METHODS: retrospective study.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the incidence of all-cause revision surgery between plated vs stand-alone cage constructs for single level ACDF.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a commercial insurance claims database. Patients 18-65 years-old were included if they underwent single-level inpatient ACDF (defined with CPT codes) from 2010 - 2018, with a minimum of 2-year continuous insurance enrollment. The primary independent variable was the use of anterior plating vs zero profile device or stand-alone cage. Synthetic (ie, metal, PEEK, etc.) vs allograft interbody was a secondary independent variable. The primary outcome variable was revision cervical arthrodesis after the index operation.
RESULTS: In total, 21092 patients undergoing single-level inpatient ACDF were included. 10.0% received a stand-alone cage during the index operation. Mean follow-up duration was 4.5 years. Revision arthrodesis occurred in 8.2% of patients overall, at a mean of 2.4 years after the index surgery. Patients with anterior plating had a lower rate of all-cause revision surgery in unadjusted (overall rate 8.1% vs 9.6%, P = 0.0185) and adjusted analysis (OR 0.78, P = 0.0016) vs stand-alone cages. Patients with stand-alone cages had higher rates of revision with a posterior approach than did patients with plated constructs. In sub-analysis, the combination of a stand-alone interbody device with an allograft had significantly higher odds of revision than other combinations of devices.
CONCLUSIONS: Among commercially insured patients ≤65 years-old undergoing single-level ACDF, anterior plating was associated with a reduced incidence of revision surgery compared to stand-alone cages within the follow up period of our study.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (ACS-NSQIP) uses Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for risk-adjusted calculations. This study evaluates the inter-rater reliability of coding colorectal resections across Canada by ACS-NSQIP surgical clinical nurse reviewers (SCNR) and its impact on risk predictions.
METHODS: SCNRs in Canada were asked to code simulated operative reports. Percent agreement and free-marginal kappa correlation were calculated. The ACS-NSQIP risk calculator was utilized to illustrate its impact on risk prediction.
RESULTS: Responses from 44 of 150 (29.3 ​%) SCNRs revealed 3 to 6 different codes chosen per case, with agreement ranging from 6.7 ​% to 62.3 ​%. Free-marginal kappa correlation ranged from moderate agreement (0.53) to high disagreement (-0.17). ACS-NSQIP risk calculator predicted large absolute differences in risk for serious complications (0.2 ​%-13.7 ​%) and mortality (0.2 ​%-6.3 ​%).
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated low inter-rater reliability in coding ACS-NSQIP colorectal procedures in Canada among SCNRs, impacting risk predictions.

