Division of Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, Department of Surgery, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla.
Sebastian Ferrero Office of Clinical Quality and Patient Safety, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla.
J Vasc Surg. 2019 Jan;69(1):210-218. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.04.027. Epub 2018 Jun 21.
Previous cost analyses have found small to negative margins between hospitalization cost and reimbursement for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Hospitals obtain reimbursement on the basis of Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group (MS-DRG) coding to distinguish patient encounters with or without major comorbidity or complication (MCC). This study's objective was to evaluate coding accuracy and its effect on hospital cost for patients undergoing EVAR.
A retrospective, single university hospital review of all elective, infrarenal EVARs performed from 2010 to 2015 was completed. Index procedure hospitalizations were reviewed for MS-DRG classification, comorbidities, complications, length of stay (LOS), and hospitalization cost. Patients' comorbidities and postoperative complications were tabulated to verify accuracy of MS-DRG classification. Misclassified patients were audited and reclassified as "standard" or "complex" on the basis of a corrected MS-DRG: standard for 238 (major cardiovascular procedure without MCC) and complex for 237 (major cardiovascular procedure with MCC).
There were 104 EVARs identified, including 91 standard (original MS-DRG 238, n = 85; MS-DRG 254, n = 6) and 13 complex hospitalizations (original MS-DRG 237, n = 9; MS-DRG 238, n = 3; MS-DRG 253, n = 1). On review, 3% (n = 3) of the originally assigned MS-DRG 238 patients were undercoded while actually meeting MCC criteria for a 237 designation. Hospitalizations coded with MS-DRG 253 and 254 were considered billing errors because MS-DRG 237 and 238 are more appropriate and specific classifications as major cardiovascular procedures. Overall, there was a 9.6% miscoding rate (n = 10), representing a total lost billing opportunity of $587,799. Mean LOS for standard and complex hospitalizations was 3.0 ± 1.5 days vs 7.8 ± 6.0 days (P < .001), with respective intensive care unit LOS of 0.4 ± 0.7 day vs 2.6 ± 3.1 days (P < .001). Postoperative complications occurred in 23% of patients; however, not all met the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services criteria as MCC. Miscoded complexity was found to be due to postoperative events in all patients rather than to missed comorbidities. Mean hospitalization cost for standard and complex patients was $28,833 ± $5597 vs $41,543 ± $12,943 (P < .001). Based on institutional reimbursement data, this translates to a mean loss of $5407 per correctly coded patient. Miscoded patients represent an additional overall reimbursement loss of $140,102.
Our study reveals a large lost billing opportunity with miscoding of elective EVARs from 2010 to 2015, with errors in categorization of the procedure as well as miscoding of complexity. The revenue impact is potentially significant in this population, and additional reviews of coding practices should be considered.
先前的成本分析发现,血管内动脉瘤修复(EVAR)的住院费用和报销之间的差距很小,甚至为负。医院根据医疗保险严重程度诊断相关组(MS-DRG)编码来区分是否存在重大合并症或并发症(MCC)的患者就诊。本研究的目的是评估编码准确性及其对接受 EVAR 治疗的患者的医院成本的影响。
回顾性分析了 2010 年至 2015 年期间在一家大学医院进行的所有择期肾下 EVAR。对索引手术住院进行 MS-DRG 分类、合并症、并发症、住院时间(LOS)和住院费用审查。对患者的合并症和术后并发症进行了分类,以验证 MS-DRG 分类的准确性。对错误分类的患者进行审核,并根据修正后的 MS-DRG 将其重新分类为“标准”或“复杂”:标准为 238(无 MCC 的主要心血管手术)和复杂为 237(有 MCC 的主要心血管手术)。
共确定了 104 例 EVAR,包括 91 例标准(原始 MS-DRG 238,n=85;MS-DRG 254,n=6)和 13 例复杂住院(原始 MS-DRG 237,n=9;MS-DRG 238,n=3;MS-DRG 253,n=1)。经审查,3%(n=3)的最初被分配为 MS-DRG 238 的患者实际上符合 MCC 标准,应被归类为 237。编码为 MS-DRG 253 和 254 的住院被认为是计费错误,因为 MS-DRG 237 和 238 是更合适和具体的主要心血管手术分类。总体而言,存在 9.6%的错误分类率(n=10),代表总计损失了 587799 美元的计费机会。标准和复杂住院的平均 LOS 分别为 3.0±1.5 天和 7.8±6.0 天(P<0.001),分别的 ICU LOS 为 0.4±0.7 天和 2.6±3.1 天(P<0.001)。23%的患者发生术后并发症;然而,并非所有并发症都符合医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心的 MCC 标准。错误分类的复杂性是由于所有患者的术后事件导致的,而不是由于错过合并症导致的。标准和复杂患者的平均住院费用分别为 28833±5597 美元和 41543±12943 美元(P<0.001)。根据机构报销数据,这意味着每个正确编码的患者平均损失 5407 美元。错误分类的患者还会导致总计 140102 美元的额外报销损失。
我们的研究表明,2010 年至 2015 年期间,择期 EVAR 的错误编码导致了大量的计费机会损失,包括手术分类和复杂性分类的错误。在这一人群中,收入的影响可能是巨大的,应该考虑进一步审查编码实践。