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

Early Financial Outcomes of Physician Modified Endograft Programs Are Dictated by Device Cost

INTRODUCTION

Physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) have been used for repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) for 2 decades with good outcomes but limited financial data. This study compared the financial and clinical outcomes of PMEGs to the Cook Zenith-Fenestrated (ZFEN) graft and open surgical repair (OSR).

METHODS

A retrospective review of financial and clinical data was performed for all patients who underwent endovascular or OSR of juxtarenal aortic aneurysms and TAAAs from January 2018 to December 2022 at an academic medical center. Clinical presentation, demographics, operative details, and outcomes were reviewed. Financial data was obtained through the institution's finance department. The primary end point was contribution margin (CM).

RESULTS

Thirty patients met inclusion criteria, consisting of twelve PMEG, seven ZFEN, and eleven open repairs. PMEG repairs had a total CM of -$110,000 compared to $18,000 for ZFEN and $290,000 for OSR. Aortic and branch artery implants were major cost-drivers for endovascular procedures. Extent II TAAA repairs were the costliest PMEG procedure, with a total device cost of $59,000 per case. PMEG repairs had 30-d and 1-y mortality rates of 8.3% which was not significantly different from ZFEN (0.0%, P = 0.46; 0.0%, P = 0.46) or OSR (9.1%, P = 0.95; 18%, P = 0.51). Average intensive care unit and hospital stay after PMEG repairs were comparable to ZFEN and shorter than OSR.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that PMEG repairs yield a negative CM. To make these cases financially viable for hospital systems, device costs will need to be reduced or reimbursement rates increased by approximately $8800.

Surgical Complexity and Physician Compensation: An Analysis of Relative Under-Valuation for Pediatric Brachial Plexus Surgery

BACKGROUND

Brachial plexus reconstruction (BPR) is a rapidly advancing field within hand surgery. BPR procedures are complex, time-intensive, and require microsurgical expertise. As physician reimbursement rates for BPR are poorly defined, relative to more common hand procedures, we sought to analyze compensation for BPR across different payor groups and understand the factors contributing to their reimbursement.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of surgeries by a single senior staff member in a 4-year period to evaluate Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes from BPR cases. For comparison, all finger fracture fixations and skin graft reconstructions performed by the same surgeon over the same time period were analyzed as well.

RESULTS

A total of 57 BPR cases, 94 finger fracture fixation cases, and 69 skin grafting cases met inclusion criteria. Among the top 5 insurance providers, average work relative value unit (wRVU)/hour was 6.55, 3.49, and 12.67 for BPR, fracture fixation, and skin grafts, respectively. Reimbursements were an average $685.76/hour for BPR, compared to $590.10/hour for fracture fixation and $1,197.94/hour for skin grafts.

CONCLUSIONS

BPR demonstrates a relative undervaluation, in terms of reimbursement per hour, given the time and surgical skill required for such cases, particularly compared to shorter, less complex cases such as skin grafting and fracture fixation. We find that this discrepancy is amplified across multiple levels of coding, billing, and reimbursement. We suggest specific strategies for physician leadership to more directly participate in the financial decisions that affect themselves, their patients, and their specialty.

Current Medicare reimbursement for complex endovascular aortic repair is inadequate based on results from a multi-institutional cost analysis

OBJECTIVE

Complex endovascular juxta-, para- and suprarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (comEVAR) is frequently accomplished with commercially available fenestrated (FEVAR) devices or off-label use of aortoiliac devices with parallel branch stents (chEVAR). We sought to evaluate the implantable vascular device costs incurred with these procedures as compared with standard Medicare reimbursement to determine the financial viability of comEVAR in the modern era.

METHODS

Five geographically distinct institutions with high-volume, complex aortic centers were included. Implantable aortoiliac and branch stent device cost data from 25 consecutive, recent, comEVAR in the treatment of juxta-, para-, and suprarenal aortic aneurysms at each center were analyzed. Cases of rupture, thoracic aneurysms, reinterventions, and physician-modified EVAR were excluded, as were ancillary costs from nonimplantable equipment. Data from all institutions were combined and stratified into an overall cost group and two, individual cost groups: FEVAR or chEVAR. These groups were compared, and each respective group was then compared with weighted Medicare reimbursement for Diagnosis-Related Group codes 268/269. Median device costs were obtained from an independent purchasing consortium of >3000 medical centers, yielding true median cost-to-institution data rather than speculative, administrative projections or estimates.

