Fakhry Samir M, Potter Connie, Crain Wallace, Maier Ronald
Department of Surgery, National Foundation for Trauma Care/Trauma Center Association of America, Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA.
J Trauma. 2009 Dec;67(6):1352-8. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181c3fdd4.
The objective of this study was to survey Trauma Center (TC) members of the National Foundation for Trauma Care/Trauma Center Association of America to determine usage and consistency of trauma team response charge codes and critical care accommodation charges for severely injured patients. Potential over- and underutilization of these enhanced reimbursements was assessed.
All TC members of the National Foundation for Trauma Care/Trauma Center Association of America were surveyed (2007) on usage of codes Universal Billing (UB) 68x; Field Locator (FL) 19 (now FL 14) patient type 5 "TC," UB 208 and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services codes G0390 and Ancillary Procedure Codes 0618. Data were collected on the use of 68x "Trauma Response" in combination with emergency room UB 450 Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System Critical Care E/M Level of Service 99291, as well as the daily accommodation (bed) charge code 208 for trauma critical care.
We received 57 responses of 217 requests (response rate, 26.3%). Most responding TCs are charging for either full (86%) or partial (79%) trauma activation. Fewer are charging for trauma team evaluation fees (51%) and UB 208, trauma critical care accommodation code (33%). Charges are extremely variable between and across TC levels and among regions. Full trauma activation fees ranged from $837 to $24,964 with level II TCs charging more on average than level I TCs. As many as 63% of TCs failed to use or did not recognize combining codes 68x with ED 450 Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System 99291.
Significant underused opportunities exist for enhanced revenue by improved implementation of trauma response codes. Wide ranges in charges and the low frequency of full implementation suggest that education and coordination are needed among hospital departments involved, as well as among the trauma care community at large, to realize optimal reimbursement for trauma care services.
本研究的目的是对美国创伤护理国家基金会/创伤中心协会的创伤中心(TC)成员进行调查,以确定创伤团队应对收费代码以及重伤患者重症监护病房费用的使用情况和一致性。评估了这些增加的报销费用可能存在的使用过度和使用不足的情况。
对美国创伤护理国家基金会/创伤中心协会的所有创伤中心成员(2007年)进行了调查,内容涉及通用账单(UB)68x代码、字段定位器(FL)19(现为FL 14)患者类型5“TC”、UB 208以及医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心代码G0390和辅助程序代码0618的使用情况。收集了关于68x“创伤应对”与急诊室UB 450医疗保健通用程序编码系统重症监护E/M服务级别99291联合使用的数据,以及创伤重症监护的每日病房(床位)收费代码208的使用数据。
在217份请求中,我们收到了57份回复(回复率为26.3%)。大多数回复的创伤中心对全面(86%)或部分(79%)创伤激活收取费用。收取创伤团队评估费(51%)和UB 208(创伤重症监护病房收费代码,33%)的较少。不同创伤中心级别之间、不同地区之间以及地区内部的收费差异极大。全面创伤激活费用从837美元到24,964美元不等,二级创伤中心的平均收费高于一级创伤中心。多达63%的创伤中心未使用或未认识到将68x代码与急诊室450医疗保健通用程序编码系统99291相结合。
通过改进创伤应对代码的实施,存在显著的增加收入但未充分利用的机会。收费范围广泛且全面实施的频率较低,这表明相关医院科室之间以及整个创伤护理社区需要进行教育和协调,以实现创伤护理服务的最佳报销。