Neurosurgery Billing and Reimbursement in 2021.

Practicing neurosurgery in 2021 requires a detailed knowledge of the vocabulary and mechanisms for coding and reimbursement, which should include general knowledge at the global level and fluency at the provider level. It is specifically of interest for the neurosurgeon to understand conceptually the nuances of hospital reimbursement. That knowledge is especially germane as more neurosurgeons become hospital employees. Here we provide an overview of the mechanics of coding. We illustrate the formula to generate physician reimbursement through the current relative value unit structure. We also seek to explain hospital-level reimbursement through the diagnosis-related group structure. Finally, we expand about different and ancillary income streams available to neurosurgeons and provide a realistic assessment including the opportunities and challenges of those entities.

Socioeconomic Implications of Professional Relationships within Modern Care Delivery Systems.

No physician can successfully deliver high-value patient care in the modern-day health care system in isolation. Delivery of effective patient care requires integrated and collaborative systems that depend on dynamic professional relationships among members of the health care team. An overview of the socioeconomic implications of professional relationships within modern care delivery systems and potential employment models is presented.

Advocacy to Government and Stakeholders.

Participation in the health care and government advocacy arena may represent new and challenging perspectives for the traditional neurosurgeon. However, those with a strong understanding of the laws, rules, regulations, and fiscal allocation process can directly influence the practice of neurosurgery in the United States. We seek to shine light on the black box of how health care laws are passed, the influence and techniques of lobbying, and the role and rules surrounding political action committees. This practical review of health care advocacy is supplemented by a blueprint for engagement in the political arena for the practicing neurosurgeon.

Use of Standardized History and Physical Examination for Neurosurgical Patients Improves Clinical Documentation and Reimbursement.

BACKGROUND: Documentation is the cornerstone of good patient care and vital to proper coding and billing. Consistent and standardized documentation improves communication among physicians and can lead to better reimbursement. By understanding which elements in the neurosurgery history and physical examination are omitted the most often and the effects on the coding level, institutional-specific solutions can be implemented. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of neurosurgical patients at a single academic institution who undergone a neurosurgery history and physical examination for an initial inpatient admission from July 2015 to July 2016. The data collected included documentation type (typed, dictated, dynamic documentation without a template, neurosurgery history and physical examination template [NHPT]) and ultimate coding level (1, 2, or 3) determined by a review by a professional coder. RESULTS: A total of 609 notes were reviewed. Of the 609 notes, 88 (14.4%) were missing an element of documentation. The most common missing element was the physical examination (40 of 88; 45.5%), followed by a combination (27 of 88; 30.7%), review of systems (14 of 88; 15.9%), and medical, family, and/or social history (7 of 88; 8.0%). The dynamic documentation without template notes had the highest percentage of missing elements (49 of 96; 51.0%), followed by the typed notes (7 of 49; 14.3%) and dictated notes (30 of 268; 11.2%) compared with the NHPT notes (2 of 196; 1.0%). CONCLUSION: The most common missing elements for inpatient neurosurgery documentation were the review of systems and physical examination. The documents with the highest percentage of missing elements were those that used dynamic documentation without a template. We recommend implementing a dedicated NHPT to improve capturing these elements for improved clinical documentation. Such changes could also improve the coding level and subsequent reimbursement.

Systematic Review of Safety and Cost-Effectiveness of Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Strategies in Patients Undergoing Craniotomy for Brain Tumor.

BACKGROUND: Studies have evaluated various strategies to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in neuro-oncology patients, without consensus. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review with cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of various prophylaxis strategies in tumor patients undergoing craniotomy to determine the safest and most cost-effective prophylaxis regimen. METHODS: A literature search was conducted for VTE prophylaxis in brain tumor patients. Articles reporting the type of surgery, choice of VTE prophylaxis, and outcomes were included. Safety of prophylaxis strategies was determined by measuring rates of VTE and intracranial hemorrhage. Cost estimates were collected based on institutional data and existing literature. CEA was performed at 30 d after craniotomy, comparing the following strategies: mechanical prophylaxis (MP), low molecular weight heparin with MP (MP+LMWH), and unfractionated heparin with MP (MP+UFH) to prevent symptomatic VTE. All costs were reported in 2016 US dollars. RESULTS: A total of 34 studies were reviewed (8 studies evaluated LMWH, 12 for MP, and 7 for UFH individually or in combination; 4 studies used LMWH and UFH preoperatively). Overall probability of VTE was 1.49% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42-3.72) for MP+UFH, 2.72% [95% CI 1.23-5.15] for MP+LMWH, and 2.59% (95% CI 1.31-4.58) for MP, which were not statistically significant. Compared to a control of MP alone, the number needed to treat for MP+UFH is 91 and 769 for MP+LMWH. The risk of intracranial hemorrhage was 0.26% (95% CI 0.01-1.34) for MP, 0.74% (95% CI 0.09-2.61) for MP+UFH, and 2.72% (95% CI 1.23-5.15) for MP+LMWH, which were also not statistically significant. Compared to MP, the number needed to harm for MP+UFH was 208 and for MP+LMWH was 41. Fifteen studies were included in the final CEA. The estimated cost of treatment was $127.47 for MP, $142.20 for MP+UFH, and $169.40 for MP+LMWH. The average cost per quality-adjusted life-year for different strategies was $284.14 for MP+UFH, $338.39 for MP, and $722.87 for MP+LMWH. CONCLUSION: Although MP+LMWH is frequently considered the optimal prophylaxis for VTE risk reduction, our model suggests that MP+UFH is the safest and most cost-effective measure to balance VTE and hemorrhage risks in brain tumor patients at lower risk of hemorrhage. MP+LMWH may be more effective for patients at higher risk of VTE.