RESULTS

A total of 125 cases were analyzed: 70 FEVAR and 53 chEVAR. Two cases of combined FEVAR/chEVAR were included in total cost analysis, but excluded from direct FEVAR vs chEVAR comparison. Median Medicare reimbursement was calculated as $35,755 per case. Combined average implantable device cost for all analyzed cases was $28,470 per case, or 80% of the median reimbursement ($28,470/$35,755). Average FEVAR device cost per case ($26,499) was significantly lower than average chEVAR cost per case ($32,122; P < .002). Device cost was 74% ($26,499/$35,755) of total reimbursement for FEVAR and 90% ($32,122/$35,755) for chEVAR.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this multi-institutional analysis show that implantable device cost alone represents the vast majority of weighted total Medicare reimbursement per case with comEVAR, and that chEVAR is significantly more costly than FEVAR. Inadequate Medicare reimbursement for these cases puts high-volume, high-complexity aortic centers at a distinct financial disadvantage. In the interest of optimizing patient care, these data suggest a reconsideration of previously established, outdated, Diagnosis-Related Group coding and Medicare reimbursement for comEVAR.

The financial burden associated with endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal and pararenal aortic aneurysms using physician-modified fenestrated-branched endografts

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND

Endovascular thoracoabdominal and pararenal aortic aneurysm repair is more complex and requires more devices than infrarenal aneurysm repair. It is unclear if current reimbursement covers the cost of delivering this more advanced form of vascular care. The objective of this study was to evaluate the economics of fenestrated-branched (FB-EVAR) physician-modified endograft (PMEG) repairs.

METHODS

We obtained technical and professional cost and revenue data for four consecutive fiscal years (July 1, 2017, to June 30, 2021) at our quaternary referral institution. Inclusion criteria were patients who underwent PMEG FB-EVAR in a uniform fashion by a single surgeon for thoracoabdominal/pararenal aortic aneurysms. Patients in industry-sponsored clinical trials or receiving Cook Zenith Fenestrated grafts were excluded. Financial data were analyzed for the index operation. Technical costs were divided into direct costs that included devices and billable supplies and indirect costs including overhead.

RESULTS

62 patients (79% male, mean age: 74 years, 66% thoracoabdominal aneurysms) met inclusion criteria. The mean aneurysm size was 6.0 cm, the mean total operating time was 219 minutes, and the median hospital length of stay was 2 days. PMEGs were created with a mean number of 3.7 fenestrations, using a mean of 8.6 implantable devices per case. The average technical cost per case was $71,198, and the average technical reimbursement was $57,642, providing a net negative technical margin of $13,556 per case. Of this cohort, 31 patients (50%) were insured by Medicare remunerated under diagnosis-related group code 268/269. Their respective average technical reimbursement was $41,293, with a mean negative margin of $22,989 per case, with similar findings for professional costs. The primary driver of technical cost was implantable devices, accounting for 77% of total technical cost per case over the study period. The total operating margin, including technical and professional cost and revenue, for the cohort during the study period was negative $1,560,422.

CONCLUSIONS

PMEG FB-EVAR for pararenal/thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms produces a substantially negative operating margin for the index operation driven largely by device costs. Device cost alone already exceeds total technical revenue and presents an opportunity for cost reduction. In addition, increased reimbursement for FB-EVAR, especially among Medicare beneficiaries, will be important to facilitate patient access to such innovative technology.

Medical center reimbursement for vascular procedures has increased over time while professional reimbursement has declined

OBJECTIVE

The United States healthcare system uses different methods for assigning medical center reimbursement (MCR) and professional reimbursement (PR) for clinical services. We hypothesized that PR has not increased proportionately to MCR for the same vascular services.

METHODS

MCR and PR were compared for commonly performed inpatient and outpatient vascular procedures between 2012 and 2021. MCR was calculated using the Medicare inpatient prospective payment system and outpatient prospective payment system. MCR is based on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services definition and criteria for comorbidities and the occurrence of complications; thus, changes in MCR were reported as a range based on the degree of comorbidities and complications using the Diagnosis Related Group. PR was calculated using the Medicare physician fee schedule, which assigns a numerical work relative value unit to each surgical service, with final compensation determined by an annually adjusted conversion factor to yield a final dollar amount. The expected reimbursement based on the observed inflation during the study period using the consumer price index was calculated and compared to the actual reimbursement.

