Neoplasm coding in ICD-10-CM is similar to the current ICD-9-CM coding. Most benign and all malignant neoplasm codes are found in chapter 2 of ICD-10-CM, just as in ICD-9-CM, according to Betty Hovey, BA, CPC, CPC-I, CPC-H, CPCD, CCS-P, PCS, CCP, CIC, RMC. She explains some of the ICD-10-CM guidelines for proper coding.
Retain. Train. Assess. Investigate. Analyze. HIM professionals have undoubtedly come across action verbs like these since HHS announced the replacement of the ICD-9-CM code set with the more advanced ICD-10-CM code set currently used in other nations. Mark Jahn, Luisa Dileso, RHIA, MS, CCS, and James S. Kennedy, MD, CCS, CDIP, explain what HIM professionals need to do over the next two years to be ready for the final implementation date of October 1, 2014.
Q: A patient has been diagnosed with peritonsillar cellulitis and oropharyngeal cellulitis. The physician documents that he performed a “needle aspiration of the left peritonsillar abscess.” In the body of the operative report, the physician states, “An 18-gauge needle was inserted and 1 cc of pus was aspirated. This was sent for aerobic, anaerobic, C&S [culture & sensitivity], and gram stain. I then put the 18-gauge needle in again and multiple passes were obtained without any aspirate.” Because ICD-9-CM does not include a code for “aspiration of peritonsillar abscess” some coders wanted to use ICD-9-CM procedure code 28.0 (incision and drainage of tonsil and peritonsillar structures) while others want to report code 28.99 (other operations on tonsils and adenoids). Which code is correct?
What do cubism and coding have in common? Both can be viewed as art forms. Joel Moorhead, MD, PhD, CPC, details the three steps that the coding artist performs in reassembling medical record elements into abstracted form.
Physicians often use the acronyms IBS (which should indicate irritable bowel syndrome) and IBD (which should indicate inflammatory bowel disease) interchangeably even though they represent completely different conditions with different treatment and prognoses. Robert S. Gold, MD, and Drew K. Siegel, MD, CPC, offer tips on how to decipher documentation related to these two conditions.
CMS officially announced the Recovery Auditor prepayment review demonstration in November 2011, but then in January 2012 decided to delay the program by three months. Since then—despite rumors that the program could be coming soon —the official start date has been unknown to the public. This changed however, when CMS announced Friday, August 3, that Recovery Auditor prepayment reviews will begin August 27.
A lack of funding shouldn't prevent you from getting creative in your morale-boosting celebrations, according to Rose T. Dunn, MBA, RHIA, CPA, FACHE, FHFMA, and Nicolet Araujo, RHIA. So when your staff members are around, this time of year can be a great time to boost their morale with summer outings and special staff recognition for jobs well done.
QUESTION: I'd like to address our coders' questions on how to code poisoning due to bath salts. Internet research has led me to many different options: codes 977.8 (other specified drug/medicinal), 970.89 (other CNS stimulant), 969.70 (psychostimulant, unspecified), among others. What would you suggest? There don't seem to be any guidelines out there and the coding for this seems to be all over the place.
There is nothing new about stress; humans have felt stress since the beginning of time, and coders are certainly no exception. Lois Mazza, CPC, discusses how coders can mitigate the many effects of stress while they handle the pressures of their jobs and lives.
CMS released its latest MLN Quarterly Provider Compliance Newsletter, volume 2, issue 4 in July. The newsletter addresses common billing and coding errors, with the latest issue addressing frequently cited Recovery Auditors and Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT) findings.
New clinical guidelines for malnutrition could help alleviate compliance challenges associated with coding the condition, which has never had universally accepted clinical criteria. Jane White, James S. Kennedy, MD, CCS, CDIP, and Alice Zentner, RHIA, describe the new guidelines and what coders need to know about malnutrition coding.
The digestion process is complex and there’s a lot that can go wrong. Thankfully, Robert S. Gold, MD, unravels the topic of mechanical and paralytic ileuses in this week’s article.
The thought of learning ICD-10 is intimidating for many coders, but does it need to be? Robert S. Gold, MD, and Shelley C. Safian, PhD, CCS-P, CPC-H, CPC-I, explain why coders may not need to fear the transition quite as much as they think.
In late May, CMS released nationwide a new short-term (ST) acute care Program for Evaluating Payment Patterns Electronic Report (PEPPER). The ST PEPPER provides short-term acute care hospital (STACH) statistical data for the most recent 12 federal fiscal quarters, ending with the first quarter of fiscal year 2012.
QUESTION: A patient is admitted with pneumonia and atrial fibrillation and both are present on admission. The patient receives antibiotics for the pneumonia and a pacemaker during the stay, but undergoes no other procedures. Does the procedure automatically make ICD-9-CM code 427.31 for the atrial fibrillation the principal diagnosis?
