Translating coding lists in administrative claims-based research for cardiovascular procedures.

BACKGROUND: To effectively use administrative claims for healthcare research, clinical events must be inferred from coding data according to validated algorithms. In October 2015, the United States transitioned from the International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision (ICD-9) to the Tenth Revision (ICD-10). We describe our method to derive new ICD-10 codes for outcomes after vascular procedures from our prior, validated ICD-9 codes. METHODS: We began with validated ICD-9 coding lists known to represent outcomes after lower extremity revascularization, thoracic aortic endograft placement, abdominal aortic aneurysm reintervention, and carotid revascularization. We used the publicly available general equivalence mapping tools to derive corresponding ICD-10 codes for each of the ICD-9 codes in our current lists. The resulting lists were then manually reviewed by multiple authors to ensure clinical relevance for appropriate event detection. Clinically nonrelevant and duplicated codes were removed. RESULTS: A total of 475 ICD-9 codes were translated to ICD-10 with a 98-fold increase (n = 46,630) in the total number of codes. Overall, we found that 77% of codes (n = 35,833) were either duplicated or not clinically relevant upon manual review. For example, for thoracic aortic endograft placement, 97 ICD-9 codes mapped to 14,661 ICD-10 codes in total. A total of 890 codes were removed as duplicates and 9035 codes were removed during manual clinical review. The resultant, reviewed list contained 4736 ICD-10 codes representing a 49-fold increase from the initial ICD-9 list. Findings were similar across the other procedures studied. CONCLUSIONS: ICD-10 has expanded the number of codes necessary to describe outcomes after vascular procedures. More than 75% of the codes obtained using the general equivalence mapping database were either duplicated or not clinically relevant. Manual review of codes by researchers with clinical knowledge of the procedures is imperative.

Modern radiosurgical and endovascular classification schemes for brain arteriovenous malformations.

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and endovascular techniques are commonly used for treating brain arteriovenous malformations (bAVMs). They are usually used as ancillary techniques to microsurgery but may also be used as solitary treatment options. Careful patient selection requires a clear estimate of the treatment efficacy and complication rates for the individual patient. As such, classification schemes are an essential part of patient selection paradigm for each treatment modality. While the Spetzler-Martin grading system and its subsequent modifications are commonly used for microsurgical outcome prediction for bAVMs, the same system(s) may not be easily applicable to SRS and endovascular therapy. Several radiosurgical- and endovascular-based grading scales have been proposed for bAVMs. However, a comprehensive review of these systems including a discussion on their relative advantages and disadvantages is missing. This paper is dedicated to modern classification schemes designed for SRS and endovascular techniques.

Standards of reporting in open and endovascular aortic surgery (STORAGE guidelines).

The number of patients undergoing surgery on the thoracic and thoraco-abdominal aorta has been steadily increasing over the past decade. This document aims to give guidance to authors reporting on results in aortic surgery by clarifying definitions of aortic pathologies, open and endovascular techniques and by listing clinical parameters that should be provided for full presentation of patients' clinical profile and in particular, their outcome. The aim is to help find a common language in the treatment of aortic disease and to contribute to a better understanding of this patient population.