RESULTS

From 2012 to 2021, MCR for inpatient procedures increased 20% to 26% for carotid endarterectomy, 24% to 27% for femoral endarterectomy, 24% to 27% for femoropopliteal bypass with vein, 14% to 19% for thoracic endovascular aortic repair, and 15% for aortobifemoral bypass. During the same period, PR increased 3.3% for carotid endarterectomy but decreased for femoral endarterectomy (-5.0%), femoropopliteal bypass (-4.6%), thoracic endovascular aortic repair (-4.2%), and aortobifemoral bypass (-5.0%). Comparing the expected reimbursement, adjusted for inflation, to the actual reimbursement, PR experienced a 10% to 17% reduction but MCR outpaced inflation by 3.7% to 10%. For outpatient procedures, MCR increased 117% for tibial angioplasty, 24% for superficial femoral artery (SFA) stenting, 62% for tunneled dialysis catheter (TDC) insertion, and 24% for iliac stenting but decreased 0.43% for arteriovenous fistula (AVF) creation and 7.6% for radiofrequency ablation (RFA). PR increased 0.91% for SFA stenting but decreased for tibial angioplasty (-17%), AVF creation (-6.4%), TDC insertion (-7.1%), iliac stenting (-3.8%), and RFA (-22%). Comparing the expected reimbursement, adjusted for inflation, to the actual reimbursement, PR experienced a 13% to 32% reduction. In contrast, MCR outpaced inflation 7.5% to 88% for tibial angioplasty, SFA stenting, TDC insertion, and iliac stenting but experienced a reduction for AVF (-13%) and RFA (-19%).

CONCLUSIONS

MCR for commonly performed vascular procedures has increased and outpaced inflation. In contrast, PR for these same services has decreased across all procedure types. This decrease in PR was exacerbated when adjusted for inflation. This inequity in the reimbursement methods between MCR and PR poses a threat to the viability of the physician workforce. Either changes to the reimbursement methods or a reallocation of reimbursement to physicians are imperative to sustain physician practices.

Impact of precoding on reimbursement in diagnosis-related group systems: Randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Complete and correct documentation of diagnosis and procedures is essential for adequate health provider reimbursement in diagnosis-related group (DRG) systems. The objective of this study was to investigate whether daily monitoring and semiautomated proposal optimization of DRG coding (precoding) is associated with higher reimbursement per hospitalization day.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This parallel-group, unblinded, randomized clinical trial randomized patients 1:1 into intervention (precoding) and control groups. Between June 12 and December 6, 2019 all hospitalized patients (1566 cases) undergoing elective or emergency surgery at the department of surgery in a Swiss hospital were eligible for this study. By random sample selection, cases were assigned to the intervention (precoding) and control groups. The primary outcome was the total reimbursement, divided by the length of stay.

RESULTS

Of the 1205 randomized cases, 1200 (precoding group: 602) remained for intention-to-treat, and 1131 (precoding group: 564) for per-protocol analysis. Precoding increased reimbursement per hospitalization day by 6.5% (160 US dollars; 95% confidence interval 31 to 289; P = 0.015). In a regression analysis patients hospitalized 7 days or longer, precoding increased reimbursement per day by 10.0% (246 US dollars; 95% confidence interval -12 to 504; P = 0.021). More secondary diagnoses (mean [SD]: 5.16 [5.60] vs 4.39 [5.34]; 0.77; 95% confidence interval 0.15 to 1.39; P = 0.015) and nonsurgical postoperative complications (mean [SD]: 0.68 [1.45] vs 0.45 [1.12]; 0.23; 95% confidence interval 0.08 to 0.38; P = 0.002) were documented by precoding. No associated was observed regarding the length of stay, total reimbursement, or case mix index. The mean (SD) precoding time effort was 37 (27) minutes per case.

CONCLUSION

Physician-led precoding increases DRG-based reimbursement. Precoding is time consuming and should be focused on cases with a longer hospital stay to increase efficiency.

