Modifier 22 Use in Fee-for-Service Medicare

被引:3
|
作者
Childers, Christopher P. [1 ]
Manisundaram, Naveen V. [2 ]
Hu, Chung-Yuan [3 ]
Chang, George J. [3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Texas MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Surg Oncol, Houston, TX USA
[2] Baylor Coll Med, Dept Surg, Houston, TX USA
[3] Univ Texas MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Colon & Rectal Surg, Houston, TX USA
[4] Univ Texas MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Hlth Serv Res, Houston, TX USA
关键词
D O I
10.1001/jamasurg.2024.0048
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Importance 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. Objective To assess the use of modifier 22 in common surgical procedures and the association of use with compensation. Design, Setting, and Participants 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. Main Outcomes and Measures Rate of modifier 22 use, rate of claim denial, mean charges, mean payment for accepted claims, and mean payment for all claims. Results 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). Conclusions and Relevance 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.
引用
收藏
页码:563 / 569
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Managed Care and the Diffusion of Endoscopy in Fee-for-Service Medicare
    Mobley, Lee Rivers
    Subramanian, Sujha
    Koschinsky, Julia
    Frech, H. E.
    Trantham, Laurel Clayton
    Anselin, Luc
    HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2011, 46 (06) : 1905 - 1927
  • [22] Rehospitalizations among Patients in the Medicare Fee-for-Service Program
    Jencks, Stephen F.
    Williams, Mark V.
    Coleman, Eric A.
    NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2009, 360 (14): : 1418 - 1428
  • [23] AMERICANS COMPARE MANAGED CARE, MEDICARE, AND FEE-FOR-SERVICE
    BLENDON, RJ
    KNOX, RA
    BRODIE, M
    BENSON, JM
    CHERVINSKY, G
    JOURNAL OF AMERICAN HEALTH POLICY, 1994, 4 (03): : 42 - 47
  • [24] Organizational models for restructuring fee-for-service Medicare - Comment
    Buto, K
    MEDICARE: PREPARING FOR THE CHALLENGES OF THE 21ST CENTURY, 1998, : 253 - 256
  • [25] Linkage of Laboratory Results to Medicare Fee-for-Service Claims
    Hammill, Bradley G.
    Curtis, Lesley H.
    Qualls, Laura G.
    Hastings, Susan N.
    Wang, Virginia
    Maciejewski, Matthew L.
    MEDICAL CARE, 2015, 53 (11) : 974 - 979
  • [26] The Need for Access to Medicare Fee-for-Service Claims Data
    Toussaint, John S.
    Berwick, Donald M.
    JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2013, 310 (01): : 29 - 30
  • [27] Geographic Variation in Cardiovascular Procedure Use Among Medicare Fee-for-Service vs Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries
    Matlock, Daniel D.
    Groeneveld, Peter W.
    Sidney, Steve
    Shetterly, Susan
    Goodrich, Glenn
    Glenn, Karen
    Xu, Stan
    Yang, Lin
    Farmer, Steven A.
    Reynolds, Kristi
    Cassidy-Bushrow, Andrea E.
    Lieu, Tracy
    Boudreau, Denise M.
    Greenlee, Robert T.
    Tom, Jeffrey
    Vupputuri, Suma
    Adams, Kenneth F.
    Smith, David H.
    Gunter, Margaret J.
    Go, Alan S.
    Magid, David J.
    JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2013, 310 (02): : 155 - 162
  • [28] HOSPITAL USE IN A FEE-FOR-SERVICE SYSTEM
    KLEINMAN, JH
    JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1982, 248 (03): : 306 - 307
  • [29] HOSPITAL USE IN A FEE-FOR-SERVICE SYSTEM
    NOBREGA, FT
    KRISHAN, I
    SMOLDT, RK
    DAVIS, CS
    ABBOTT, JA
    MOHLER, EG
    MCCLURE, W
    JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1982, 247 (06): : 806 - 810
  • [30] FEE-FOR-SERVICE
    MOHARIB, NH
    CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, 1973, 109 (04) : 265 - &