Free EMR Newsletter Want to receive the latest news on EMR, Meaningful Use, ARRA and Healthcare IT sent straight to your email? Join thousands of healthcare pros who subscribe to EMR and EHR for FREE!

ICD-10 Deja Vu – End of Grace Period

Posted on June 8, 2016 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

I recently came across this article by Aiden Spencer about the possibility that ICD-10 could still cause issues for healthcare organizations once the grace period ends. Here’s what he suggests:

The CMS grace period was a welcomed relief because it meant practices would still be reimbursed under Medicare Part B for claims that at least had a valid ICD-10 diagnosis code. This meant physicians and their staff could get up to speed without worrying about taking a huge hit to their revenue stream.

With only five months left until the grace period ends, industry experts are predicting that an ICD-10 crisis might still be coming for some providers. Will you be one of them? Are you currently implementing quality medical billing software, or will the system you’re using fail come October 1st?

This certainly feels like what we were talking about last October when ICD-10 went live. A bunch of fuss and very little impact on healthcare. Are we heading for another round of fear and anxiety over the end of the ICD-10 grace period?

My gut tells me that it won’t be a bit deal for most healthcare organizations. They’ve had a year to improve their ICD-10 coding and so it won’t likely be an issue for most. This is particularly true for organizations who have quality HIM staff that’s gone through and done audits of their ICD-10 coding practices to ensure that they were doing so accurately.

I saw one stat from KPMG that only 11 percent of healthcare organizations described the ICD-10 implementation as a “failure to operate in an ICD-10 environment” with 80% finding the move to ICD-10 to be smooth. I imagine we’ll have a similar breakout when the ICD-10 grace period ends. Just make sure you’re not part of the 11 percent.

Why Wouldn’t Doctors Be Happy?

Posted on January 13, 2016 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

Imagine someone comes to your job and tells you that if you didn’t start participating in a bunch of government programs then you’re going to get a 9% pay cut. Plus, those government programs add little value to the work you do and it’s going to cost you time and money to meet the government requirements. How would you feel?

To add on top of that, we’re going to create a new system for how you’re going to get paid too. In fact, it’s actually going to be two new systems. One that applies to the old system of payment (which has been declining for years) and a new one which isn’t well defined yet.

Also, to add to the fun, you’re going to have become a collection agency as well since your usual A/R is going to go up as your payment portfolio changes from large reliable payers to a wide variety of small, less reliable people.

I forgot to mention that in order to get access to these new government programs and avoid the penalties you’re going to have to likely use technology built in the 80’s. Yes, that means that it’s built before we even knew what the cloud or mobile was going to be and used advanced technologies like MUMPS.

In case you missed the connection, I’m describing the life of a doctor today. The 9% penalties have arrived. ICD-10 is upon us. ACOs and value based reimbursement is starting, but is not well defined yet. High deductible plans are shifting physician A/R from payers to patients. EHR software still generally doesn’t leverage technologies like the cloud and mobile devices.

All of this makes for the perfect storm. Is it any wonder physician dissatisfaction is at an all time high? It’s not to me. It seems like even CMS’ Andy Slavitt finally realized it with the announcement that meaningful use is dead and going to be replaced. It’s a good first step, but the devil is in the details. I hope he’s able to execute, but let’s not be surprised that so many doctors are unhappy about what’s happening to healthcare.

Significant Articles in the Health IT Community in 2015

Posted on December 15, 2015 I Written By

Andy Oram is an editor at O'Reilly Media, a highly respected book publisher and technology information provider. An employee of the company since 1992, Andy currently specializes in open source, software engineering, and health IT, but his editorial output has ranged from a legal guide covering intellectual property to a graphic novel about teenage hackers. His articles have appeared often on EMR & EHR and other blogs in the health IT space. Andy also writes often for O'Reilly's Radar site (http://oreilly.com/) and other publications on policy issues related to the Internet and on trends affecting technical innovation and its effects on society. Print publications where his work has appeared include The Economist, Communications of the ACM, Copyright World, the Journal of Information Technology & Politics, Vanguardia Dossier, and Internet Law and Business. Conferences where he has presented talks include O'Reilly's Open Source Convention, FISL (Brazil), FOSDEM, and DebConf.

Have you kept current with changes in device connectivity, Meaningful Use, analytics in healthcare, and other health IT topics during 2015? Here are some of the articles I find significant that came out over the past year.