Analysis of Medicare Payments and Patient Outcomes With Pre-Operative Imaging for Carotid Endarterectomy

OBJECTIVE

The use of radiographic evaluation of carotid disease may vary, and current guidelines do not strongly recommend the use of cross-sectional imaging (CSI) prior to surgical intervention. We sought to describe the trends in preoperative carotid imaging and evaluate the associated clinical outcomes and Medicare payments for patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for asymptomatic carotid disease.

METHODS

We used a 20% Medicare sample from 2006 to 2014 identifying patients undergoing CEA for asymptomatic disease. We evaluated preoperative carotid ultrasound and CSI use: CT or MRI of the neck prior to CEA. We calculated average payments of each study from the carrier file and revenue center file. Imaging payments included both the professional component (PC) and the technical component (TC). Claims with a reimbursement of $0 and studies where payment for both the TC and PC could not be identified were excluded from the overall calculation to determine average payment per study. Inpatient reimbursements according to DRG 37-39 were calculated. We compared hospital length of stay (LOS), in hospital stroke, carotid re-exploration, and mortality according to CSI use.

RESULTS

A total of 58,993 CEAs were identified with pre-operative carotid imaging. The average age was 74.8 ± 7.5 years, and 56.0% were men. A total of 19,678 (33%) patients had ultrasound alone with an average of (2.4 ± 1.9) exams prior to CEA. A total of 39,315 patients underwent CSI prior to CEA with 2.5 ± 2.1 ultrasounds, 0.95 ± 0.86 neck CTs and 0.47 ± 0.7 MRIs per patient. The average payment for ultrasound was $140 ± 40, $282 ± 94 for CT and $410 ± 146 for MRI. The average inpatient reimbursements were $7,413 ± 4,215 for patients without CSI compared with $7,792 ± 3,921 for patients with CSI, P < 0.001. The average LOS during CEA admission was 2.5 ± 3.7days. Patients with CSI had a slightly lower percentage of patients being discharged by postoperative day 2 compared with ultrasound alone (88.9% vs. 91.5%, respectively, P < 0.001). The overall in-hospital stroke rate was 0.38% and carotid re-exploration rate was 1.0% and there was no statistical significant difference between groups. Median follow-up was 3.9 years, and mortality at 8 years was 50% and did not statistically differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis found preoperative imaging to include CSI in nearly two-thirds of patients prior to CEA for asymptomatic disease. As imaging and inpatient payments were higher with patients with CSI further work is needed to understand when CSI is appropriate prior to surgical intervention to appropriately allocate healthcare resources.

Impact of a specialty trained billing team on an academic otolaryngology practice

PURPOSE

To determine how the incorporation of specialty specific training for coders within a focused billing team affected revenue, efficiency, time to reimbursement, and physician satisfaction in an academic otolaryngology practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Our academic otolaryngology department recently implemented a new billing system, which incorporated additional training in otolaryngology surgical procedures for medical coders. A mixed model analysis of variance was used to compare billing outcomes for the 6 months before and 6 months after this new approach was initiated. The following metrics were analyzed: Current Procedural Terminology codes, total charges, time between services rendered and billing submission, and time to reimbursement. A survey of department physicians assessing satisfaction with the system was reviewed.

RESULTS

There were 4087 Current Procedural Terminology codes included in the analysis. In comparing the periods before and after implementation of the new system, statistically significant decreases were found in the mean number of days to coding completion (19.3 to 12.0, respectively, p < 0.001), days to posting of charges (27.0 to 15.2, p < 0.001), days to final reimbursement (54.5 to 27.2, p < 0.001), and days to closure of form (179.2 to 76.6, p < 0.001). Physician satisfaction with communication and coder feedback increased from 36% to 64% after initiation of the new program.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of additional specialty training for medical coders in the otolaryngology department of a large medical system was associated with improved revenue cycle efficiency. Additionally, this model appears to improve physician satisfaction and confidence with the coding system.

Assessment of the Accuracy and Reliability of Vascular Surgery Quality Metrics

BACKGROUND

Health care quality metrics are crucial to medical institutions, payers, and patients. Obtaining current and reliable quality data is challenging, as publicly reported databases lag by several years. Vizient Clinical Data Base (previously University Health Consortium) is utilized by over 5,000 academic and community medical centers to benchmark health care metrics with results based on predetermined Vizient service lines. We sought to assess the accuracy and reliability of vascular surgery service line metrics, as determined by Vizient.

