Survey of academic pediatric emergency departments regarding use of evaluation and management codes.
OBJECTIVE
The aims of the study were to determine the frequency at which each emergency medicine evaluation and management (E/M) code is used, to identify factors associated with their use by academic pediatric emergency departments (PEDs), and to compare PED E/M code utilization rates with rates reported by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for general emergency departments (EDs).


METHODS
A 24-question survey was sent to 42 academic PED medical directors. Questions pertained to PED demographics, physician staff, records/documentation, billing education, and E/M coding data for 1 year. The general ED E/M code utilization rates were obtained from the published Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services database. Descriptive statistics and odds ratios were used to report and compare the data.


RESULTS
Twenty (48%) of the surveys were returned, and 9 (21%) completed the E/M coding data questions. From these 9 departments, the mean PED annual census was 46,065 (range, 23,531-92,910). The methods of PED medical record documentation were template (6), handwritten (2), and dictation/transcription (1). Charge documents were completed by the PED physician (3), professional service coders (4), and hospital coders (2). Coding/documentation in-services were provided to the physicians of 7 PEDs, and billing audits were performed in 5 PEDs. The total number of charges for the 9 PEDs was 325,129, 78.4% of the census. Multiple reasons were given for the discrepancy between census and charges. The percentage of each of the 5 levels of service billed was calculated for each of the 9 PEDs. The 2 lowest levels of service were used 38.3% of the time, whereas the 2 highest were used 19.2% of the time. The range for the highest level of service varied widely from 5.3% to 53.3%. Approximately 65% of E/M codes used by general EDs were for the 2 highest levels of service. The PED with the highest percentage of upper level charges (53.4%) was the only PED that used dictation/transcription for documentation.


CONCLUSIONS
Although the response rate was low, and thus the validity of the results was limited, the findings may serve as a benchmark for E/M code utilization in PEDs. The large variation in use of the E/M codes among the PED in our study and the lower rate of using the highest E/M codes by the PEDs compared with the general EDs suggest potential opportunities for academic PEDs to improve billing practices.
Losek
Joseph D
JD
Division of Pediatric Emergency/Critical Care, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, USA. losek@musc.edu
Reid
Samuel R
SR
Linzer
Jeffrey
J
D000046:Academic Medical Centers / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D039702:Current Procedural Terminology; D004282:Documentation / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D004635:Emergency Medicine / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D004636:Emergency Service, Hospital / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D019538:Health Care Surveys; D006751:Hospital Information Systems / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D017052:Hospital Mortality; D006801:Humans; D008499:Medical Records / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D010343:Patient Admission / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D010372:Pediatrics / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D016312:Treatment Refusal / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D014481:United States