Year: 2018
Type: article
Study design: Observational Study
Abstract: You have accessJournal of UrologyGeneral & Epidemiological Trends & Socioeconomics: Practice Patterns, Quality of Life & Shared Decision Making II1 Apr 2018MP51-05 THE IMPACT OF VIDEO VISITS ON MEASURES OF CLINICAL EFFICIENCY AND REIMBURSEMENT Juan J. Andino, Parth K. Shah, William W. Roberts, Alon Z. Weizer, James M. Dupree, Todd M. Morgan, Stanley G. Mukundi, and Chad Ellimoottil Juan J. AndinoJuan J. Andino More articles by this author , Parth K. ShahParth K. Shah More articles by this author , William W. RobertsWilliam W. Roberts More articles by this author , Alon Z. WeizerAlon Z. Weizer More articles by this author , James M. DupreeJames M. Dupree More articles by this author , Todd M. MorganTodd M. Morgan More articles by this author , Stanley G. MukundiStanley G. Mukundi More articles by this author , and Chad EllimoottilChad Ellimoottil More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.02.1636AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES While interest in the use of telemedicine (e.g., video visits) is rapidly growing, little is known about the impact of these visits on measures of clinical efficiency and reimbursement. METHODS Our dataset included 250 video and 250 traditional clinic appointments for established patients scheduled between July 2016 and July 2017. We first calculated the percentage of each appointment type that was completed as scheduled (i.e., visits that were not canceled or no-shows). Next, we calculated the average length of time that patients spent during the encounter from check-in to check-out (i.e., cycle time). Finally, we used billing data (when available) to compare billing levels (Established patient levels 1-5), insurance reimbursement and out-of-pocket expenses between the two types of visits. RESULTS Out of 250 scheduled visits, 142 (51.8%) video visits and 153 (61.2%) clinic visits were completed as scheduled. Cycle time was significantly lower for video visits compared to traditional visits (24 minutes vs. 80 minutes, p<0.01). For patients that had billing data, we found that 85% of video visits were billed as a Level 3 (CPT code 99213) and 14% were billed as a Level 1 (CPT code 99211). In comparison, 63% of traditional clinic visits were billed as a Level 3 and 35% were billed as a Level 4 (CPT code 99214). Average commercial payer reimbursement was not statistically different for video visits compared to traditional visits ($48.76 vs. $52.84, p=0.21). Similarly, the average out-of-pocket expense was not statistically different for video visits compared to traditional visits ($29.07 vs. $33.10, p=0.22). CONCLUSIONS At our institution, video visits were associated with lower rates of completion and lower billing levels. However, video visits enhanced clinical efficiency through reduced cycle time while maintaining similar rates of reimbursement. Further research is necessary to understand the optimal implementation of telemedicine services like video visits into urology clinic workflow. © 2018FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 199Issue 4SApril 2018Page: e686 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2018MetricsAuthor Information Juan J. Andino More articles by this author Parth K. Shah More articles by this author William W. Roberts More articles by this author Alon Z. Weizer More articles by this author James M. Dupree More articles by this author Todd M. Morgan More articles by this author Stanley G. Mukundi More articles by this author Chad Ellimoottil More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Source: The Journal of Urology
Language: English
Field: Medicine
Domain: Health Sciences
Open Access status: bronze
OpenAlex ID: W4239260551