Faculty Bibliography

Documentation, coding, and billing (claims submission) are foundational to neurologic practice in the United States, enabling accurate reimbursement, effective communication, and data-driven advancements in patient care, research, and education. Neurologists navigate complex regulatory frameworks and evolving payer guidelines, requiring meticulous attention to diagnostic coding, evaluation and management (E/M) services, and procedure-specific requirements. This chapter examines critical aspects of neurologic billing and coding, including ICD-10-CM (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification) for diagnostic accuracy, updated E/M guidelines emphasizing medical decision-making and time, and new telemedicine codes. It highlights the best practices for procedure coding and the use of digital health technologies. The challenges posed by prior authorization are explored, alongside potential solutions like artificial intelligence-driven tools and policy reform. By prioritizing precision, compliance, and technological adaptation, neurologists can enhance patient outcomes, support practice sustainability, and contribute to the broader goals of equitable, efficient, and innovative neurologic care.

Mobile applications are widely used in epilepsy, although their impact on clinical effectiveness (CE) and their feasibility, acceptability, and usability (FAU) remain unclear. We conducted a systematic review investigating CE and FAU of epilepsy mobile applications using MEDLINE and Embase from database inception to June 21, 2024. We followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting standards. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019134848). In duplicate, we determined study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOQAS) and the Joanna Briggs Critical Appraisal Checklist (to determine eligibility for inclusion), risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and usability study quality using the 15-point Silva scale. We identified 8953 studies, of which 20 were included. Twelve (60.0%) addressed CE, nine (45.0%) acceptability, five (25.0%) usability, and eight (40.0%) feasibility. Five (25.0%) evaluated CE and FAU. Studies comprised prospective cohort (n = 9, 45.0%), pilot (n = 3, 15.0%), randomized controlled trial (n = 7, 35.0%), and pre/post (n = 1, 5.0%) designs. Most apps were used for self-management or to enhance education or communication between patients and providers. Cohort studies demonstrated fair quality (median NOQAS score = 5, interquartile range [IQR] = 5.0-5.8), whereas of seven randomized controlled trials, four (57.1%) had some concern for bias. Usability studies demonstrated high quality (median Silva score = 10, IQR = 10-11). Apps were predominantly intended for patient use (n = 9, 75.0%). Symptom reporting and medication management were the most common app targets in both CE and FAU studies (n = 8, 66.7%; n = 9, 69.2%), although FAU studies more frequently used monitoring or tracking (n = 10, 76.9%) and reminder setting (n = 10, 76.9%) than CE apps (n = 7, 58.3%). Investigations of application use most commonly studied CE and patient-facing apps. Additional high-quality evidence is necessary to evaluate the CE and FAU of app use in epilepsy to work toward the standardization of FAU metrics and development of implementation guidelines.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES/UNASSIGNED:We determined inter-modality (in-person vs telemedicine examination) and inter-rater agreement for telemedicine assessments (2 different examiners) using the Telemedicine Buffalo Concussion Physical Examination (Tele-BCPE), a standardized concussion examination designed for remote use. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Patients referred for an initial evaluation for concussion were invited to participate. Participants had a brief initial assessment by the treating neurologist. After a patient granted informed consent to participate in the study, the treating neurologist obtained a concussion-related history before leaving the examination room. Using the Tele-BCPE, 2 virtual examinations in no specific sequence were then performed from nearby rooms by the treating neurologist and another neurologist. After the 2 telemedicine examinations, the treating physician returned to the examination room to perform the in-person examination. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) determined inter-modality validity (in-person vs remote examination by the same examiner) and inter-rater reliability (between remote examinations done by 2 examiners) of overall scores of the Tele-BCPE within the comparison datasets. Cohen's kappa, κ, measured levels of agreement of dichotomous ratings (abnormality present vs absent) on individual components of the Tele-BCPE to determine inter-modality and inter-rater agreement. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:< 0.001]) were reliable (ICC >0.70). There was at least substantial inter-modality agreement (κ ≥ 0.61) for 25 of 29 examination elements. For inter-rater agreement (2 telemedicine examinations), there was at least substantial agreement for 8 of 29 examination elements. DISCUSSION/UNASSIGNED:Our study demonstrates that the Tele-BCPE yielded consistent clinical results, whether conducted in-person or virtually by the same examiner, or when performed virtually by 2 different examiners. The Tele-BCPE is a valid indicator of neurologic examination findings as determined by an in-person concussion assessment. The Tele-BCPE may also be performed with excellent levels of reliability by neurologists with different training and backgrounds in the virtual setting. These findings suggest that a combination of in-person and telemedicine modalities, or involvement of 2 telemedicine examiners for the same patient, can provide consistent concussion assessments across the continuum of care.

Digital health technologies (DHTs) can transform neurological assessments, improving quality and continuity of care. In the United States, the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) oversees the safety and efficacy of these technologies, employing a detailed regulatory process that classifies devices based on risk and requires rigorous review and post-market surveillance. Following FDA approval, DHTs enter the Current Procedural Terminology, Relative Value Scale Update Committee, and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services coding and valuation processes leading to coverage and payment decisions. DHT adoption is challenged by rapid technologic advancements, an inconsistent evidence base, marketing discrepancies, ambiguous coding guidance, and variable health insurance coverage. Regulators, policymakers, and payers will need to develop better methods to evaluate these promising technologies and guide their deployment. This includes striking a balance between patient safety and clinical effectiveness versus promotion of innovation, especially as DHTs increasingly incorporate artificial intelligence. Data validity, cybersecurity, risk management, societal, and ethical responsibilities should be addressed. Regulatory advances can support adoption of these promising tools by ensuring DHTs are safe, effective, accessible, and equitable.