PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 16878168

Interventional pain management: evolving issues for 2003.

Abstract

The new millennium has seen the introduction of an array of new Current Procedural Terminology(R) (CPT) codes and the expansion of interventional techniques. Among the many issues of interest to physicians practicing interventional pain management in 2003 are CPT coding, correct coding issues, and utilization. The CPT developed and updated by the American Medical Association, is the most important and commonly used coding system for interventional pain physicians in the United States. A recent development in the CPT system has been to include Category I, Category II, and Category III CPT codes. Inclusion of a code in Category I is generally based on the procedure being consistent with contemporary medical practice and being performed by many physicians in clinical practice in multiple locations. In contrast, CPT Category III, also known as emerging technology codes, is a set of temporary codes for emerging technology, services, and procedures. There have been many new codes since 2000, along with changes in the definitions of the codes and vignettes. In order for the correct coding initiative to be effective, it is essential that the coding describes what actually transpires at each patient encounter. When multiple procedures are performed at the same session, the procedure and post-procedure work do not have to be repeated for each procedure, and, therefore, a comprehensive code describing the multiple services commonly performed together can be used. Thus, many activities which are integral to a procedure are considered as generic activities and are assumed to be included as acceptable medical/surgical practice and, while they couldn't be performed separately, they should not be considered as such when a code narrative is defined. Under this initiative, almost all interventional techniques are affected. The utilization of interventional techniques in the modern era is the final issue. Utilization has been increasing gradually. Thus, it is important for interventional pain physicians to understand the utilization patterns across the nation and for various techniques. This review will discuss the issues of CPT coding, correct coding, and utilization as they pertain to interventional techniques.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Laxmaiah Manchikanti, Vijay Singh. 2003. Interventional pain management: evolving issues for 2003.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16878168/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