Navigating Coding Challenges in Craniofacial Surgery: A National Survey Analysis on CPT Variability

ObjectiveAccurate current PROCEDURAL TERMINOLOGY (CPT) coding is essential to healthcare costs and fair reimbursement. In craniofacial (CF) surgery, specific codes for procedures like mandibular distraction and cranial remodeling are lacking, leading to unclear standards that may undervalue complex techniques. This study hypothesizes variability in billing exists and aims to characterize these trends.Design & SettingA 21-question survey was distributed via email.ParticipantsMembers of the American Society of Maxillofacial Surgeons and American Society of Craniofacial Surgeons.Main Outcomes MeasuresRespondents selected CPT codes for six clinical vignettes: mandibular distraction (MDO), fronto-orbital advancement (FOA), posterior vault distraction (PVD) & reconstruction (PVR), cranial springs (CS), and le fort III distraction (LFD). Details of training and practice environment were recorded. Chi-squared analysis compared trends.ResultsOf 338 recipients, 36 completed responses (10.7%). For MDO, 60.6% used orthopedic fixation codes (20690/92) with mandibular osteotomy. Temporalis flaps (15733) were billed separately by 23.5% when performed for FOA. Half of respondents billed for each distractor in MDO and PVD. Billing additional codes was more common in academia, fellowship-trained, integrated trained, and high-volume CF practices (p-values = .04, .001, .034, .036). Neurosurgical craniectomy codes were more common than cranioplasty codes for PVR, CS, and PVD.ConclusionsThis study reveals inconsistent billing practices among CF surgeons driven by insufficient CPT codes. Variable approaches to billing, influenced by training and practice backgrounds, risks undervaluation of CF services. Multidisciplinary efforts are needed to create a more robust billing system to ensure fair compensation and equitable delivery of CF care.