METHODS

Vizient utilizes encounter data submitted by participating medical centers and generates a diverse array of health care metrics ranging from mortality to costs. All inpatient cases captured by Vizient under the vascular surgery service line were identified at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center (fiscal year 2016). Each case within the service line was reviewed and categorized as "vascular" or "nonvascular" based on care provided by UMass vascular surgery faculty: vascular = vascular surgery was integral part of care, nonvascular = vascular surgery had minimal or no involvement. Statistical analysis comparing length of stay (LOS), cost, readmission, mortality, and complication rates between vascular and nonvascular cohorts was performed. All inpatient cases discharged by a vascular surgeon National Provider Identifier number were also reviewed and categorized according to Vizient service lines.

RESULTS

Vizient's vascular surgery service line identified 696 cases, of which 556 (80%) were vascular and 140 (20%) were nonvascular. When comparing these 2 cohorts, vascular cases had a significantly lower LOS (3.4 vs. 8.7 days; P < 0.0001), cost ($8,535 vs. $16,498; P < 0.0001), and complication rate (6.5% vs. 18%; P < 0.0001) than nonvascular. Mortality was also lower (1.6% vs. 5.7%; P < 0.01), but after risk-adjustment, this difference was not significant. When discharging vascular surgeon National Provider Identifier was used to identify vascular surgery cases, only 69% of these cases were placed within the vascular surgery service line.

CONCLUSIONS

Health care quality metrics play an important role for all stakeholders but obtaining accurate and reliable data to implement improvements is challenging. In this single institution experience, inpatient cases that were not under the direction or care of a vascular surgeon resulted in significantly negative impacts on LOS, cost, complication rate, and mortality to the vascular surgery service line, as defined by a national clinical database. Therefore, clinicians must understand the data abstracting and reporting process before implementing effective strategic plans.

Preprocedural Cross-Sectional Imaging Prior to Percutaneous Peripheral Arterial Disease Interventions

Preprocedural cross-sectional imaging (PCSI) for peripheral artery disease (PAD) may vary due to patient complexity, anatomical disease burden, and physician preference. The objective of this study was to determine the utility of PCSI prior to percutaneous vascular interventions (PVIs) for PAD. Patients receiving first time lower extremity angiograms from 2013 to 2015 at a single institution were evaluated for PCSI performed within 180 days, defined as computed tomography angiography (CTA) or magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) evaluating abdominal to pedal vasculature. The primary outcome was technical success defined as improving the target outflow vessels to <30% stenosis. Of the 346 patients who underwent lower extremity angiograms, 158 (45.7%) patients had PCSI, including 150 patients had CTA and 8 patients had MRA. Of these, 48% were ordered by the referring provider (84% at an outside institution). Preprocedural cross-sectional imaging was performed at a median of 26 days (interquartile range: 9-53) prior to the procedure. The analysis of the institution's 5 vascular surgeons identified PCSI rates ranging from 31% to 70%. On multivariate analysis, chronic kidney disease (odds ratio [OR] = 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.17-0.73) was associated with less PSCI usage, and inpatient/emergency department evaluation (OR = 3.20; 95% CI: 1.58-6.50) and aortoiliac disease (OR = 2.78; 95% CI: 1.46-5.29) were associated with higher usage. After excluding 31 diagnostic procedures, technical success was not statistically significant with PSCI (91.3%) compared to without PCSI (85.6%), P = .11. When analyzing 89 femoral-popliteal occlusions, technical success was higher with PCSI (88%) compared to procedures without (69%) P = .026. Our analysis demonstrates that routine ordering of PCSI may not be warranted when considering technical success of PVI; however, PCSI may be helpful in treatment planning. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings in another practice setting, with more prescriptive use of PCSI to improve procedural success, and thereby improve the value of PCSI.

Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair is financially viable at a high-volume medical center with positive hospital contribution margins and physician payment

OBJECTIVE

To examine hospital finances and physician payment associated with fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) for complex aortic disease at a high-volume center and to compare the costs and reimbursements for FEVAR with open repair, and their trends over time.

METHODS

Clinical and financial data were collected retrospectively from electronic medical and administrative records. Data for each patient included inpatient and outpatient encounters 3 months before and 12 months after the primary aneurysm operation.