UNASSIGNED: The COVID-19 pandemic affected the utilization of various healthcare services differentially. Sleep testing services utilization (STU), including Home Sleep Apnea Testing (HSAT) and Polysomnography (PSG), were uniquely affected. We assessed the effects of the pandemic on STU and its recovery using the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) data.
UNASSIGNED: A retrospective cohort study from the VHA between 01/2019 and 10/2023 of veterans with age ≥ 50. We extracted STU data using Current Procedural Terminology codes for five periods based on STU and vaccination status: pre-pandemic (Pre-Pan), pandemic sleep test moratorium (Pan-Mor), and pandemic pre-vaccination (Pan-Pre-Vax), vaccination (Pan-Vax), and postvaccination (Pan-Post-Vax). We compared STU between intervals (Pre-Pan as the reference).
UNASSIGNED: Among 261,371 veterans (63.7±9.6 years, BMI 31.9±6.0 kg/m², 80% male), PSG utilization decreased significantly during Pan-Mor (-56%), Pan-Pre-Vax (-61%), Pan-Vax (-42%), and Pan-Post-Vax (-36%) periods all compared to Pre-Pan. HSAT utilization decreased significantly during the Pan-Mor (-59%) and Pan-Pre-Vax (-9%) phases compared to the Pre-Pan and subsequently increased during Pan-Vax (+6%) and Pan-Post-Vax (-1%) periods. Over 70% of STU transitioned to HSAT, and its usage surged five months after the vaccine Introduction.
UNASSIGNED: Sleep testing services utilization recovered differentially during the pandemic (PSG vs HSAT), including a surge in HSAT utilization post-vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes provide a uniform language for medical billing, but specific codes have not been assigned for lymphatic reconstruction techniques. The authors hypothesized that inadequate codes would contribute to heterogeneous coding practices and reimbursement challenges, ultimately limiting surgeons\' ability to treat patients.
METHODS: A 22-item virtual questionnaire was offered to 959 members of the American Society of Reconstructive Microsurgeons to assess the volume of lymphatic reconstruction procedures performed, CPT codes used for each procedure, and challenges related to coding and providing care.
RESULTS: The survey was completed by 66 board-certified/board-eligible plastic surgeons (6.9%), who unanimously agreed that lymphatic surgery is integral to cancer care, with 86.4% indicating that immediate lymphatic reconstruction should be offered after lymphadenectomy. Most performed lymphovenous bypass, immediate lymphatic reconstruction, liposuction, and vascularized lymph node transfer.Respondents reported that available CPT codes failed to reflect procedural scope. A wide variety of CPT codes was used to report each type of procedure. Insurance coverage problems led to 69.7% of respondents forgoing operations and 32% reducing treatment offerings. Insurance coverage and CPT codes were identified as significant barriers to care by 98.5% and 95.5% of respondents, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Respondents unanimously agreed on the importance of lymphatic reconstruction in cancer care, and most identified inadequate CPT codes as causing billing issues, which hindered their ability to offer surgical treatment. Appropriate and specific CPT codes are necessary to ensure accuracy and consistency of reporting and ultimately to improve patient access to care.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Although hip arthroscopy continues to be one of the most used arthroscopic procedures, no focused, comprehensive evaluation of reimbursement trends has been conducted. The purpose of this study was to analyze the temporal Medicare reimbursement trends for hip arthroscopy procedures.
METHODS: From 2011 to 2021, the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool was queried for Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes related to hip arthroscopy (29860 to 29863, 29914 to 29916). All monetary data were adjusted to 2021 US dollars. The compound annual growth rate and total percentage change were calculated. Mann-Kendall trend tests were used to evaluate the reimbursement trends.
RESULTS: Based on the unadjusted values, a significant increase in physician fee was observed from 2011 to 2021 for CPT codes 29861 (removal of loose or foreign bodies; % change: 3.49, P = 0.03) and 29862 (chondroplasty, abrasion arthroplasty, labral resection; % change: 3.19, P = 0.03). The remaining CPT codes experienced no notable changes in reimbursement based on the unadjusted values. After adjusting for inflation, all seven of the hip arthroscopy CPT codes were observed to experience a notable decline in Medicare reimbursement. Hip arthroscopy with acetabuloplasty (CPT: 29915) and labral repair (CPT: 29916) exhibited the greatest reduction in reimbursement with a decrease in physician fee of 24.69% ( P < 0.001) and 24.64% ( P < 0.001), respectively, over the study period.
CONCLUSIONS: Medicare reimbursement for all seven of the commonly used hip arthroscopy services did not keep up with inflation, demonstrating marked reductions from 2011 to 2021. Specifically, the inflation-adjusted reimbursements decreased between 19.23% and 24.69% between 2011 and 2021.

BACKGROUND: The concept of \"time toxicity\" has emerged to address the impact of time spent in the healthcare system; however, little work has examined the phenomenon in the field of otolaryngology.
OBJECTIVE: To validate the use of Evaluation and Management (E/M) current procedural terminology codes as a method to assess time burden and to pilot this tool to characterize the time toxicity of office visits associated with a diagnosis of pituitary adenoma between 2016 and 2019.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of outpatient office visits quantified differences between timestamps documenting visit length and their associated E/M code visit length. The IBM MarketScan database was queried to identify patients with a diagnosis of pituitary adenoma in 2016 and to analyze their new and return claims between 2016 and 2019. One-way ANOVA and two-sample t-tests were used to examine claim quantity, time in office, and yearly visit time.
RESULTS: In the validation study, estimated visit time via E/M codes and actual visit time were statistically different (P < 0.01), with E/M codes underestimating actual time spent in 79.0% of visits. In the MarketScan analysis, in 2016, 2099 patients received a primary diagnosis of pituitary adenoma. There were 8490 additional-related claims for this cohort from 2016 to 2019. The plurality of new office visits were with endocrinologists (n = 857; 29.3%). Total time spent in office decreased yearly, from a mean of 113 min (2016) to 69 min (2019) (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: E/M codes underestimate the length of outpatient visits; therefore, time toxicity experienced by pituitary patients may be greater than reported. Further studies are needed to develop additional assessment tools for time toxicity and promote increased efficiency of care for patients with pituitary adenomas.

