Improving clinical documentation of evaluation and management care and patient acuity improves reimbursement as well as quality metrics.

OBJECTIVE: Accurate documentation of patient care and acuity is essential to determine appropriate reimbursement as well as accuracy of key publicly reported quality metrics. We sought to investigate the impact of standardized note templates by inpatient advanced practice providers (APPs) on evaluation and management (E/M) charge capture, including outside of the global surgical package (GSP), and quality metrics including case mix index (CMI) and mortality index (MI). We hypothesized this clinical documentation initiative as well as improved coding of E/M services would result in increased reimbursement and quality metrics. METHODS: A documentation and coding initiative on the heart and vascular service line was initiated in 2016 with focus on improving inpatient E/M capture by APPs outside the GSP. Comprehensive training sessions and standardized documentation templates were created and implemented in the electronic medical record. Subsequent hospital care E/M (current procedural terminology codes 99231, 99232, 99233) from the years 2015 to 2017 were audited and analyzed for charge capture rates, collections, work relative value units (wRVUs), and billing complexity. Data were compared over time by standardizing CMS values and reimbursement rates. In addition, overall CMI and MI were calculated each year. RESULTS: One year following the documentation initiative, E/M charges on the vascular surgery service line increased by 78.5% with a corresponding increase in APP charges from 0.4% of billable E/M services to 70.4% when compared with pre-initiative data. The charge capture of E/M services among all inpatients rose from 21.4% to 37.9%. Additionally, reimbursement from CMS increased by 65% as total work relative value units generated from E/M services rose by 78.4% (797 to 1422). The MI decreased over the study period by 25.4%. Additionally, there was a corresponding 5.6% increase in the cohort CMI. Distribution of E/M encounter charges did not vary significantly. Meanwhile, the prevalence of 14 clinical comorbidities in our cohort as well as length of stay (P = .88) remained non-statistically different throughout the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Accurate clinical documentation of E/M care and ultimately inpatient acuity is critical in determining quality metrics that serve as important measures of overall hospital quality for CMS value-based payments and rankings. A system-based documentation initiative and expanded role of inpatient APPs on vascular surgery teams significantly improved charge capture and reimbursement outside the GSP as well as CMI and MI in a consistently complex patient population.