RESULTS

Between 2007 and 2017, 157 and 71 patients were treated with physician-modified endograft (PMEG) and Cook Zenith Fenestrated (ZFEN) repair, respectively. Twenty-one patients who were evaluated for FEVAR underwent open repair instead. The 228 FEVAR patients provided a total positive contribution margin (reimbursements minus direct costs) of $2.65 million. The index encounter (the primary aneurysm operation and hospitalization) accounted for the majority (90.6%) of the total contribution margin. The largest component (50.3%) of direct cost for FEVAR from the index encounter was implant/graft expenses. The average direct costs for FEVAR and for open repair from the index encounter were $34,688 and $35,020, respectively. The average contribution margins for FEVAR and for open repair were approximately $10,548 and $21,349, respectively, attributable to differences in reimbursement. The average direct cost for FEVAR trended down over time as cumulative experience increased. Average reimbursement for FEVAR increased after Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services approved payments with the Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) trial for PMEG in 2011, and a new technology add-on payment for ZFEN in 2012. These factors transitioned the average contribution margin from negative to positive in 2012. The average physician payments for PMEG increased from $128 to $5848 after the start of the IDE trial. The average physician payments for ZFEN and for open repair between 2011 and 2017 were $7597 and $7781, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

FEVAR can be performed at a high-volume medical center with positive contribution margins and with comparable physician payments to open repair. At this institution, hospital reimbursement and physician payments improved for PMEG with participation in an IDE trial, while hospital direct costs decreased for both PMEG and ZFEN with accumulated experience.

An In-Depth Review of Physician Reimbursement for Digit and Thumb Replantation

PURPOSE

To examine physician and hospital reimbursement for digit and thumb replantation compared with revision amputation.

METHODS

Using the 2009-2016 Truven Health MarketScan Research Databases, we identified patients with a digit or thumb amputation. Following application of our inclusion and exclusion criteria, we divided patients into replantation and revision amputation groups. We extracted the mean physician and hospital reimbursement associated with each patient encounter. For comparison, we examined the work Relative Value Unit (wRVU) and Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) for the respective procedures in addition to several common hand surgery procedures.

RESULTS

We identified 51,716 patients. Following application of our inclusion and exclusion criteria, 219 replantation and 6,209 revision amputation patients were included in our analysis. For replantation, the mean physician and hospital reimbursements ranged from $3,938 to $7,753 and $30,683 to $56,256, respectively. For revision amputation, the mean physician and hospital reimbursements ranged from $1,030 to $1,206 and $2,877 to $4,188, respectively. On multivariable analysis, hospitals performing replantation earned $37,788 more per case compared with revision amputation. Using the wRVU and MPFS data, we determined that replantation reimburses at $78/wRVU compared with higher earnings for revision amputation ($108), carpal tunnel release ($101), cubital tunnel release ($97), trigger finger release ($116), open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) distal radius fracture ($87), flexor tendon repair ($98), extensor tendon repair ($122), repair of digital nerve ($89), and ORIF articular fracture ($82), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Low physician reimbursement for replantation compared with less complex hand procedures makes it difficult to recruit and retain hand surgeons for this purpose. By understanding the wRVU and MPFS system, hand surgeons and professional societies can explore ways to promote change in the way replantation is valued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) as well as by hospital administrators.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Economic/Decision Analysis III.

Focused Resident Education and Engagement in Quality Improvement Enhances Documentation, Shortens Hospital Length of Stay, and Creates a Culture of Continuous Improvement

PURPOSE

System-based practice with an emphasis on quality improvement (QI) is a recent initiative for the American College of Surgeons and a core-competency for surgical trainees. Few surgical training programs have a curriculum for hospital-based QI.

METHODS

Our vascular surgery service implemented several QI initiatives focused on decreasing length of stay (LOS) by targeting resident education and engagement. Residents were educated on terminology and processes impacting hospital and CMS QI metrics such as Medicare geometric mean LOS (CMS GMLOS) and diagnostic-related groups (DRG) with complication or comorbidity (CC/MCC) coding. LOS initiatives focused on identifying, tracking and removing avoidable perioperative delays, and improving accuracy of clinical documentation. Residents were given specific roles in QI initiatives and the impact on LOS was quantified. Patients' CMS GMLOS were compared to actual LOS during daily rounds, with confirmation that resident progress notes contained thorough and accurate documentation of diagnoses, comorbidities, and complications. Ten minutes during weekly preoperative conferences were dedicated to ongoing QI, with LOS metrics for the inpatient census presented by trainees and reviewed by attendings. Feedback was given addressing barriers to avoidable delays and impact on LOS. Data for July 2016-June 2017 (FY17) was compared to preimplementation baseline data (FY16) for vascular discharges overall. Accurate documentation of acuity was evaluated with in-depth review of notes and overall case mix index.