The year kicked off with an ominous poll about Stage 2 Meaningful Use, with implications that came to a head later with the release of Stage 3 requirements. Out of 1800 physicians polled around the beginning of the year, more than half were throwing in the towel–they were not even going to try to qualify for Stage 2 payments. Negotiations over Stage 3 of Meaningful Use were intense and fierce. A January 2015 letter from medical associations to ONC asked for more certainty around testing and certification, and mentioned the need for better data exchange (which the health field likes to call interoperability) in the C-CDA, the most popular document exchange format.

A number of expert panels asked ONC to cut back on some requirements, including public health measures and patient view-download-transmit. One major industry group asked for a delay of Stage 3 till 2019, essentially tolerating a lack of communication among EHRs. The final rules, absurdly described as a simplification, backed down on nothing from patient data access to quality measure reporting. Beth Israel CIO John Halamka–who has shuttled back and forth between his Massachusetts home and Washington, DC to advise ONC on how to achieve health IT reform–took aim at Meaningful Use and several other federal initiatives.

Another harbinger of emerging issues in health IT came in January with a speech about privacy risks in connected devices by the head of the Federal Trade Commission (not an organization we hear from often in the health IT space). The FTC is concerned about the security of recent trends in what industry analysts like to call the Internet of Things, and medical devices rank high in these risks. The speech was a lead-up to a major report issued by the FTC on protecting devices in the Internet of Things. Articles in WIRED and Bloomberg described serious security flaws. In August, John Halamka wrote own warning about medical devices, which have not yet started taking security really seriously. Smart watches are just as vulnerable as other devices.

Because so much medical innovation is happening in fast-moving software, and low-budget developers are hankering for quick and cheap ways to release their applications, in February, the FDA started to chip away at its bureaucratic gamut by releasing guidelines releasing developers from FDA regulation medical apps without impacts on treatment and apps used just to transfer data or do similarly non-transformative operations. They also released a rule for unique IDs on medical devices, a long-overdue measure that helps hospitals and researchers integrate devices into monitoring systems. Without clear and unambiguous IDs, one cannot trace which safety problems are associated with which devices. Other forms of automation may also now become possible. In September, the FDA announced a public advisory committee on devices.

Another FDA decision with a potential long-range impact was allowing 23andMe to market its genetic testing to consumers.

The Department of Health and Human Services has taken on exceedingly ambitious goals during 2015. In addition to the daunting Stage 3 of Meaningful Use, they announced a substantial increase in the use of fee-for-value, although they would still leave half of providers on the old system of doling out individual payments for individual procedures. In December, National Coordinator Karen DeSalvo announced that Health Information Exchanges (which limit themselves only to a small geographic area, or sometimes one state) would be able to exchange data throughout the country within one year. Observers immediately pointed out that the state of interoperability is not ready for this transition (and they could well have added the need for better analytics as well). HHS’s five-year plan includes the use of patient-generated and non-clinical data.

The poor state of interoperability was highlighted in an article about fees charged by EHR vendors just for setting up a connection and for each data transfer.

In the perennial search for why doctors are not exchanging patient information, attention has turned to rumors of deliberate information blocking. It’s a difficult accusation to pin down. Is information blocked by health care providers or by vendors? Does charging a fee, refusing to support a particular form of information exchange, or using a unique data format constitute information blocking? On the positive side, unnecessary imaging procedures can be reduced through information exchange.

Accountable Care Organizations are also having trouble, both because they are information-poor and because the CMS version of fee-for-value is too timid, along with other financial blows and perhaps an inability to retain patients. An August article analyzed the positives and negatives in a CMS announcement. On a large scale, fee-for-value may work. But a key component of improvement in chronic conditions is behavioral health which EHRs are also unsuited for.

Pricing and consumer choice have become a major battleground in the current health insurance business. The steep rise in health insurance deductibles and copays has been justified (somewhat retroactively) by claiming that patients should have more responsibility to control health care costs. But the reality of health care shopping points in the other direction. A report card on state price transparency laws found the situation “bleak.” Another article shows that efforts to list prices are hampered by interoperability and other problems. One personal account of a billing disaster shows the state of price transparency today, and may be dangerous to read because it could trigger traumatic memories of your own interactions with health providers and insurers. Narrow and confusing insurance networks as well as fragmented delivery of services hamper doctor shopping. You may go to a doctor who your insurance plan assures you is in their network, only to be charged outrageous out-of-network costs. Tools are often out of date overly simplistic.

