Although MS-DRGs have stolen the spotlight since CMS implemented them in 2007, hospitals are increasingly using All Patient Refined DRGs (APR-DRG) to compile the most accurate assessment of patient severity of illness (SOI) and risk of mortality (ROM). Cheryl M. Manchenton, RN, BSN, and Tamara A. Hicks, RN, BSN, MHA, CCS, CCDS, ACM, describe why APR-DRGs are the most widely-used SOI and ROM-adjusted DRGs and how organizations can use them to their advantage.
QUESTION: A physician documents in an operative report debridement of a necrotic muscle (not due to an open wound). Must the physician also document how the muscle is removed to report ICD-9-CM procedure code 83.45 (other myectomy)? Is this considered excisional or nonexcisional debridement? What documentation is required to code the removal of a necrotic portion of a muscle?
While we know the implementation date of ICD-10 may change to the proposed 2014 deadline, healthcare organizations must keep moving forward with preparations. Annie Boynton, BS, RHIT, CPC, CCS, CPC-H, CCS-P, CPC-P, CPC-I, CPhT, explains how organizations can use the additional time to better handle the change process associated with ICD-10, especially planning for education and training.
Inpatient acute care hospitals could see a 2.3% increase in payment rates under the fiscal year (FY) 2013 Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) proposed rule, released April 24. The 2.3% is a net update after inflation, improvements in productivity, a statutory adjustment factor, and adjustments for hospital documentation and coding changes.
The additions and revisions to the ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting in 2012 include some new information that coders should be aware of in preparation for ICD-10-CM/PCS implementation. Sandy Nicholson, MA, RHIA, and Shelley C. Safian, PhD, MAOM/HSM, CCS-P, CPC-H, CPC-I, CHA, explore some of the biggest guideline changes.
QUESTION: How will we be able to code for procedures such as Billroth procedures, Roux-en-Y anastomoses, and Whipple’s procedure when eponyms won’t be used in ICD-10-PCS?
Unfortunately, ICD-10-PCS is not very comparable to the current ICD-9-CM volume 3 codes inpatient coders currently use. But coders shouldn’t despair, according to Sandy Nicholson, MA, RHIA, Jennifer Avery, CCS, CPC-H, CPC, CPC-I and Robert S. Gold, MD —ICD-10-PC coding may even be fun once coders get the hang of it.
Each year the number of quality measures being used for public reporting across provider settings increases. Kathy Giannangelo, MA, RHIA, CCS, CPHIMS, FAHIMA, and Linda Hyde, RHIA, explain why organizations that have not started to evaluate the impact ICD-10 will have on their quality measure data should start now.
HHS’ proposed rule announcing a one-year delay of the implementation of ICD-10-CM/PCS was printed in the April 17 edition of the Federal Register . If HHS finalizes the delay, ICD-10-CM/PCS would become effective October 1, 2014.
CMS has posted a summary report from the discussion of procedure codes at the ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting held March 5. The agenda addressed only a small number of code requests due to the implementation of the partial code freeze.
During the last year, the buzz from the health information management (HIM) and coding community has consistently reflected that, as a whole, the industry continues to feel the strain of tight budgets and squeeze of limited resources, especially with the approach of ICD-10 implementation. Coders reacted to the effects this has had on their compensation levels in the 2011 JustCoding Coder Salary Survey, the results of which are also discussed.
If you're going to spend time and resources to conduct a coding audit, you certainly want to ensure effective and informative results. Joe Rivet, CCS-P, CPC, CEMC, CPMA, CICA, CHRC, CHPC, CHC, and Julie Daube, BS, RHIT, CCS, CCS-P, discuss how factors such as timing, senior-level buy in, risk areas, a defined scope, and a commitment to follow-through can help make the coding audit a valuable tool in your organization.
As you run down your mental to-do list for the rest of the afternoon, you realize you're double-booked for multiple meetings, and you're having trouble prioritizing because your phone keeps buzzing with new e-mail notifications. If you're a health information management (HIM) director, this scenario likely repeats day in and day out. Luckily Monica Pappas, RHIA, Patti Reisinger, RHIT, CCS, and Tesa Topley, RHIA, provide tips and strategies for HIM directors to help manage all that they juggle, and prevent stress from getting out of control.
QUESTION: For a healing traumatic finger amputation with concern but no diagnosis of infection at the amputation site (the physician prescribed Bactrim), is it correct to assign code V54.89 (other orthopedic aftercare) and ICD-9-CM code 886.x (traumatic amputation of finger)?
CMS released in February a fact sheet, “Global Surgery,” which contains information regarding the components of a global surgery package, including guidance about billing and payment rules for surgeries, endoscopies, and global surgical packages that are split between two or more physicians.
QUESTION: We are having a discussion about how to code when the studies section of the history and physical (H&P) indicates that the chest x-ray showed atelectasis or that an electrocardiogram showed right bundle branch block with anterior fascicular block. Some of us believe that it’s okay to code the diagnosis (i.e., atelectasis) if the provider states that the testing “showed” the diagnosis, whereas others believe we cannot code the diagnosis as it is a lab/testing result, and the provider could just be reading the results onto his or her H&P dictation. I realize you cannot go to the testing result itself and code from it directly. However, I argue that it would be okay to code for it because the provider is using this information to make decisions about care, testing, and procedures, and he or she indicates the testing results in the H&P body. What are your thoughts?
Coders are constantly analyzing documentation for clues and details that may indicate the need for a physician query. For example, coders should watch for clinical evidence that points to a condition that the physician may not have explicitly documented. Coders also need to be wary of reporting conditions without accounting for context or other clinical indicators in the documentation. William E. Haik, MD, CDIP, explains how this can lead to inappropriate reporting of an MCC, for example, that the overall clinical picture does not support.
These days, documentation improvement and compliance are at the forefront of coders' minds. In some cases, coders are led completely astray by bad data and physician documentation that isn't entirely accurate. Robert S. Gold, MD, emphasizes that it’s important for coders to always look at the larger clinical picture in the medical record—not just a documented laboratory result or change in vital sign. Gold applies this philosophy and examines a number of conditions, including anemia, acute kidney injury, congestive heart failure, and myocardial infarction.
How does medical necessity get “overlooked” on the physician side as well as the inpatient side? Case managers, utilization review staff, physician advisors, CDI specialists, and coders, each carry out specific duties and responsibilities when reviewing medical records. Glenn Krauss, BBA, RHIA, CCS, CCS-P, CPUR, FCS, PCS, C-CDIS, CCDS, examines contributing factors and takes a closer look at guidelines Trailblazer Health recently issued defining specific joint replacement (DRG 470) documentation that both hospitals and physicians should follow to support medical necessity.
QUESTION: Recently, reviewers have denied diagnostic code 584.9 (acute renal failure [ARF]) based on lab values. The diagnosis is well documented and treated by the attending physician, but reviewers are stating the lab values do not support the diagnosis of ARF. The lab values (creatinine/blood urea nitrogen) went from normal to abnormal, and we found no definitive standards for lab parameters to meet the definition of ARF. Following coding guidelines for reporting secondary diagnoses, the ARF was clinically evaluated, the patient received therapeutic and diagnostic procedures, and there was an extended length of stay/increased nursing care. As coders, we feel it is inappropriate to question the physician’s clinical judgment, and reporting the ARF as a secondary diagnosis is correct. Based on the documentation in the record, is it appropriate to code the ARF?
