Literature DB >> 26769875

Simulation of ICD-9 to ICD-10-CM Transition for Family Medicine: Simple or Convoluted?

Samuel N Grief1, Jesal Patel1, Karl M Kochendorfer1, Lee A Green1, Yves A Lussier1, Jianrong Li1, Michael Burton1, Andrew D Boyd2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the impact of the transition from International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM), to Interactional Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM), on family medicine and to identify areas where additional training might be required.
METHODS: Family medicine ICD-9-CM codes were obtained from an Illinois Medicaid data set (113,000 patient visits and $5.5 million in claims). Using the science of networks, we evaluated each ICD-9-CM code used by family medicine physicians to determine whether the transition was simple or convoluted. A simple transition is defined as 1 ICD-9-CM code mapping to 1 ICD-10-CM code, or 1 ICD-9-CM code mapping to multiple ICD-10-CM codes. A convoluted transition is where the transitions between coding systems is nonreciprocal and complex, with multiple codes for which definitions become intertwined. Three family medicine physicians evaluated the most frequently encountered complex mappings for clinical accuracy.
RESULTS: Of the 1635 diagnosis codes used by family medicine physicians, 70% of the codes were categorized as simple, 27% of codes were convoluted, and 3% had no mapping. For the visits, 75%, 24%, and 1% corresponded with simple, convoluted, and no mapping, respectively. Payment for submitted claims was similarly aligned. Of the frequently encountered convoluted codes, 3 diagnosis codes were clinically incorrect, but they represent only <0.1% of the overall diagnosis codes.
CONCLUSIONS: The transition to ICD-10-CM is simple for 70% or more of diagnosis codes, visits, and reimbursement for a family medicine physician. However, some frequently used codes for disease management are convoluted and incorrect, and for which additional resources need to be invested to ensure a successful transition to ICD-10-CM. © Copyright 2016 by the American Board of Family Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clinical Coding; Electronic Medical Records; Family Practice; Medical Informatics

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26769875      PMCID: PMC5553540          DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2016.01.150146

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Board Fam Med        ISSN: 1557-2625            Impact factor:   2.657


  9 in total

1.  Ten down under: implementing ICD-10 in Australia.

Authors:  K Innes; K Peasley; R Roberts
Journal:  J AHIMA       Date:  2000-01

Review 2.  Ready or not! Here comes ICD-10.

Authors:  Laxmaiah Manchikanti; Frank J E Falco; Joshua A Hirsch
Journal:  J Neurointerv Surg       Date:  2011-10-24       Impact factor: 5.836

3.  Closing the ICD-l0 revenue gap.

Authors:  Kimberly Janet Carr
Journal:  Healthc Financ Manage       Date:  2013-06

4.  Assessing validity of ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data in recording clinical conditions in a unique dually coded database.

Authors:  Hude Quan; Bing Li; L Duncan Saunders; Gerry A Parsons; Carolyn I Nilsson; Arif Alibhai; William A Ghali
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Why ICD-10 is worth the trouble.

Authors:  Sue Bowman
Journal:  J AHIMA       Date:  2008-03

6.  The transition to ICD-10-CM: challenges for pediatric practice.

Authors:  Rachel Caskey; Jeffrey Zaman; Hannah Nam; Sae-Rom Chae; Lauren Williams; Gina Mathew; Michael Burton; Jiarong John Li; Yves A Lussier; Andrew D Boyd
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2014-06-02       Impact factor: 7.124

7.  Identifying clinically disruptive International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision Clinical Modification conversions to mitigate financial costs using an online tool.

Authors:  Neeta K Venepalli; Yusuf Qamruzzaman; Jianrong John Li; Yves A Lussier; Andrew D Boyd
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2014-02-11       Impact factor: 3.840

8.  Improved accuracy of co-morbidity coding over time after the introduction of ICD-10 administrative data.

Authors:  Jean-Marie Januel; Jean-Christophe Luthi; Hude Quan; François Borst; Patrick Taffé; William A Ghali; Bernard Burnand
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2011-08-18       Impact factor: 2.655

9.  The discriminatory cost of ICD-10-CM transition between clinical specialties: metrics, case study, and mitigating tools.

Authors:  Andrew D Boyd; Jianrong John Li; Mike D Burton; Michael Jonen; Vincent Gardeux; Ikbel Achour; Roger Q Luo; Ilir Zenku; Neil Bahroos; Stephen B Brown; Terry Vanden Hoek; Yves A Lussier
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2013-05-05       Impact factor: 4.497

  9 in total
  1 in total

1.  The new International Classification of Diseases 11th edition: a comparative analysis with ICD-10 and ICD-10-CM.

Authors:  Kin Wah Fung; Julia Xu; Olivier Bodenreider
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 4.497

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.