Decoding Billing Practices in Cochlear Implant Programs. Issue 2 (30th March 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hall, Melissa W.; Prentiss, Sandra M.; Coto, Jennifer; Zwolan, Teresa A.; Holcomb, Meredith A.
• Is Part Of: Ear and hearing. Volume 43:Issue 2(2022)
• Page Start: 477
• Page End: 486
• Publication Date: 2022-03-30
• Subjects: Billing -- Cochlear implants -- Cochlear implant billing -- Coding -- Practice management -- Survey; Hearing disorders -- Periodicals; Audiology -- Periodicals; 612.85
• DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000001109
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0196-0202

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine current cochlear implant (CI) billing practices across CI audiologists in the United States, to determine if CI audiologists are following the National Correct Coding Initiative (NCCI) edits, and to assess the CI audiologist's exposure to billing education. Design: A 48-question survey was electronically distributed to and completed by audiologists who bill for CI services. Demographic data including work setting, population served, years of experience, number of CI patients managed per week, and exposure to billing education were collected. Data were analyzed to identify codes and modifiers used to bill for commonly performed CI procedures such as unilateral and bilateral CI programming, preoperative and postoperative testing, and objective measures. Results: Data were obtained from 96 audiologists. The majority (86.3%, n = 82) of respondents agreed or strongly agreed they understand billing and coding practices for cochlear implants and 94.7% (n = 89) rated themselves as somewhat to highly efficient when performing these practices. Only 16.8% (n = 16) of respondents reported receiving formal training for practice management, and half of the respondents (51.1%, n = 48) reported unfamiliarity with national billing guidelines. Those who received formal training reported higher billing efficiency. Wide variability was seen for various billing scenarios. Billing questions were presented, and answers were coded as correct or incorrect based on the NCCI edits. Respondents who reported higher agreement with understanding billing and who received formal training scored better on common billing questions related to the NCCI edits. Conclusions: Most CI audiologists rated themselves as efficient in billing; however, wide variance in billing practices was observed. Incorporating practice management and current billing education into daily practice and into audiology training programs is essential to clinic efficiency, practice management, and CI program viability. CI audiologists should be knowledgeable about appropriate billing practices to ensure long-term sustainability of programs.