Madeline Tadley1, Tyler W Henry2, Dylan P Horan2, Pedro K Beredjiklian3. 1. Rothman Orthopaedic Institute, Philadelphia, PA. 2. Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA. 3. Rothman Orthopaedic Institute, Philadelphia, PA; Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA. Electronic address: pedro.beredjiklian@rothmanortho.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Telehealth use is likely to increase as a result of practice changes during the COVID-19 pandemic, although the overall picture surrounding the billing, coding, and continued insurance coverage of these visits remains uncertain. The purpose of this study was to identify potential financial implications of continued telehealth use in hand and wrist surgery clinical practice. METHODS: Two hundred telehealth visits were randomly selected and matched 1:1 based on primary diagnosis code to in-person visits. Medical and billing records were reviewed to compare visit complexities, total visit charges, work relative value units (wRVUs), and approved insurance reimbursement. Postoperative visits and visits with radiographic evaluation were excluded. RESULTS: Level 4 visits were more common with in-person encounters compared to telehealth (11% vs 2%, respectively), and level 1 and 2 visits were more common with telehealth compared to in-person encounters (14% vs 6%, respectively). Twenty-seven in-person visits (13%) had at least 1 additional procedure code billed. The mean total visit charge was 26% less in telehealth compared to in-person. Based on the primary procedure code alone, the sum of wRVUs was 15.1 points less in the telehealth cohort compared to in-person (per visit average, 1.1 [telehealth] vs 1.2 [in-person]). The 28 additional services provided during in-person visits accounted for an added 20.7 wRVUs. Unpaid claims were more common among telehealth encounters (8% [telehealth] vs 3% [in-person]). CONCLUSIONS: Higher complexity visits and visits with additional procedural codes billed were more common with in-person visits. This led to a lower number of total wRVUs and lower total visit charges among the included telehealth visits compared to the matched in-person controls. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: It is important to understand and consider the long-term financial impact of telehealth implementation. Practices must develop strategies to incorporate radiographic evaluation into telehealth visits and effectively stratify those patients that may require procedural interventions for in-person visits. Understanding the economic implications of this changing care delivery paradigm, providers can continue to provide telehealth services while protecting the financial sustainability of hand surgery practices.
PURPOSE: Telehealth use is likely to increase as a result of practice changes during the COVID-19 pandemic, although the overall picture surrounding the billing, coding, and continued insurance coverage of these visits remains uncertain. The purpose of this study was to identify potential financial implications of continued telehealth use in hand and wrist surgery clinical practice. METHODS: Two hundred telehealth visits were randomly selected and matched 1:1 based on primary diagnosis code to in-person visits. Medical and billing records were reviewed to compare visit complexities, total visit charges, work relative value units (wRVUs), and approved insurance reimbursement. Postoperative visits and visits with radiographic evaluation were excluded. RESULTS: Level 4 visits were more common with in-person encounters compared to telehealth (11% vs 2%, respectively), and level 1 and 2 visits were more common with telehealth compared to in-person encounters (14% vs 6%, respectively). Twenty-seven in-person visits (13%) had at least 1 additional procedure code billed. The mean total visit charge was 26% less in telehealth compared to in-person. Based on the primary procedure code alone, the sum of wRVUs was 15.1 points less in the telehealth cohort compared to in-person (per visit average, 1.1 [telehealth] vs 1.2 [in-person]). The 28 additional services provided during in-person visits accounted for an added 20.7 wRVUs. Unpaid claims were more common among telehealth encounters (8% [telehealth] vs 3% [in-person]). CONCLUSIONS: Higher complexity visits and visits with additional procedural codes billed were more common with in-person visits. This led to a lower number of total wRVUs and lower total visit charges among the included telehealth visits compared to the matched in-person controls. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: It is important to understand and consider the long-term financial impact of telehealth implementation. Practices must develop strategies to incorporate radiographic evaluation into telehealth visits and effectively stratify those patients that may require procedural interventions for in-person visits. Understanding the economic implications of this changing care delivery paradigm, providers can continue to provide telehealth services while protecting the financial sustainability of hand surgery practices.