Trends of single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion documentation after the 2015 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services coding audit

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana; and
  • | 2 Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
USD  $45.00
USD  $376.00
USD  $612.00
Print or Print + Online Sign in

OBJECTIVE

With the use of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) expected to rise by 13.3% from 2020 to 2040, the increased usage of interbody cages with integral anterior fixation prompted a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) review, which resulted in coding changes affecting anterior instrumentation documentation. CMS determined that Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 22845 should not be used to report integrated instrumentation (plate) with an interbody device, and if additional anterior instrumentation (e.g., plates and screws) is placed with an integrated interbody device, then a 59 modifier should be used. There is sparse literature examining the trends of ACDF without and with additional anterior instrumentation after the 2015 CMS audit. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the trends of single-level subaxial ACDF utilization from 2011 to 2019 to determine whether the 2015 CMS audit influenced the documented usage of additional anterior instrumentation.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed using the commercially available database PearlDiver. Patient records were queried from 2011 to 2019 for single-level subaxial ACDF without (CPT code 22551) and with (CPT codes 22551 + 22845) instrumentation. Cochran-Armitage trend analyses were performed to evaluate the hypothesis that ACDF with additional anterior instrumentation decreased over the given time period.

RESULTS

Between 2011 and 2019, the total number of single-level ACDFs decreased from 6202 to 4402. From 2011 to 2015, an average of 6240 patients per year underwent single-level subaxial ACDF; of those, 950 patients (15.2%) had ACDF without instrumentation and 5290 patients (84.8%) had ACDF with instrumentation. In 2016, the total number of single-level subaxial ACDFs decreased to 5525, with 1006 patients (18.2%) receiving no instrumentation and 4519 patients (81.8%) receiving instrumentation. From 2017 to 2019, an average of 4283 patients per year underwent a single-level subaxial ACDF; of these, 1280 (29.9%) had no instrumentation and 3003 (70.1%) had instrumentation (all p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

From 2015 to 2019, single-level ACDF without instrumentation significantly increased by 91.5% and ACDF with anterior instrumentation significantly decreased by 18.1%. The 2015 CMS audit of interbody cages and anterior instrumentation coding (CPT code 22845) may account for the decreased documentation of anterior instrumentation in the 9-year period. Understanding CMS auditing could help surgeons perceive changes in practice patterns that may lead to a more thorough evaluation of patient outcomes, cost, and overall value.

ABBREVIATIONS

ACDF = anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; CDR = cervical disc replacement; CMS = Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; CPT = Current Procedural Terminology; ICD = International Classification of Diseases; ISASS = International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery; NCCI = National Correct Coding Initiative; RVU = relative value unit; wRVU = work RVU.

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
USD  $376.00
USD  $612.00
  • 1

    Iyer S, Kim HJ. Cervical radiculopathy. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2016;9(3):272280.

  • 2

    Suk KS, Lee SH, Park SY, Kim HS, Moon SH, Lee HM. Clinical outcome and changes of foraminal dimension in patients with foraminal stenosis after ACDF. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015;28(8):E449E453.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Saifi C, Fein AW, Cazzulino A, et al. Trends in resource utilization and rate of cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion throughout the United States from 2006 to 2013. Spine J. 2018;18(6):10221029.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Carrier CS, Bono CM, Lebl DR. Evidence-based analysis of adjacent segment degeneration and disease after ACDF: a systematic review. Spine J. 2013;13(10):13701378.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Denaro V, Di Martino A. Cervical spine surgery: an historical perspective. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(3):639648.

  • 6

    Buttermann GR. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion outcomes over 10 years: a prospective study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018;43(3):207214.

  • 7

    Laratta JL, Reddy HP, Bratcher KR, McGraw KE, Carreon LY, Owens RK II. Outcomes and revision rates following multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Spine Surg. 2018;4(3):496500.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Neifert SN, Martini ML, Yuk F, et al. Predicting trends in cervical spinal surgery in the United States from 2020 to 2040. World Neurosurg. 2020;141:e175e181.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Stein MI, Nayak AN, Gaskins RB III, Cabezas AF, Santoni BG, Castellvi AE. Biomechanics of an integrated interbody device versus ACDF anterior locking plate in a single-level cervical spine fusion construct. Spine J. 2014;14(1):128136.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    CPT editorial summary of panel action October, 2015. AMA-ASSN.org. November 6, 2015. Accessed June 7, 2022. https://www.ama-assn.org/sites/ama-assn.org/files/corp/media-browser/public/cpt/oct-2015-cpt-summary-of-panel-actions_0.pdf

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Pollock K. 2017 spine CPT code changes. AAOS Now. Published online November 1, 2016. Accessed June 7, 2022.https://www.aaos.org/AAOSNow/2016/Nov/Managing/managing02/

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Pollock K. 2017 Spine CPT code changes. COA.org. Accessed June 7, 2022. http://www.coa.org/docs/publications/2017SpineCPTCodeChangesCOA.pdf

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Blasier RD, Cheng J, Lahey D, Mitchell W, Swartz K. Coding for spinal interbody biomechanical cages and devices. SpineLine. March/April 2017. Accessed June 7, 2022. https://www.spineline-digital.org/spineline/march_april_2017/MobilePagedArticle.action?articleId=1284914#articleId1284914

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Vogt L. A closer look at biomechanical cage & device coding. ISASS. November 21, 2017. Accessed June 7, 2022. https://isass.org/a-closer-look-at-biomechanical-cage-device-coding/.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Hepler MD. Coding for intervertebral biomechanical devices: recent changes and their impact. SRS News. Published online September 2018. Accessed June 7, 2022. https://www.srs.org/newsletter/issues/september-2018/coding-committee-update/full-article

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Rosen NR. NCCI response letter, December 13, 2016. Accessed June 7, 2022. https://www.isass.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/NCCI-Response-Letter-12.13.16.pdf

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Chong E, Pelletier MH, Mobbs RJ, Walsh WR. The design evolution of interbody cages in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16(1):99.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Bagby GW. Arthrodesis by the distraction-compression method using a stainless steel implant. Orthopedics. 1988;11(6):931934.