Geographic variation in cost of care for pituitary tumor surgery.

PURPOSE: Geography is known to affect cost of care in surgical procedures. Understanding the relationship between geography and hospital costs is pertinent in the effort to reduce healthcare costs. We studied the geographic variation in cost for transsphenoidal pituitary surgery in hospitals across New York State. METHODS: Using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database for New York from 2008 to 2011, we analyzed records of patients who underwent elective transsphenoidal pituitary tumor surgery and were discharged to home or self-care. N.Y. State was divided into five geographic regions: Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany, and Downstate. These five regions were compared according to median charge and cost per day. RESULTS: From 2008 to 2011, 1803 transsphenoidal pituitary tumor surgeries were performed in New York State. Mean patient age was 50.7 years (54 % were female). Adjusting prices for length of stay, there was substantial variation in prices. Median charges per day ranged from $8485 to $13,321 and median costs per day ranged from $2962 to $6837 between the highest and lowest regions from 2008 to 2011. CONCLUSION: Within New York State, significant geographic variation exists in the cost for transsphenoidal pituitary surgery. The significance of and contributors to such variation is an important question for patients, providers, and policy makers. Transparency of hospital charges, costs, and average length of stay for procedures to the public provides useful information for informed decision-making, especially for a highly portable disease entity like pituitary tumors.

Risk of Reoperation for Hemorrhage in Patients After Craniotomy.

OBJECTIVE: To identify clinical factors predictive of patients returning to the operating room (OR) for hemorrhage after craniotomy. METHODS: A national surgical quality database (American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project) was reviewed for patients undergoing craniotomy based on Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code. CPT codes were also used to identify patients returning to the OR for hemorrhage. RESULTS: Of 5520 patients who underwent craniotomy in 2012, 81 (1.5%) had a reoperation for hematoma evacuation. Preoperative and intraoperative factors associated with reoperation for hemorrhage included preexisting hypertension, bleeding disorder, and primary craniotomy for hematoma evacuation. Postoperative factors included ventilator dependence >48 hours, unplanned reintubation, and blood transfusion during or after the index operation. A risk score based on these factors was predictive of reoperation for hemorrhage with a receiver operating characteristic area under the curve of 0.767. Restricting the score to preoperative factors was still predictive of reoperation (area under the curve = 0.683). CONCLUSIONS: Reoperation for evacuation of hematoma is influenced by several clinical factors. A risk score based on these factors is predictive of return to the OR and may be used to identify patients at risk.

Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Treatment Options for Single Brain Metastasis.

BACKGROUND: Brain metastases (BMs) occur in up to 30% of patients with cancer. Treatments include surgery, whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT), and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), alone or in combination. Although guidelines exist, data to inform individualized approaches to therapy remain sparse. We sought to compare semiquantitatively the effectiveness of various modalities in the treatment of single brain metastasis. METHODS: We performed a comparative effectiveness analysis (CEA) that integrated efficacy, cost, and quality of life (QoL) data for alternate BM treatments. Efficacy data were obtained from a comprehensive review of current literature. Cost estimates were based on publicly available data. QoL data included the Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) and other questionnaires. Six treatment strategies using combinations of surgery, WBRT, and SRS were compared with decision tree software. RESULTS: The clinical efficacy, cost, and QoL effects of each strategy were scored semiquantitatively. We constructed a model to integrate individual preferences regarding the relative importance of efficacy, QoL, and cost to provide personalized rankings of the effectiveness of each strategy. CONCLUSION: The choice of strategy must be individualized for patients with a single BM. Our CEA and decision model combines empirical data with patient priorities to produce a ranking of alternate management strategies.

Multi-modal management of acromegaly: a value perspective.

PURPOSE: The Acromegaly Consensus Group recently released updated guidelines for medical management of acromegaly patients. We subjected these guidelines to a cost analysis. METHODS: We conducted a cost analysis of the recommendations based on published efficacy rates as well as publicly available cost data. The results were compared to findings from a previously reported comparative effectiveness analysis of acromegaly treatments. Using decision tree software, two models were created based on the Acromegaly Consensus Group's recommendations and the comparative effectiveness analysis. The decision tree for the Consensus Group's recommendations was subjected to multi-way tornado analysis to identify variables that most impacted the value analysis of the decision tree. RESULTS: The value analysis confirmed the Consensus Group's recommendations of somatostatin analogs as first line therapy for medical management. Our model also demonstrated significant value in using dopamine agonist agents as upfront therapy as well. Sensitivity analysis identified the cost of somatostatin analogs and growth hormone receptor antagonists as having the most significant impact on the cost effectiveness of medical therapies. CONCLUSION: Our analysis confirmed the value of surgery as first-line therapy for patients with surgically accessible lesions. Surgery provides the greatest value for management of patients with acromegaly. However, in accordance with the Acromegaly Consensus Group's recent recommendations, somatostatin analogs provide the greatest value and should be used as first-line therapy for patients who cannot be managed surgically. At present, the substantial cost is the most significant negative factor in the value of medical therapies for acromegaly.