In regard to the quality ratings that are supposed to allow intelligent choices to patients, A study found that four hospital rating sites have very different ratings for the same hospitals. The criteria used to rate them is inconsistent. Quality measures provided by government databases are marred by incorrect data. The American Medical Association, always disturbed by public ratings of doctors for obvious reasons, recently complained of incorrect numbers from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. In July, the ProPublica site offered a search service called the Surgeon Scorecard. One article summarized the many positive and negative reactions. The New England Journal of Medicine has called ratings of surgeons unreliable.

2015 was the year of the intensely watched Department of Defense upgrade to its health care system. One long article offered an in-depth examination of DoD options and their implications for the evolution of health care. Another article promoted the advantages of open-source VistA, an argument that was not persuasive enough for the DoD. Still, openness was one of the criteria sought by the DoD.

The remote delivery of information, monitoring, and treatment (which goes by the quaint term “telemedicine”) has been the subject of much discussion. Those concerned with this development can follow the links in a summary article to see the various positions of major industry players. One advocate of patient empowerment interviewed doctors to find that, contrary to common fears, they can offer email access to patients without becoming overwhelmed. In fact, they think it leads to better outcomes. (However, it still isn’t reimbursed.)

Laws permitting reimbursement for telemedicine continued to spread among the states. But a major battle shaped up around a ruling in Texas that doctors have a pre-existing face-to-face meeting with any patient whom they want to treat remotely. The spread of telemedicine depends also on reform of state licensing laws to permit practices across state lines.

Much wailing and tears welled up over the required transition from ICD-9 to ICD-10. The AMA, with some good arguments, suggested just waiting for ICD-11. But the transition cost much less than anticipated, making ICD-10 much less of a hot button, although it may be harmful to diagnosis.

Formal studies of EHR strengths and weaknesses are rare, so I’ll mention this survey finding that EHRs aid with public health but are ungainly for the sophisticated uses required for long-term, accountable patient care. Meanwhile, half of hospitals surveyed are unhappy with their EHRs’ usability and functionality and doctors are increasingly frustrated with EHRs. Nurses complained about technologies’s time demands and the eternal lack of interoperability. A HIMSS survey turned up somewhat more postive feelings.

EHRs are also expensive enough to hurt hospital balance sheets and force them to forgo other important expenditures.

Electronic health records also took a hit from ONC’s Sentinel Events program. To err, it seems, is not only human but now computer-aided. A Sentinel Event Alert indicated that more errors in health IT products should be reported, claiming that many go unreported because patient harm was avoided. The FDA started checking self-reported problems on PatientsLikeMe for adverse drug events.

The ONC reported gains in patient ability to view, download, and transmit their health information online, but found patient portals still limited. Although one article praised patient portals by Epic, Allscripts, and NextGen, an overview of studies found that patient portals are disappointing, partly because elderly patients have trouble with them. A literature review highlighted where patient portals fall short. In contrast, giving patients full access to doctors’ notes increases compliance and reduces errors. HHS’s Office of Civil Rights released rules underlining patients’ rights to access their data.

While we’re wallowing in downers, review a study questioning the value of patient-centered medical homes.

Reuters published a warning about employee wellness programs, which are nowhere near as fair or accurate as they claim to be. They are turning into just another expression of unequal power between employer and employee, with tendencies to punish sick people.

An interesting article questioned the industry narrative about the medical device tax in the Affordable Care Act, saying that the industry is expanding robustly in the face of the tax. However, this tax is still a hot political issue.

Does anyone remember that Republican congressmen published an alternative health care reform plan to replace the ACA? An analysis finds both good and bad points in its approach to mandates, malpractice, and insurance coverage.

Early reports on use of Apple’s open ResearchKit suggested problems with selection bias and diversity.

An in-depth look at the use of devices to enhance mental activity examined where they might be useful or harmful.

A major genetic data mining effort by pharma companies and Britain’s National Health Service was announced. The FDA announced a site called precisionFDA for sharing resources related to genetic testing. A recent site invites people to upload health and fitness data to support research.

As data becomes more liquid and is collected by more entities, patient privacy suffers. An analysis of web sites turned up shocking practices in , even at supposedly reputable sites like WebMD. Lax security in health care networks was addressed in a Forbes article.

Of minor interest to health IT workers, but eagerly awaited by doctors, was Congress’s “doc fix” to Medicare’s sustainable growth rate formula. The bill did contain additional clauses that were called significant by a number of observers, including former National Coordinator Farzad Mostashari no less, for opening up new initiatives in interoperability, telehealth, patient monitoring, and especially fee-for-value.