  • 19

    Jain S, Eltorai AEM, Ruttiman R, Daniels AH. Advances in spinal interbody cages. Orthop Surg. 2016;8(3):278284.

  • 20

    Matgé G. Cervical cage fusion with 5 different implants: 250 cases. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2002;144(6):539550.

  • 21

    Kandziora F, Pflugmacher R, Schäfer J, et al. Biomechanical comparison of cervical spine interbody fusion cages. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26(17):18501857.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Caspar W, Barbier DD, Klara PM. Anterior cervical fusion and Caspar plate stabilization for cervical trauma. Neurosurgery. 1989;25(4):491502.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Song KJ, Taghavi CE, Lee KB, Song JH, Eun JP. The efficacy of plate construct augmentation versus cage alone in anterior cervical fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(26):28862892.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Barbagallo GM V, Romano D, Certo F, Milone P, Albanese V. Zero-P: a new zero-profile cage-plate device for single and multilevel ACDF. A single institution series with four years maximum follow-up and review of the literature on zero-profile devices. Eur Spine J. 2013;22:868878.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Caspar W, Pitzen T. Anterior cervical fusion and trapezoidal plate stabilization for re-do surgery. Surg Neurol. 1999;52(4):345352.

  • 26

    Song KJ, Choi BY. Current concepts of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a review of literature. Asian Spine J. 2014;8(4):531539.

  • 27

    Scholz M, Reyes PM, Schleicher P, et al. A new stand-alone cervical anterior interbody fusion device: biomechanical comparison with established anterior cervical fixation devices. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(2):156160.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    El Baz EA, Sultan AM, Barakat AS, Koptan W, ElMiligui Y, Shaker H. The use of anterior cervical interbody spacer with integrated fixation screws for management of cervical disc disease. SICOT J. 2019;5:8.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    Scholz M, Schnake KJ, Pingel A, Hoffmann R, Kandziora F. A new zero-profile implant for stand-alone anterior cervical interbody fusion. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(3):666673.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Panchal RR, Kim KD, Eastlack R, et al. A clinical comparison of anterior cervical plates versus stand-alone intervertebral fusion devices for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion procedures. World Neurosurg. 2017;99:630637.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31

    Reis MT, Reyes PM, Crawford NR. Biomechanical assessment of anchored cervical interbody cages: comparison of 2-screw and 4-screw designs. Neurosurgery. 2014;10(suppl 3):412417.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32

    Sun Z, Liu Z, Hu W, Yang Y, Xiao X, Wang X. Zero-profile versus cage and plate in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with a minimum 2 years of follow-up: a meta-analysis. World Neurosurg. 2018;120:e551e561.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33

    Wang Z, Jiang W, Li X, et al. The application of zero-profile anchored spacer in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(1):148154.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34

    AMA/Specialty Society RVS Update Committee Meeting Minutes. April 22–25, 2015. AMA-ASSN.org. Accessed June 7, 2022. https://www.ama-assn.org/sites/ama-assn.org/files/corp/media-browser/public/rbrvs/april-2015-ruc-minutes_0.pdf

  • 35

    Cheng JS, Woo HH, Yue J, Lorio MP, Mitchell W. Multi-society response letter to NCCI,. February 13, 2017. Accessed June 7, 2022. https://www.isass.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Multi-Society-Response-Letter-to-NCCI-02.13.17-FINAL2.pdf

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36

    Cheng JS, Woo HH, Voss F, et al. Multi-society response letter to NCCI, November 7, 2016. Accessed June 7, 2022. https://www.isass.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Multi-Society-NCCI-Comments-11.07.16-Final2.pdf

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37

    Rosen NR. NCCI response letter, November 21, 2017. Accessed June 7, 2022. https://www.isass.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/isass112117_22853_22854w22845-22847.pdf

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38

    Chapter IV. Surgery: Musculoskeletal System CPT Codes 20000-29999 for National Correct Coding Initiative Policy Manual for Medicare Services. AMA; 2021. Accessed June 7, 2022. https://www.cms.gov/files/document/chapter4cptcodes20000-29999final11.pdf

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39

    NCCI Policy Manual for Medicare Services. CMS; 2018. Accessed June 7, 2022. https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coding/NationalCorrectCodInitEd/NCCI-Manual-Archive

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40

    Reitz H, Joubert MJ. Intractable headache and cervico-brachialgia treated by complete replacement of cervical intervertebral discs with a metal prosthesis. S Afr Med J. 1964;38:881884.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 41

    Fernström U. Arthroplasty with intercorporal endoprothesis in herniated disc and in painful disc. Acta Chir Scand Suppl. 1966;357:154159.

  • 42

    Leven D, Meaike J, Radcliff K, Qureshi S. Cervical disc replacement surgery: indications, technique, and technical pearls. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2017;10(2):160169.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 43

    Witiw CD, Smieliauskas F, Ham SA, Traynelis VC. Cervical disc replacement: examining "real-world" utilization of an emerging technology. J Neurosurg Spine. 2020;32(5):689695.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 44

    2019 Medicare fee-for-service supplemental improper payment data. CMS.gov. Accessed June 7, 2022. https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systemsmonitoring-programsmedicare-ffs-compliance-programscertcert/2019-medicare-fee-service-supplemental-improper-payment-data

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 447 447 447
Full Text Views 72 72 72
PDF Downloads 78 78 78
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0