PubMed · 10134686
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
S Peterson. 1994. A method for continuous improvement.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10134686/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
The Netherlands have the 'Wet op de Geneeskundige Behandelingsovereenkomst', a law concerning the medical treatment agreement with the patient. Among other things it regulates the duties regarding the keeping and destruction of medical records. A critical evaluation is necessary, because the existing regulation is expected to have a negative effect on patient care and on scientific research. Development of better criteria for destruction of medical records is necessary. Until then, the destruction of medical records should be stopped.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) coding for interventional radiology services when coding is performed by the operating physician. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Coding data for 1,174 interventional radiology encounters in 736 patients were analyzed for appropriate use of CPT codes. Physician operators initially assigned provisional codes. Formal coding for billing purposes was performed at a later date by one of two experienced interventional radiology physician coders. Initial operator coding errors and associated relative value unit (RVU) impact were analyzed. The coding patterns of experienced physician coders were compared with those of the other interventionalists. RESULTS: Only 82% of encounters were initially coded correctly, with a small net tendency toward undercoding. The overall net RVU impact of errors was only -1.2%, with the effects of undercoding outweighing those of overcoding. More complex cases (> or =4 CPT codes) were much more likely to be coded erroneously than less complex cases (24% vs 14%, P <.001). Experienced physician coders committed significantly fewer errors than other physicians (10% vs 25%, P <.001), but there was a similar minimal net RVU impact of errors (-1.1% vs -1.4%, P =.198). CONCLUSION: Although initial physician coding errors for interventional radiology procedures are common, the net RVU impact is minimal. The accuracy of experienced physician coders is significantly higher than that for other interventionalists. Because of the regulatory consequences of coding inaccuracies, practices should establish quality improvement systems to minimize errors and use the skills of experienced individuals in their coding processes.
In 1997, Congress authorized payments to nurse practitioners (NPs) for Medicare-provided services. NP services are now reimbursed at 85% of the physician fee schedule. As this source of reimbursement was realized, so was a new area of liability for NPs. Failure to follow billing rules can result in payment denial, repayment of fees already paid, mandated educational activities, fines, fraud prosecution, loss of Medicare-billing ability, and loss of employment. Appropriate billing entails adhering to guidelines for selecting procedure codes and proper medical documentation. This article identifies high-risk areas for NPs who bill Medicare and provides resources for accessing additional information.