Claims Variability in Charges and Payments for Common Open and Endovascular Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness in healthcare is being increasingly scrutinized. Data regarding claims variability for vascular operations are lacking. Herein, we aim to describe variability in charges and payments for aortoiliac (AI) and infrainguinal (II) revascularizations. METHODS: We analyzed 2012-2014 claims data from a statewide claims database for procedures grouped by Current Procedural Terminology codes into II-open (II-O), II-endovascular (II-E), AI-open (AI-O), and AI-endovascular interventions (AI-E). We compared charges and payments in urban (≥50,000 people, UAs) versus rural areas (<50,000 people, RAs). Amounts are reported in $US as median with interquartile range. Cost-to-charge ratios (CCRs) as a measure of reimbursement were calculated as the percentage of the charges covered by the payments. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were performed to determine significant differences. RESULTS: A total of 5,239 persons had complete claims data. There were 7,239 UA and 6,891 RA claims, and 1,057 AI claims (AI-E = 879, AI-O = 178) and 4,182 II claims (II-E = 3,012, II-0 = 1,170). Median charges were $5,357 for AI [$1,846-$27,107] and $2,955 for II [$1,484-$9,338.5] (P < 0.0001). Median plan payment was $454 for AI [$0-$1,380] and $454 for II [$54-$1,060] (P = 0.67). For AI and II, charges were significantly higher for UA than RA (AI: UA $9,875 [$2,489-$34,427], RA $3,732 [$1,450-$20,595], P < 0.0001; II: UA $3,596 [$1,700-$21,664], RA $2,534 [$1,298-$6,169], P < 0.0001). AI-E charges were higher than AI-O (AI-E $7,960 [$1,699-$32,507], AI-O $4,774 [$2,636-$7,147], P < 0.0001), but AI-O payments were higher (AI-E $424 [$0-$1,270], AI-O $869 [$164-$1,435], P = 0.0067). II-E charges were higher (II-E $2,994 [$1,552-$22,164], II-O $2,873 [$1,108-$5,345], P < 0.0001), but II-O payments were higher (II-E $427 [$50-$907], II-O $596 [$73-$1,299], P < 0.0001). CCRs were highest for II operations and UAs. CONCLUSIONS: Wide variability in claim charges and payments exists for vascular operations. AI procedures had higher charges than II, without any difference in payments. UA charged more than RA for both AI and II operations, but RA had higher payments and CCRs. Endovascular procedures had higher charges, while open procedures had higher payments. Charge differences may be related to endovascular device costs, and further research is necessary to determine the reasons behind consistent claims variability between UA and RA.

Financial implications of coding inaccuracies in patients undergoing elective endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Previous cost analyses have found small to negative margins between hospitalization cost and reimbursement for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Hospitals obtain reimbursement on the basis of Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group (MS-DRG) coding to distinguish patient encounters with or without major comorbidity or complication (MCC). This study's objective was to evaluate coding accuracy and its effect on hospital cost for patients undergoing EVAR. METHODS: A retrospective, single university hospital review of all elective, infrarenal EVARs performed from 2010 to 2015 was completed. Index procedure hospitalizations were reviewed for MS-DRG classification, comorbidities, complications, length of stay (LOS), and hospitalization cost. Patients' comorbidities and postoperative complications were tabulated to verify accuracy of MS-DRG classification. Misclassified patients were audited and reclassified as "standard" or "complex" on the basis of a corrected MS-DRG: standard for 238 (major cardiovascular procedure without MCC) and complex for 237 (major cardiovascular procedure with MCC). RESULTS: There were 104 EVARs identified, including 91 standard (original MS-DRG 238, n = 85; MS-DRG 254, n = 6) and 13 complex hospitalizations (original MS-DRG 237, n = 9; MS-DRG 238, n = 3; MS-DRG 253, n = 1). On review, 3% (n = 3) of the originally assigned MS-DRG 238 patients were undercoded while actually meeting MCC criteria for a 237 designation. Hospitalizations coded with MS-DRG 253 and 254 were considered billing errors because MS-DRG 237 and 238 are more appropriate and specific classifications as major cardiovascular procedures. Overall, there was a 9.6% miscoding rate (n = 10), representing a total lost billing opportunity of $587,799. Mean LOS for standard and complex hospitalizations was 3.0 ± 1.5 days vs 7.8 ± 6.0 days (P < .001), with respective intensive care unit LOS of 0.4 ± 0.7 day vs 2.6 ± 3.1 days (P < .001). Postoperative complications occurred in 23% of patients; however, not all met the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services criteria as MCC. Miscoded complexity was found to be due to postoperative events in all patients rather than to missed comorbidities. Mean hospitalization cost for standard and complex patients was $28,833 ± $5597 vs $41,543 ± $12,943 (P < .001). Based on institutional reimbursement data, this translates to a mean loss of $5407 per correctly coded patient. Miscoded patients represent an additional overall reimbursement loss of $140,102. CONCLUSIONS: Our study reveals a large lost billing opportunity with miscoding of elective EVARs from 2010 to 2015, with errors in categorization of the procedure as well as miscoding of complexity. The revenue impact is potentially significant in this population, and additional reviews of coding practices should be considered.

Performance of current claims-based approaches to identify aortic dissection hospitalizations.