Why do coders need to know about Value Based Purchasing, the Readmissions Reduction Program, and Hierarchical Condition Categories codes? Glenn Krauss, RHIA, CCS, CCS-P, CPUR, C-CDI, CCDS, explains why it all comes back to coding accuracy and complete documentation.
Medical necessity denials traditionally focus on high-dollar MS-DRGs, such as those for hip and knee replacements; other MS-DRGs may also soon become targets, such as inpatient wound care, according to Nelly Leon-Chisen, RHIA, and Glenn Krauss, BBA, RHIA, CCS, CCS-P, CPUR, PCS, FCS, C-CDIS, CCDS. Krauss and Leon-Chisen discuss coverage determinations, excisional vs. nonexcisional debridement, debridement of multiple layers, and more.
QUESTION: A patient was exposed to shingles, for which a coder reported ICD-9-CM code V01.79 (exposure to other viral diseases, including HIV). This poses a problem for billing as code V01.79 is a confidential diagnosis, requiring special release of information from the patient and would remain on the insurance record. As an RN and certified coder, I believed code V01.71 (exposure to varicella) is the correct code because the varicella virus causes both chicken pox and shingles. However, I am being overridden by the chief business office. Which code is correct?
Medicare Fee-For-Service (FFS) will accept only ASC X12 Version 5010 or NCPDP Telecom D.0 electronic transactions beginning on July 1, according to a CMS June 11 Medicare Fee-For-Service Provider Partnership Program e-newsletter.
Choosing a principal diagnosis can be tricky for coders. Luckily, Gloryanne Bryant, BS, RHIA, RHIT, CCS, CDIP, CCDS, and Robert S. Gold, MD, help unravel the complexities of principal diagnosis selection.
QUESTION: Do you predict coder productivity will decline as a result of ICD-10? If so, what do you think the declines will be six months after implementation?
By now, you may have heard that the ICD-10-CM codes are more specific than those used in the ICD-9-CM system, and fracture coding is one of the areas undergoing the most changes. Shannon McCall, RHIA, CCS, CCS-P, CPC, CEMC, CPC-I, CCDS, discusses fracture coding in ICD-10 and some of the expected documentation challenges associated them.
A lot of learning is ahead for coders and others who will need to learn how to code in ICD-10. There are changes all around, and OB coding is no exception. Lori-Lynne A, Webb, COBGC, CPC, CCS-P, CCP, CHDA, explains coding for OB ultrasounds, amniocentesis, MRIs, and other procedures in CPT ® , ICD-9, and ICD-10
Many HIM directors and coding managers are aware of the decrease in productivity that is anticipated with the implementation of ICD-10. The concern is a valid one, according to Rose T. Dunn, MBA, RHIA, CPA, FACHE, FHFMA, who explains what’s ahead and how HIM professionals should prepare.
CMS has issued both a National Coverage Determination (NCD) Transmittal 143 and Medicare Claims Processing Transmittal 2473 on the coverage of extracorporeal photopheresis for the treatment of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS) in certain circumstances under clinical research studies.
CMS released its latest MLN Medicare Quarterly Provider Compliance Newsletter in April. The newsletter features educational information for providers related to recent audit targets and findings.
Do not view the proposed rule extending the ICD-10 implementation date from October 1, 2013, to October 1, 2014, as a year-long break from ICD-10 preparations. Rather, focus on using the additional time allotted to your advantage. This includes conducting documentation and coding assessments to gauge ICD-10 readiness. Gloryanne Bryant, BS, RHIA, RHIT, CCS, CDIP, CCDS, explains why—and how—facilities should start assessing the readiness of their coding staff and documentation procedures in relation to ICD-10 requirements and create strategies to manage any deficiencies.
Many physicians say that systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria are insufficient and confusing at best, and don't indicate whether a patient is truly sick. Some patients may meet necessary criteria for SIRS and truly have sepsis or another severe diagnosis. Others, however, may meet two of four criteria but not actually have SIRS. Where does all of this information leave coders? Often between a rock and hard place. Jennifer E. Avery, CCS, CPC-H, CPC, CPC-I, and Robert S. Gold, MD, offer seven tips for coders who need to negotiate tricky sepsis coding.
Depending on the demographics of the region a hospital serves, its coders could determine code assignment for hundreds of deliveries and pregnancy-related services annually. Lori-Lynne Webb, CPC, CCS-P, CCP, CHDA, COBGC, and Susan Proctor, RHIT, CCS, CPC, review the relevant coding guidelines for coders who handle coding for these patient encounters.
QUESTION: Our pulmonologists are not comfortable documenting acute respiratory failure unless the patient is on a ventilator. Also, they rarely document chronic respiratory failure, even in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients on continuous home oxygen. I’m trying to develop standard query forms for acute and chronic respiratory failure and am running into these obstacles. How do you recommend handling this problem?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
