy of Hospital Episode Statistics data and in turn the allocation of health care resources and public health planning. As we move toward surgeon specific outcomes, surgeons should increase collaboration with coding departments to ensure the system is robust.

A multidisciplinary approach to vascular surgery procedure coding improves coding accuracy, work relative value unit assignment, and reimbursement.

BACKGROUND: Vascular surgery procedural reimbursement depends on accurate procedural coding and documentation. Despite the critical importance of correct coding, there has been a paucity of research focused on the effect of direct physician involvement. We hypothesize that direct physician involvement in procedural coding will lead to improved coding accuracy, increased work relative value unit (wRVU) assignment, and increased physician reimbursement. METHODS: This prospective observational cohort study evaluated procedural coding accuracy of fistulograms at an academic medical institution (January-June 2014). All fistulograms were coded by institutional coders (traditional coding) and by a single vascular surgeon whose codes were verified by two institution coders (multidisciplinary coding). The coding methods were compared, and differences were translated into revenue and wRVUs using the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. Comparison between traditional and multidisciplinary coding was performed for three discrete study periods: baseline (period 1), after a coding education session for physicians and coders (period 2), and after a coding education session with implementation of an operative dictation template (period 3). The accuracy of surgeon operative dictations during each study period was also assessed. An external validation at a second academic institution was performed during period 1 to assess and compare coding accuracy. RESULTS: During period 1, traditional coding resulted in a 4.4% (P = .004) loss in reimbursement and a 5.4% (P = .01) loss in wRVUs compared with multidisciplinary coding. During period 2, no significant difference was found between traditional and multidisciplinary coding in reimbursement (1.3% loss; P = .24) or wRVUs (1.8% loss; P = .20). During period 3, traditional coding yielded a higher overall reimbursement (1.3% gain; P = .26) than multidisciplinary coding. This increase, however, was due to errors by institution coders, with six inappropriately used codes resulting in a higher overall reimbursement that was subsequently corrected. Assessment of physician documentation showed improvement, with decreased documentation errors at each period (11% vs 3.1% vs 0.6%; P = .02). Overall, between period 1 and period 3, multidisciplinary coding resulted in a significant increase in additional reimbursement ($17.63 per procedure; P = .004) and wRVUs (0.50 per procedure; P = .01). External validation at a second academic institution was performed to assess coding accuracy during period 1. Similar to institution 1, traditional coding revealed an 11% loss in reimbursement ($13,178 vs $14,630; P = .007) and a 12% loss in wRVU (293 vs 329; P = .01) compared with multidisciplinary coding. CONCLUSIONS: Physician involvement in the coding of endovascular procedures leads to improved procedural coding accuracy, increased wRVU assignments, and increased physician reimbursement.

Variations in Medicare Reimbursement in Radiation Oncology: An Analysis of the Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data Set.

PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were to summarize recently published data on Medicare reimbursement to individual radiation oncologists and to identify the causes of variation in Medicare reimbursement in radiation oncology. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File (POSPUF), which details nearly all services provided by radiation oncologists in 2012, was used for this study. The data were filtered and analyzed by physician and by billing code. Statistical analysis was performed to identify differences in reimbursements based on sex, rurality, billing of technical services, or location in a certificate of need (CON) state. RESULTS: There were 4135 radiation oncologists who received a total of $1,499,625,803 in payments from Medicare in 2012. Seventy-five percent of radiation oncologists were male. The median reimbursement was $146,453. The code with the highest total reimbursement was 77418 (radiation treatment delivery intensity modulated radiation therapy [IMRT]). The most commonly billed evaluation and management (E/M) code for new visits was 99205 (49%). The most commonly billed E/M code for established visits was 99213 (54%). Forty percent of providers billed none of their new office visits using 99205 (the highest E/M billing code), whereas 34% of providers billed all of their new office visits using 99205. For the 1510 radiation oncologists (37%) who billed technical services, median Medicare reimbursement was $606,008, compared with $93,921 for all other radiation oncologists (P<.001). On multivariate analysis, technical services billing (P<.001), male sex (P<.001), and rural location (P=.007) were predictive of higher Medicare reimbursement. CONCLUSIONS: The billing of technical services, with their high capital and labor overhead requirements, limits any comparison in reimbursement between individual radiation oncologists or between radiation oncologists and other specialists. Male sex and rural practice location are independent predictors of higher total Medicare reimbursements.

Emergency readmissions to paediatric surgery and urology: The impact of inappropriate coding.

Introduction In England, emergency readmissions within 30 days of hospital discharge after an elective admission are not reimbursed if they do not meet Payment by Results (PbR) exclusion criteria. However, coding errors could inappropriately penalise hospitals. We aimed to assess the accuracy of coding for emergency readmissions. Methods Emergency readmissions attributed to paediatric surgery and urology between September 2012 and August 2014 to our tertiary referral centre were retrospectively reviewed. Payment by Results (PbR) coding data were obtained from the hospital's Family Health Directorate. Clinical details were obtained from contemporaneous records. All readmissions were categorised as appropriately coded (postoperative or nonoperative) or inappropriately coded (planned surgical readmission, unrelated surgical admission, unrelated medical admission or coding error). Results Over the 24-month period, 241 patients were coded as 30-day readmissions, with 143 (59%) meeting the PbR exclusion criteria. Of the remaining 98 (41%) patients, 24 (25%) were inappropriately coded as emergency readmissions. These readmissions resulted in 352 extra bed days, of which 117 (33%) were attributable to inappropriately coded cases. Conclusions One-quarter of non-excluded emergency readmissions were inappropriately coded, accounting for one-third of additional bed days. As a stay on a paediatric ward costs up to £500 a day, the potential cost to our institution due to inappropriate readmission coding was over £50,000. Diagnoses and the reason for admission for each care episode should be accurately documented and coded, and readmission data should be reviewed at a senior clinician level.