OBJECTIVE: To describe index visits for acute aortic dissection (AD) to an academic center and validate the prevailing claims-based methodology to identify and stratify them. METHODS: Inpatient hospitalizations at a single center assigned an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) diagnosis code for AD from January 2005 to September 2015 were identified. Diagnoses were verified by review of medical records and imaging studies. All visits were secondarily stratified with the algorithm based on ICD-9 codes. Sensitivity and specificity analyses were conducted to evaluate the ability of the algorithm to correctly identify acute AD by Stanford class and treatment modality (type A open repair [TAOR], type B open repair [TBOR], thoracic endovascular repair [TEVAR], medical management [MM]). RESULTS: In the study interval, there were 1245 visits coded for AD attributed to 968 unique patients. Chart review verification demonstrated that the majority of visits were for AD (79%; n = 981), of which 32% (n = 310) were for an index acute AD event. The true distribution of acute AD visit classifications was TAOR (46.1%; n = 143), TBOR (5.2%; n = 16), TEVAR (7.7%; n = 24), and MM (39.4%; n = 122). The algorithm, which used ICD-9 codes, identified 631 acute visits and stratified them as TAOR (27.1%; n = 171), TBOR (4.1%; n = 26), TEVAR (4.9%; n = 31), and MM (63.9%; n = 403). Analyses demonstrated high specificities, but generally low sensitivities of the algorithm (TAOR: sensitivity, 58%, specificity, 92%; TBOR: sensitivity, 13%, specificity, 98%; TEVAR: sensitivity, 17%, specificity, 98%; MM: sensitivity, 73%, specificity, 72%). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalent claims-based strategy to identify hospitalizations with acute AD is specific, but lacks sensitivity. Caution should be exercised when studying AD with ICD-9 codes and improvements to existing claims-based methodologies are necessary to support future study of acute AD.

Surgeon leadership in the coding, billing, and contractual negotiations for fenestrated endovascular aortic aneurysm repair increases medical center contribution margin and physician reimbursement.

BACKGROUND: Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) allows endovascular treatment of thoracoabdominal and juxtarenal aneurysms previously outside the indications of use for standard devices. However, because of considerable device costs and increased procedure time, FEVAR is thought to result in financial losses for medical centers and physicians. We hypothesized that surgeon leadership in the coding, billing, and contractual negotiations for FEVAR procedures will increase medical center contribution margin (CM) and physician reimbursement. METHODS: At the UMass Memorial Center for Complex Aortic Disease, a vascular surgeon with experience in medical finances is supported to manage the billing and coding of FEVAR procedures for medical center and physician reimbursement. A comprehensive financial analysis was performed for all FEVAR procedures (2011-2015), independent of insurance status, patient presentation, or type of device used. Medical center CM (actual reimbursement minus direct costs) was determined for each index FEVAR procedure and for all related subsequent procedures, inpatient or outpatient, 3 months before and 1 year subsequent to the index FEVAR procedure. Medical center CM for outpatient clinic visits, radiology examinations, vascular laboratory studies, and cardiology and pulmonary evaluations related to FEVAR were also determined. Surgeon reimbursement for index FEVAR procedure, related adjunct procedures, and assistant surgeon reimbursement were also calculated. All financial analyses were performed and adjudicated by the UMass Department of Finance. RESULTS: The index hospitalization for 63 FEVAR procedures incurred $2,776,726 of direct costs and generated $3,027,887 in reimbursement, resulting in a positive CM of $251,160. Subsequent related hospital procedures (n = 26) generated a CM of $144,473. Outpatient clinic visits, radiologic examinations, and vascular laboratory studies generated an additional CM of $96,888. Direct cost analysis revealed that grafts accounted for the largest proportion of costs (55%), followed by supplies (12%), bed (12%), and operating room (10%). Total medical center CM for all FEVAR services was $492,521. Average surgeon reimbursements per FEVAR from 2011 to 2015 increased from $1601 to $2480 while the surgeon payment denial rate declined from 50% to 0%. Surgeon-led negotiations with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services during 2015 resulted in a 27% increase in physician reimbursement for the remainder of 2015 ($2480 vs $3068/case) and a 91% increase in reimbursement from 2011 ($1601 vs $3068). Assistant surgeon reimbursement also increased ($266 vs $764). Concomitant FEVAR-related procedures generated an additional $27,347 in surgeon reimbursement. CONCLUSIONS: Physician leadership in the coding, billing, and contractual negotiations for FEVAR results in a positive medical center CM and increased physician reimbursement.

