Managed care gatekeeping, emergency medicine coding, and insurance reimbursement outcomes for 980 emergency department visits from four states nationwide

被引:7
作者
Young, GP
Ellis, J
Becher, J
Yeh, C
Kovar, J
Levitt, MA
机构
[1] Sacred Heart Med Ctr, Emergency Dept, Eugene, OR 97401 USA
[2] Highland Gen Hosp, Dept Emergency Med, Oakland, CA USA
[3] Univ Calif San Francisco, Div Emergency Med, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[4] Albert Einstein Med Ctr, Dept Emergency Med, Philadelphia, PA USA
[5] Tufts Univ New England Med Ctr, Dept Emergency Med, Boston, MA USA
[6] Univ Texas, Dept Emergency Med, Houston, TX USA
关键词
D O I
10.1067/mem.2002.118864
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
Study objective: We analyzed 980 emergency department visits for 951 patients with managed care insurance to document gatekeeping interactions and compare ED coding with professional fee billing reimbursements. Methods: A prospective cohort study was performed at 12 academic and community hospital EDs in 4 states involving consecutive ED patients with managed care insurance. The main outcomes measured were gatekeeper decisions, coding levels and reimbursement. Results: Preauthorization for payment was required from managed care gatekeepers for 876 (89%) patients. Authorization was granted for 490 (56%) of these visits and denied in 176 (20%) visits; gatekeepers were not available for 210 (24%) visits. Reimbursement was initially denied for 211 (43%) of the ED visits preapproved by managed care gatekeepers. Reimbursement was initially denied for most (634 or 65%) visits, and downcoding occurred in the other 346 (35%) visits Appeals for. 560 (57%) visits resulted in a decrease in the number of unreimbursed ED visits to 193 and an increase in the number of reimbursed ED visits to 787. Conclusion: Preauthorization gatekeeping is not predictive of whether managed care third-party payers will initially reimburse ED visits. Overall, almost two thirds of all ED claims were initially denied, and reimbursed claims were uniformly downcoded. On appeal, reimbursement was often reinstated or increased, although billing services only appealed about half of ED visits.
引用
收藏
页码:24 / 30
页数:7
相关论文
共 29 条
[1]  
*AM MED ASS, 1996, PHYS CURR PROC TERM
[2]   INAPPROPRIATE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT VISITS [J].
BUESCHING, DP ;
JABLONOWSKI, A ;
VESTA, E ;
DILTS, W ;
RUNGE, C ;
LUND, J ;
PORTER, R .
ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 1985, 14 (07) :672-676
[3]  
*CDC, 1994, MMWR-MORBID MORTAL W, V43, P581
[4]  
*DEP HHS, 1992, OFF INSP GEN US EM R
[5]   Managed care and emergency medicine: Conflicts, federal law, and California legislation [J].
Derlet, RW ;
Young, GP .
ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 1997, 30 (03) :292-300
[6]  
Feild C, 1987, Pediatr Emerg Care, V3, P150, DOI 10.1097/00006565-198709000-00003
[7]  
FOROUGHI D, 1989, PRACTITIONER, V233, P657
[8]   GATEKEEPING REVISITED - PROTECTING PATIENTS FROM OVERTREATMENT [J].
FRANKS, P ;
CLANCY, CM ;
NUTTING, PA .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1992, 327 (06) :424-429
[9]   EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS AND PATIENTS ASSESSMENTS - URGENCY OF NEED FOR MEDICAL-CARE [J].
GIFFORD, MJ ;
FRANASZEK, JB ;
GIBSON, G .
ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 1980, 9 (10) :502-507
[10]   THE 1980 PATIENT URGENCY STUDY - FURTHER ANALYSIS OF THE DATA [J].
GUTERMAN, JJ ;
FRANASZEK, JB ;
MURDY, D ;
GIFFORD, M .
ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 1985, 14 (12) :1191-1198