Updated Guide to Billing for Regional Anesthesia (United States)

Anesthesia start time documentation accuracy where peripheral nerve block is the primary anesthetic

INTRODUCTION

When used as the primary anesthetic, nerve blocks are not billed as separate procedures. In this scenario, the anesthesia start (AStart) time should include the block procedural time. We measured how often AStart time was documented before the nerve block was placed in the preoperative area, and compared cases where a block team performed the nerve block and cases where the intraoperative anesthesia attending supervised the nerve block. We hypothesized that the involvement of a regional anesthesia team would lead to more accurate documentation of AStart. We also estimated the lost revenue due to inaccurate start time documentation.

METHODS

The study population were patients undergoing surgery with a peripheral nerve block as the primary anesthetic. For this analysis, AStart occurring less than 10 min before the in-operating room time was defined as potentially inaccurate. Lost potential revenue was estimated by taking the difference between the documented time of local anesthetic administration and the documented AStart time.

RESULTS

A total of 745 cases were analyzed. Overall, 439 cases (58%) cases were identified as having potentially inaccurate start times. There were higher rates of inaccurate AStart documentation by the block team (316/482, 65.5%) compared with blocks supervised by the in-room anesthesia attendings (123/263, 46.7%, p<0.001). Overall, the estimated loss in billable revenue during the study period was a total of $70 265.

CONCLUSIONS

The performance of primary regional anesthesia procedure by a block team increased the incidence of inaccurate documentation and uncaptured potential revenue. There is need for education about accurate nerve block documentation for anesthesiologists, especially when separate teams are used.

Regional anesthesia and the acute pain service: compliance and controversies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aims of this article are three-fold: first, to describe the necessary elements that result in accurate and compliant billing practice; second, to discuss billing in the context of new blocks and liposomal bupivacaine; and third, to gain a better understanding of compliance law.

RECENT FINDINGS

Regional anesthesia techniques provide an appealing alternative to opioid medication for pain management. However, these techniques also increase the cost of care. As new peripheral and fascial plane blocks emerge, proper coding has become more complex.

SUMMARY

Familiarity with documentation, billing, and compliance requirements can help maintain proper reimbursement rates, as well as limit potential downstream consequences. Most importantly this can help increase the viability and success of an acute pain service.

Establishing an Acute Pain Service in Private Practice and Updates on Regional Anesthesia Billing

Acute pain management is an expanding perioperative specialty and there is a renewed focus on implementing and developing an acute pain service (APS) in nonacademic hospitals (ie, "private practice"). An anesthesiologist-led APS can improve patient care by decreasing perioperative morbidity and potentially reducing the risk of chronic postsurgical pain syndromes. Elements of a successful APS include multidisciplinary collaboration to develop perioperative pain protocols, education of health care providers and patients, and regular evaluation of patient safety and quality of care metrics. Standardization of regional anesthesia procedures and billing practices can promote consistent outcomes and efficiency.

Implementation of clinical practice changes by experienced anesthesiologists after simulation-based ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia training

Background

Anesthesiologists who have finished formal training and want to learn ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia (UGRA) commonly attend 1 day workshops. However, it is unclear whether participation actually changes clinical practice. We assessed change implementation after completion of a 1 day simulation-based UGRA workshop.

Methods

Practicing anesthesiologists who participated in a 1 day UGRA course from January 2012 through May 2014 were surveyed. The course consisted of clinical observation of UGRA procedures, didactic lectures, ultrasound scanning, hands-on perineural catheter placement, and mannequin simulation. The primary outcome was the average number of UGRA blocks per month reported at follow-up versus baseline. Secondary outcomes included preference for ultrasound as the nerve localization technique, ratings of UGRA teaching methods, and obstacles to performing UGRA.

Results

Survey data from 46 course participants (60% response rate) were included for analysis. Participants were (median [10th–90th percentile]) 50 (37–63) years old, had been in practice for 17 (5–30) years, and were surveyed 27 (10–34) months after their UGRA training. Participants reported performing 24 (4–90) blocks per month at follow-up compared to 10 (2–24) blocks at baseline (P < 0.001). Compared to baseline, more participants at follow-up preferred ultrasound for nerve localization. The major obstacle to implementing UGRA in clinical practice was time pressure.

Conclusions

Participation in a 1 day simulation-based UGRA course may increase UGRA procedural volume by practicing anesthesiologists.