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.

[Hybrid operating rooms: only for advanced endovascular procedures?]. / Angio-Hybrid-Operationsraum: Grundvoraussetzung nur für komplexe endovaskuläre Eingriffe?

The evolution of endovascular techniques has led to the concept of the "hybrid operating room" (hybrid OR). A hybrid OR combines the sterility of an OR in an operating theatre environment with a high-quality fixed imaging system. On the basis of these advantages it would be desirable that an angio-hybrid OR becomes a standard requirement for endovascular surgery. In Great Britain guidelines have already been published that require a hybrid OR even for normal endovascular management of the infrarenal aorta. However, in Germany there are no guidelines from professional societies or formal rules from the federal joint committee, thus in this article a classification of endovascular procedures according to their complexity and the necessary infrastructures are proposed in order to define particular procedures that should only be performed in an angio-hybrid OR. According to our experience, endovascular procedures can be classified into four categories based on their complexity and the requirements regarding fluoroscopy: level 1: standard EVAR, TEVAR, iliac and popliteal artery procedures; level 2: iliac branched (IBD) and standard (2 fenestrations for the renal arteries and a scallop for the superior mesenteric artery) fenestrated stent-grafting; level 3: more complex fenestrated procedures (three or four fenestrations); and level 4: branched stent-grafting for TAAA. At this moment it is still acceptable to perform level 1 and level 2 procedures outside of a hybrid OR. In our opinion, it is not recommended to perform level 3 and level 4 endovascular procedures without a hybrid OR.

Administrative hospitalization database validation of cardiac procedure codes.

BACKGROUND: Although cardiac procedures are commonly used to treat cardiovascular disease, they are costly. Administrative data sources could be used to track cardiac procedures, but sources of such data have not been validated against clinical registries. OBJECTIVES: To examine accuracy of cardiac procedure coding in administrative databases versus a prospective clinical registry. SAMPLE: We examined a total of 182,018 common cardiac procedures including percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, valve surgery, and cardiac catheterization procedures during fiscal years 2005 and 2006 across 18 cardiac centers in Ontario, Canada. RESEARCH DESIGN: Accuracy of codes in the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) administrative databases were compared with the clinical registry of the Cardiac Care Network. RESULTS: Comparing 17,511 CIHI and 17,404 registry procedures for CABG surgery, the positive predictive value (PPV) of CIHI-coded CABG surgery was 97%. In 6229 CIHI-coded and 5885 registry-coded valve surgery procedures, the PPV of the administrative data source was 96%. Comparing 38,527 PCI procedures in CIHI to 38,601 in the registry, the PPV of CIHI was 94%. Among 119,751 CIHI-coded and 111,725 registry-coded cardiac catheterization procedures, the PPV of administrative data was 94%. When the procedure date window was expanded from the same day to ±1 days, the PPV was 96% (PCI) and exceeded 98% (CABG surgery), 97% (valve surgery), and 95% (cardiac catheterization). CONCLUSIONS: Using a clinical registry as the gold standard, the coding accuracy of common cardiac procedures in the CIHI administrative database was high.

Endovascular therapy of acute ischemic stroke: report of the Standards of Practice Committee of the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize and classify the evidence for the use of endovascular techniques in the treatment of patients with acute ischemic stroke. METHODS: Recommendations previously published by the American Heart Association (AHA) (Guidelines for the early management of adults with ischemic stroke (Circulation 2007) and Scientific statement indications for the performance of intracranial endovascular neurointerventional procedures (Circulation 2009)) were vetted and used as a foundation for the current process. Building on this foundation, a critical review of the literature was performed to evaluate evidence supporting the endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke. The assessment was based on guidelines for evidence based medicine proposed by the Stroke Council of the AHA and the University of Oxford, Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (CEBM). Procedural safety, technical efficacy and impact on patient outcomes were specifically examined.