scholarly journals Disease Burden Associated With International Classification of Diseases 9 (ICD-9) Diagnosed Influenza and Related Complications in United States Children Aged 6–35 Months

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Buck ◽  
David Smith ◽  
Rahul Shenolikar ◽  
Debra Irwin
2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (11) ◽  
pp. 2423-2427 ◽  
Author(s):  
Talia Pindyck ◽  
Aron J Hall ◽  
Jacqueline E Tate ◽  
Cristina V Cardemil ◽  
Anita K Kambhampati ◽  
...  

Abstract International Classification of Diseases diagnostic codes are used to estimate acute gastroenteritis (AGE) disease burden. We validated AGE-related codes in pediatric and adult populations using 2 multiregional active surveillance platforms. The sensitivity of AGE codes was similar (54% and 58%) in both populations and increased with addition of vomiting-specific codes.


JAMIA Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 126-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheila V Kusnoor ◽  
Mallory N Blasingame ◽  
Annette M Williams ◽  
Spencer J DesAutels ◽  
Jing Su ◽  
...  

Abstract Objectives The United States transitioned to the tenth version of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) system (ICD-10) for mortality coding in 1999 and to the International Classification of Diseases, Clinical Modification and Procedure Coding System (ICD-10-CM/PCS) on October 1, 2015. The purpose of this study was to conduct a narrative literature review to better understand the impact of the implementation of ICD-10/ICD-10-CM/PCS. Materials and Methods We searched English-language articles in PubMed, Web of Science, and Business Source Complete and reviewed websites of relevant professional associations, government agencies, research groups, and ICD-10 news aggregators to identify literature on the impact of the ICD-10/ICD-10-CM/PCS transition. We used Google to search for additional gray literature and used handsearching of the references of the most on-target articles to help ensure comprehensiveness. Results Impact areas reported in the literature include: productivity and staffing, costs, reimbursement, coding accuracy, mapping between ICD versions, morbidity and mortality surveillance, and patient care. With the exception of morbidity and mortality surveillance, quantitative studies describing the actual impact of the ICD-10/ICD-10-CM/PCS implementation were limited and much of the literature was based on the ICD-10-CM/PCS transition rather than the earlier conversion to ICD-10 for mortality coding. Discussion This study revealed several gaps in the literature that limit the ability to draw reliable conclusions about the overall impact, positive or negative, of moving to ICD-10/ICD-10-CM/PCS in the United States. Conclusion These knowledge gaps present an opportunity for future research and knowledge sharing and will be important to consider when planning for ICD-11.


2018 ◽  
pp. 1-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paolo Boffetta ◽  
Matteo Malvezzi ◽  
Enrico Pira ◽  
Eva Negri ◽  
Carlo La Vecchia

Past analyses of mortality data from mesothelioma relied on unspecific codes, such as pleural neoplasms. We calculated temporal trends in age-specific mortality rates in Canada, the United States, Japan, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, the United Kingdom, and Australia on the basis of the 10th version of the International Classification of Diseases, which includes a specific code for mesothelioma. Older age groups showed an increase (in the United States, a weaker decrease) during the study period, whereas in young age groups, there was a decrease (in Poland, a weaker increase, starting, however, from low rates). Results were consistent between men and women and between pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma, although a smaller number of events in women and for peritoneal mesothelioma resulted in less precise results. The results show the heterogeneous effect of the reduction of asbestos exposure on different age groups; decreasing mortality in young people reflects reduced exposure opportunity, and increasing mortality in the elderly shows the long-term effect of early exposures.


2015 ◽  
Vol 18;4 (4;18) ◽  
pp. E485-E495
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti

The forced implementation of ICD-10-CM (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification) codes that are specific to the United States, scheduled for implementation October 1, 2015, which is vastly different from ICD-10 (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision), implemented worldwide, which has 14,400 codes, compared to ICD-10-CM with 144,000 codes to be implemented in the United States is a major concern to practicing U.S. physicians and a bonanza for health IT and hospital industry. This implementation is based on a liberal interpretation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which requires an update to ICD-9- CM (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification) and says nothing about ICD-10 or beyond. On June 29, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency unreasonably interpreted the Clean Air Act when it decided to set limits on the emissions of toxic pollutants from power plants, without first considering the costs on the industry. Thus, to do so is applicable to the medical industry with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) unreasonably interpreting HIPAA and imposing existent extensive regulations without considering the cost. In the United States, ICD-10-CM with a 10-fold increase in the number of codes has resulted in a system which has become so complicated that it no longer compares with any other country. Moreover, most WHO members use the ICD-10 system (not ICD-10-CM) only to record mortality in 138 countries or morbidity in 99 countries. Currently, only 10 countries employ ICD-10 (not ICD-10-CM) in the reimbursement process, 6 of which have a single payer health care system. Development of ICD-10-CM is managed by 4 non-physician groups, known as cooperating parties. They include the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), CMS, the American Hospital Association (AHA), and the American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA). The AHIMA has taken the lead with the AHA just behind, both with escalating profits and influence, essentially creating a statutory monopoly for their own benefit. Further, the ICD-10-CM coalition includes 3M which will boost its revenues and profits substantially with its implementation and Blue Cross Blue Shield which has its own agenda. Physician groups are not a party to these cooperating parties or coalitions, having only a peripheral involvement. ICD-10-CM creates numerous deficiencies with 500 codes that are more specific in ICD-9-CM than ICD-10-CM. The costs of an implementation are enormous, along with maintenance costs, productivity, and cash disruptions. Key words: ICD-10-CM, ICD-10, ICD-9-CM (International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Ninth revision, Clinical Modification), Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), Health Information Technology (HIT), costs of implementation


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document