RESULTS

Within the first year of implementation, overall vascular admissions demonstrated a 21% reduction in LOS, closing the gap between observed LOS and expected CMS GMLOS, from 2.1days to 0.5days on average. Documentation improved, with a shift in 24% of DRGs to accurately reflect CC/MCC. Overall case mix index increased by 10%, from 3.07 to 3.37.

CONCLUSIONS

A culture of continuous quality improvement can be created with the establishment of a QI infrastructure that educates and involves trainees as stakeholders. Assigning discrete roles to increase resident accountability supports both formal and informal resident education that can substantially impact hospital benchmarking metrics.

Episode-based cost reduction for endovascular aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

Effective strategies to reduce costs associated with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) remain elusive for many medical centers. In this study, targeted interventions to reduce inpatient EVAR costs were identified and implemented.

METHODS

From June 2015 to February 2016, we analyzed the EVAR practice at a high-volume academic medical center to identify, to rank, and ultimately to reduce procedure-related costs. In this analysis, per-patient direct costs to the hospital were compared before (September 2013-May 2015) and after (March 2016-January 2017) interventions were implemented. Improvement efforts concentrated on three categories that accounted for a majority of costs: implants, rooming costs, and computed tomography scans performed during the index hospitalization.

RESULTS

Costs were compared between 141 EVAR procedures before implementation (PRE period) and 47 EVAR procedures after implementation (POST period). Based on data obtained through the Society for Vascular Surgery EVAR Cost Demonstration Project, it was determined that implantable device costs were higher than those at peer institutions. New purchasing strategies were implemented, resulting in a 30.8% decrease in per-case device costs between the PRE and POST periods. Care pathways were modified to reduce use of and costs for computed tomography scans obtained during the index hospitalization. Compared with baseline, per-case imaging costs decreased by 92.9% (P < .001), including a 99.0% (P = .001) reduction in postprocessing costs. Care pathways were also implemented to reduce preprocedural rooming for patients traveling long distances the day before surgery, resulting in a 50% decrease in utilization rate (35.4% PRE to 17.0% POST; P = .021), without having a significant impact on median postprocedural length of stay (PRE, 2 days [interquartile range, 1-11 days]; POST, 2 days [1-7 days]; P = .185). Medication costs also decreased by 38.2% (P < .001) as a hospital-wide effort.

CONCLUSIONS

Excessive costs associated with EVAR threaten the sustainability of these procedures in health care organizations. Targeted cost reduction efforts can effectively reduce expenses without compromising quality or limiting patients' access.

The effect of template-based sequential (TBS) coding on an NHS plastic surgical practice

INTRODUCTION

Clinical coding is often a mystery to us surgeons, but in actuality, it has a huge bearing on the financial sustainability of our services. Given the rapid innovations in plastic surgical procedures, clinical coders often struggle to decipher the extent of surgery. Meeting midway is the way forward here.

METHODS

In a prospective audit over a six-month period, we analysed data from 2586 patients in our practice: a combination of general plastic surgery and specialist facial reanimation services. This involved comparing data from the first three months where coding was performed by clinical coders based on operating notes per se (phase I) and the subsequent three months when the operating surgeon filled in the OPCS 4.7 (version 2014) codes at the time of completing the operating notes; the clinical coders then vetted this information (phase II) as part of a sequential TBS coding system.

RESULTS

In terms of outpatient income, there was a 3% increase in facial palsy income and 6% increase in general plastic services, but the most significant improvement was in terms of procedural income per case. General plastic surgery cases saw an increase of 49%, while facial palsy income increased by 58% over the same period. Greater insight into OPCS and HRG codes also allowed for the calculation of the actual tariffs for specific procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Having the operating surgeon as the primary coder, using a template, with subsequent vetting by the clinical coders, improves data capture, and this in turn increases income. Future recommendations include the use of proforma-based operating notes for workhorse procedures.