Connected health took a step forward when CMS issued reimbursement guidelines for patient monitoring in the community.

A wonky but important dispute concerned whether self-insured employers should be required to report public health measures, because public health by definition needs to draw information from as wide a population as possible.

Data breaches always make lurid news, sometimes under surprising circumstances, and not always caused by health care providers. The 2015 security news was dominated by a massive breach at the Anthem health insurer.

Along with great fanfare in Scientific American for “precision medicine,” another Scientific American article covered its privacy risks.

A blog posting promoted early and intensive interactions with end users during app design.

A study found that HIT implementations hamper clinicians, but could not identify the reasons.

Natural language processing was praised for its potential for simplifying data entry, and to discover useful side effects and treatment issues.

CVS’s refusal to stock tobacco products was called “a major sea-change for public health” and part of a general trend of pharmacies toward whole care of the patient.

A long interview with FHIR leader Grahame Grieve described the progress of the project, and its the need for clinicians to take data exchange seriously. A quiet milestone was reached in October with a a production version from Cerner.

Given the frequent invocation of Uber (even more than the Cheesecake Factory) as a model for health IT innovation, it’s worth seeing the reasons that model is inapplicable.

A number of hot new sensors and devices were announced, including a tiny sensor from Intel, a device from Google to measure blood sugar and another for multiple vital signs, enhancements to Microsoft products, a temperature monitor for babies, a headset for detecting epilepsy, cheap cameras from New Zealand and MIT for doing retinal scans, a smart phone app for recognizing respiratory illnesses, a smart-phone connected device for detecting brain injuries and one for detecting cancer, a sleep-tracking ring, bed sensors, ultrasound-guided needle placement, a device for detecting pneumonia, and a pill that can track heartbeats.

The medical field isn’t making extensive use yet of data collection and analysis–or uses analytics for financial gain rather than patient care–the potential is demonstrated by many isolated success stories, including one from Johns Hopkins study using 25 patient measures to study sepsis and another from an Ontario hospital. In an intriguing peek at our possible future, IBM Watson has started to integrate patient data with its base of clinical research studies.

Frustrated enough with 2015? To end on an upbeat note, envision a future made bright by predictive analytics.

Why Is Everyone Searching for Funny ICD-10 Codes?

Posted on October 2, 2015 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

As was pretty much expected, ICD-10’s go live date has come and gone without much fanfare. Give it a few months and we’ll see where we’re at. I loved these live tweets of the ICD-10 go live by MTS Healthcare:

What? Doctors weren’t ready and trained on ICD-10? Not surprising. They’ll get trained now that they need to know the codes. They’re fast learners.

One thing that was a little odd to me was that both of my top blogs got hammered with search engine traffic from people searching for some variation of Crazy ICD-10 codes. I love that on this site they were getting a post that puts the Crazy ICD-10 codes in perspective.

Hopefully those going through an ICD-10 implementation were just trying to lighten the mood during the switchover. That’s not such a bad thing. Although, I was pretty shocked my the massive spike in traffic for that search. I hope that as they make light of the so called “funny ICD-10 codes”, they’ll remember that we had some funny ICD-9 codes as well.

ICD-10 is here. No more delays. Now I’ll be interested to watch and see the impact it has on healthcare in the US.

Is ICD-10 the Next y2k?

Posted on September 24, 2015 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

I’ve started to see more and more people comparing ICD-10 to y2k. I think it’s going to be a great comparison for most organizations. Given the lead time for ICD-10, I believe that ICD-10 is going to be a non-event for most of them. Sure, there will be some hiccups along the way, but nothing major to report.

What’s certain to me is that October 1, 2015 will be a total non-event. I know hospitals are already planning their ICD-10 go live parties, but I don’t think there’s going to be much to talk about. Any problems or issues they have with ICD-10 probably won’t be apparent right away. I think that any major issues with ICD-10 won’t come to light until months after ICD-10 is implemented.

Wait for the stories to come out 2-3 months after ICD-10 is implemented. Then, we’ll start hearing about insurance companies that weren’t ready to process ICD-10 claims or had issues with the way they were processing it. Months later we’ll hear about healthcare organizations that aren’t getting paid and are facing cash flow issues. ICD-10’s impact isn’t going to be over on day one like it was for y2k. It’s a very different issue in that regard.

