Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39981504›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2025

Evaluating Billing Code Distributions in the Emergency Department Following the Implementation of the New Documentation Guidelines.

Adriana Coleska, Melissa A Meeker, Joseph W Kopp, Phillip L Rice, David S Huckins, Karen L Smith, Lauren M Nentwich, Ali S Raja, Joshua J Baugh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Adriana ColeskaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Melissa A MeekerDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Joseph W KoppDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Phillip L RiceDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Salem Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
David S HuckinsDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Newton-Wellesley Hospital, Tufts University Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Karen L SmithCoding Department, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Lauren M NentwichDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Ali S RajaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Joshua J BaughDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Changes to the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) evaluation and management (E/M) documentation guidelines implemented on January 1, 2023, were primarily meant to address dissatisfaction with the prior system; however, it was not known how the changes might alter billing distributions. In this study, we compare the proportion of visits for each E/M code before and after the enactment of the changes across 5 emergency departments (EDs) to determine the effects on billing. Methods: This was a retrospective, observational analysis of all ED visits for patients over 18 years across 5 EDs from January 1 to March 31 in the years 2021, 2022, and 2023. In the primary analysis, we compared the distribution of visits for each of the studied CPT E/M codes in the 3 months before and after the enactment of the changes, utilizing a multivariate mixed-effect Poisson regression model. In our secondary analysis, we aimed to determine if the results differed when looking at academic and community sites separately. Results: Across all hospitals, visits coded as level 4 and level 5 comprised a significantly higher proportion of all visits in the postimplementation period (relative risk = 1.40 for level 4 and relative risk = 1.17 for level 5). The proportion of visits coded as levels 1, 2, and 3 significantly decreased in the postimplementation period, while those coded as critical care did not change. The same general trends were found in both academic and community settings separately, although with less statistical significance, particularly at the academic sites. Conclusion: In this observational analysis, we found that overall CPT E/M levels increased after the implementation of the new documentation guidelines, relieving apprehension that the documentation changes may lead to a decrease in reimbursement.

Indexed as

billingcodingdocumentationemergency medicine

Identifiers

PMID39981504
PMCPMC11841088

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.