Abstract
To assess concordance between hospital coding and clinician coding for patients undergoing spinal instrumentation procedures and determine if our coding systems result in accurate financial reimbursement from the primary care trust (PCT).
We conducted a one year retrospective review of 41 patients who underwent spinal instrumentation procedures. Data collected from IT systems included: operation description, clinician procedure code, hospital procedure code, Hospital Health Resource grouping (HRG), clinician HRG, instrumentation costs and PCT reimbursement fees. From this data we compared coding based re-imbursement fees and actual surgical costs, taking into account exact instrumentation prices.
In all cases the primary hospital and clinician coding values differed. Using the clinician code would have altered the HRG group in 16 patients. Using solely clinician coding would have generated less financial reimbursement than using hospital coding.
In 23 patients undergoing complex spinal procedures, instrumentation costs represented a significant proportion of the final fee obtained from the PCT, thus leaving a small proportion for the associated hospital stay costs. This suggests instrumentation costs are inadequately reimbursed from the PCT.
Hospital coding appears more accurate than clinician coding and results in greater financial reimbursement. On the whole, we found there to be insufficient reimbursement from the PCT. The variable and sometimes substantial cost of spinal instrumentation procedures results in inadequate reimbursement for many procedures. We feel the payment by results (PBR) scheme is suboptimal for such procedures and adequate reimbursement can only be achieved by direct billing on an individual case basis.
