A Strategic Plan for Integrating ICD-10 in Your Practice and Workflow

Author(s):  
Sue Bowman ◽  
Risë Marie Cleland ◽  
Stuart Staggs

The adoption of the International Classification of Disease (ICD) 10th Revision (ICD-10) diagnosis code set in the United States has been legislatively delayed several times with the most recent date for implementation set for October 1, 2015. The transition from ICD-9 to ICD-10 will be a major undertaking that will require a substantial amount of planning. In the following article, we outline the steps to develop and implement a strategic plan for the transition to the new code set, identify training needs throughout the practice, and review the challenges and opportunities associated with the transition to ICD-10.

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.


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


Author(s):  
K. Neumann ◽  
B. Arnold ◽  
A. Baumann ◽  
C. Bohr ◽  
H. A. Euler ◽  
...  

Zusammenfassung Hintergrund Sprachtherapeutisch-linguistische Fachkreise empfehlen die Anpassung einer von einem internationalen Konsortium empfohlenen Änderung der Nomenklatur für Sprachstörungen im Kindesalter, insbesondere für Sprachentwicklungsstörungen (SES), auch für den deutschsprachigen Raum. Fragestellung Ist eine solche Änderung in der Terminologie aus ärztlicher und psychologischer Sicht sinnvoll? Material und Methode Kritische Abwägung der Argumente für und gegen eine Nomenklaturänderung aus medizinischer und psychologischer Sicht eines Fachgesellschaften- und Leitliniengremiums. Ergebnisse Die ICD-10-GM (Internationale statistische Klassifikation der Krankheiten und verwandter Gesundheitsprobleme, 10. Revision, German Modification) und eine S2k-Leitlinie unterteilen SES in umschriebene SES (USES) und SES assoziiert mit anderen Erkrankungen (Komorbiditäten). Die USES- wie auch die künftige SES-Definition der ICD-11 (International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision) fordern den Ausschluss von Sinnesbehinderungen, neurologischen Erkrankungen und einer bedeutsamen intellektuellen Einschränkung. Diese Definition erscheint weit genug, um leichtere nonverbale Einschränkungen einzuschließen, birgt nicht die Gefahr, Kindern Sprach- und weitere Therapien vorzuenthalten und erkennt das ICD(International Classification of Disease)-Kriterium, nach dem der Sprachentwicklungsstand eines Kindes bedeutsam unter der Altersnorm und unterhalb des seinem Intelligenzalter angemessenen Niveaus liegen soll, an. Die intendierte Ersetzung des Komorbiditäten-Begriffs durch verursachende Faktoren, Risikofaktoren und Begleiterscheinungen könnte die Unterlassung einer dezidierten medizinischen Differenzialdiagnostik bedeuten. Schlussfolgerungen Die vorgeschlagene Terminologie birgt die Gefahr, ätiologisch bedeutsame Klassifikationen und differenzialdiagnostische Grenzen zu verwischen und auf wertvolles ärztliches und psychologisches Fachwissen in Diagnostik und Therapie sprachlicher Störungen im Kindesalter zu verzichten.


Author(s):  
Mackenzie A Hamilton ◽  
Andrew Calzavara ◽  
Scott D Emerson ◽  
Jeffrey C Kwong

Objective: Routinely collected health administrative data can be used to efficiently assess disease burden in large populations, but it is important to evaluate the validity of these data. The objective of this study was to develop and validate International Classification of Disease 10PthP revision (ICD -10) algorithms that identify laboratory-confirmed influenza or laboratory-confirmed respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) hospitalizations using population-based health administrative data from Ontario, Canada. Study Design and Setting: Influenza and RSV laboratory data from the 2014-15 through to 2017-18 respiratory virus seasons were obtained from the Ontario Laboratories Information System (OLIS) and were linked to hospital discharge abstract data to generate influenza and RSV reference cohorts. These reference cohorts were used to assess the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of the ICD-10 algorithms. To minimize misclassification in future studies, we prioritized specificity and PPV in selecting top-performing algorithms. Results: 83,638 and 61,117 hospitalized patients were included in the influenza and RSV reference cohorts, respectively. The best influenza algorithm had a sensitivity of 73% (95% CI 72% to 74%), specificity of 99% (95% CI 99% to 99%), PPV of 94% (95% CI 94% to 95%), and NPV of 94% (95% CI 94% to 95%). The best RSV algorithm had a sensitivity of 69% (95% CI 68% to 70%), specificity of 99% (95% CI 99% to 99%), PPV of 91% (95% CI 90% to 91%) and NPV of 97% (95% CI 97% to 97%). Conclusion: We identified two highly specific algorithms that best ascertain patients hospitalized with influenza or RSV. These algorithms may be applied to hospitalized patients if data on laboratory tests are not available, and will thereby improve the power of future epidemiologic studies of influenza, RSV, and potentially other severe acute respiratory infections.


2015 ◽  
Vol 5;18 (5;9) ◽  
pp. E685-E712
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti

The unfunded mandate for the implementation of International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) is scheduled October 1, 2015. The development of ICD-10-CM has been a complicated process. We have endeavored to keep Interventional Pain Management doctors apprised via a variety of related topical manuscripts. The major issues relate to the lack of formal physician participation in its preparation. While the American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA) and American Hospital Association (AHA) as active partners in its preparation. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are major players; 3M and Blue Cross Blue Shield Association are also involved. The cost of ICD-10-CM implementation is high, similar to the implementation of electronic health records (EHRs), likely consuming substantial resources. While ICD-10, utilized worldwide, includes 14,400 different codes, ICD-10-CM, specific for the United States, has expanded to 144,000 codes, which also includes procedural coding system. It is imperative for physicians to prepare for the mandatory implementation. Conversion from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM coding in interventional pain management is not a conversion of one to one that can be easily obtained from software packages. It is a both a difficult and time-consuming task with each physician, early on, expected to spend on estimation at least 10 minutes per visit on extra coding for established and new patients. For interventional pain physicians, there have been a multitude of changes, including creation of new codes and confusing conversion of existing codes. This manuscript describes a variety of codes that are relevant to interventional pain physicians and often utilized in daily practices. It is our objective that this manuscript will provide coding assistance to interventional pain physicians. Key words: ICD-9-CM (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth revision, Clinical Modification), ICD-10, ICD-10-CM (International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision), Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), Health Information Technology (HIT)


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document