UNASSIGNED: Modifier 22 is a mechanism designed for surgeons to identify cases that are more complex than their Current Procedural Terminology code accounts for. However, empirical studies of the use and efficacy of modifier 22 are lacking.
UNASSIGNED: To assess the use of modifier 22 in common surgical procedures and the association of use with compensation.
UNASSIGNED: This was a cross-sectional analysis of the 2021 Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Limited Data Set including all Part B carrier and durable medical equipment fee-for-service claims. Claims for 10 common surgical procedures were evaluated, including mastectomy, total hip arthroplasty, total knee arthroplasty, coronary artery bypass grafting, laparoscopic right colectomy, laparoscopic appendectomy, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, kidney transplant, laparoscopic total abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and lumbar laminectomy. Data were analyzed from August to November 2023.
UNASSIGNED: Rate of modifier 22 use, rate of claim denial, mean charges, mean payment for accepted claims, and mean payment for all claims.
UNASSIGNED: The sample included 625 316 surgical procedures performed in calendar year 2021. The proportion of modifier 22 coding for a procedure ranged from 5725 of 251 521 (2.3%) in total knee arthroplasty to 1566 of 18 459 (8.5%) in laparoscopic total abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Submitted charges were 11.1% (95% CI, 9.1-13.2) to 22.8% (95% CI, 21.3-24.3) higher for claims with modifier 22, depending on the procedure. Among accepted claims, those with modifier 22 had increased payments ranging from 0.8% (95% CI, 0.7-1.0) to 4.8% (95% CI, 4.5-5.1). However, claims with modifier 22 were more likely to be denied (7.4% vs 4.0%; P < .001). As a result, overall mean payments were mixed, with 4 procedures having lower payments when modifier 22 was appended, 4 procedures having higher payments with modifier 22, and 2 procedures with no difference. The largest increase in mean payment for modifier 22 claims was for kidney transplant with an increased payment of $71.46 (95% CI, 55.32-87.60), which translates to a relative increase of 3.4% (95% CI, 2.9-4.6).
UNASSIGNED: The findings in this study suggest that modifier 22 had little to no financial benefit when appended to claims for a diverse panel of surgical procedures. In the current system, surgeons have little reason to request modifier 22, and no mechanisms currently exist for surgeons to recoup payment for difficult operations.

Proper codification of medical diagnoses and procedures is essential for optimized health care management, quality improvement, research, and reimbursement tasks within large healthcare systems. Assignment of diagnostic or procedure codes is a tedious manual process, often prone to human error. Natural Language Processing (NLP) has been suggested to facilitate this manual codification process. Yet, little is known on best practices to utilize NLP for such applications. With Large Language Models (LLMs) becoming more ubiquitous in daily life, it is critical to remember, not every task requires that level of resource and effort. Here we comprehensively assessed the performance of common NLP techniques to predict current procedural terminology (CPT) from operative notes. CPT codes are commonly used to track surgical procedures and interventions and are the primary means for reimbursement. Our analysis of 100 most common musculoskeletal CPT codes suggest that traditional approaches can outperform more resource intensive approaches like BERT significantly (P-value = 4.4e-17) with average AUROC of 0.96 and accuracy of 0.97, in addition to providing interpretability which can be very helpful and even crucial in the clinical domain. We also proposed a complexity measure to quantify the complexity of a classification task and how this measure could influence the effect of dataset size on model\'s performance. Finally, we provide preliminary evidence that NLP can help minimize the codification error, including mislabeling due to human error.

BACKGROUND: The 22-modifier requests additional compensation for increased case complexity. Unfortunately, there is little to guide physicians on the application, which may increase successful reimbursement. We sought to evaluate various factors affecting reimbursement of the 22-modifier in primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA) and report which factors contributed to successful utilization.
METHODS: In this retrospective study, all cases from a single practice where the 22-modifier was added to Current Procedural Terminology codes: 27130 (total hip arthroplasty) and 27447 (total knee arthroplasty) from October 2018 to March 2022 were evaluated. Out of the 6,869 total cases performed, 816 22-modifier cases were identified (11.9%). Operative reports, demographics, insurance type, billing information, and clinical records were assessed. T-tests were used to determine statistical significance.
RESULTS: Of the 816 cases, 221 (27.1%) were successfully reimbursed. Cases justified 22-modifier application with obesity, anatomic variations, or intraoperative factors. Some cases lacked justification, or operative reports were not submitted. Reimbursement was successful for 27.6% of obesity cases, 29.7% of intraoperative complications, and 35.7% of anatomic variations. There was a significantly higher likelihood of Medicare reimbursement than third-party payers or Medicaid (69.6 versus 20.5 and 6.9%) (P < .0001). Additionally, Medicare was more likely to reimburse for obesity (76.6 versus 20.0, and 5.2%), anatomic variations (77.3 versus 22.0%), and intraoperative factors (66.6 versus 21.1, and 1.7%).
CONCLUSIONS: Reimbursement for 22-modifier cases in TJA is unlikely. Obesity was cited for most 22-modifier justifications, but anatomic variation justification was successfully reimbursed most often. Medicare was most likely to reimburse compared to third-party payers or Medicaid. These findings should be considered when applying a 22-modifier to TJA procedures.