The other reason I don’t think we’ll hear much about ICD-10 issues is that healthcare organizations that run into issues aren’t going to broadcast that fact. Are we really going to hear healthcare organizations chiming in that they botched their ICD-10 implementation, thought it was going to be delayed again, and weren’t ready? I don’t think so. Any problems with ICD-10 are going to be kept private. At least until an organization isn’t getting paid and goes out of business.

I’m sure we’ll have a wave of ICD-10 implementation articles hit on October 1, 2015. My guess is that none of them will be worth reading since there won’t be anything to say. Wait until Thanksgiving and we’ll start to see the real stories about the challenges of the ICD-10 implementation start to hit the wires.

What Does ICD-10 Ready Software Really Mean?

Posted on September 18, 2015 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

I’ve been having a number of conversations with people about the coming switch over to ICD-10. Invariably those conversations lead to a discussion around how EHR vendors have implemented ICD-10. I can pretty much promise you that every EHR vendor still in business has some way to support ICD-10. However, just because they can support entry of an ICD-10 code doesn’t mean they’re providing the EHR user a good tool to discover the correct ICD-10 code.

This discussion was highlighted really well in these two tweets:


And Joe’s response:

I’ve only seen one EHR vendor who had an amazing ICD-10 coding tool. It basically did all the coding for you as part of the documentation. I’ll be interested to see how well that tool plays out in a real life environment, but their approach is unique and beautiful. I’ve seen some others that do a decent job. I’ve seen others that still apply the standard search box methodology that’s been used for ICD-9. Good luck to those people.

However, this tweet from Erin Head made me cringe even more:

I’ll be interested to see how doctors still on paper react to the change to ICD-10. It’s coming! Are you ready? Is your EHR ready or do they just say they’re ready? We’ll know soon.

Brilliant: Hannah Galvin Looks at ICD-10’s Five Stages of Grief

Posted on August 18, 2015 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

Hannah Galvin, MD has a great article on Healthcare IT News talking about ICD-10’s five stages of grief. You can go read the article to see how she describes it, but the five stages of grief are:

  1. Denial
  2. Anger
  3. Bargaining
  4. Depression
  5. Acceptance

Pretty fascinating way to describe people’s response to ICD-10. I think we have people and organizations that are still at all 5 stages of grief associated with adopting ICD-10. Although, I think most people have bridged #3.

There are still many people that are in denial and that are angry about ICD-10. Although, that population is getting smaller and smaller. I don’t see many people still bargaining. We went through that stage for years, but I believe it’s over. The largest group of people are stuck in stage 4. I know very few people who aren’t depressed over ICD-10. The HIM profession is more excited about ICD-10 than anyone else, but otherwise it’s a general depression around the change. It’s hard to implement something where you’re not sure what value you’ll receive from it. I think that’s many people’s perspective.

Dr. Galvin’s final comment in the article linked above is also interesting: “Whether you’re ready or not, the transition is less than three months away – and in the end, I believe it will be worth all the grief.” Now we’re less than 2 months away. I’m still not sure it’s worth the switch or not, but it doesn’t really matter. It’s happening either way. I guess I’ve reached stage 5.

ICD-10 Training Games and Lookup

Posted on August 12, 2015 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

NueMD has recently launched what they’re calling their ICD-10 Training Lab. To be honest, I wasn’t sure what to expect when they sent it over to me. They told me it was a free ICD-10 training lab. With ICD-10 breathing down our necks, I was interested to see what they’d put together.

If you’re looking for a full scale ICD-10 training course, then this isn’t it. I asked my HIM Manager friend, Erin Head, on Twitter about the training and she replied that “It’s very basic level but a good start. Still need to know how to code. Nice mobile view.”

Erin brings up a fine point. The ICD-10 training lab is not going to teach you to code. I don’t think that was NueMD’s intent. I think their intent was to provide a tool for those who already understand coding to be able to learn some of the new ICD-10 codes. In fact, since they’ve broken it out into specialties, my guess is that they really hope this ICD-10 training lab will help doctors to get up to speed on the most common new ICD-10 codes for their specialty.

My favorite part of the ICD-10 training lab is the ICD-10 Training games:
ICD-10 Training Games
What’s better than a game to learn something? Plus, when you’re trying to memorize something, repetition is a real key to learning. Games are great at providing a fun way to get in your repetitions.

The ICD-10 training lab also includes an ICD-10 code lookup. You can tell they’ve put in quite a bit of effort to make their ICD-10 code search work quite well. Although, it’s still just an ICD-10 code search. Something that should be incorporated in most EHR systems.

Funny ICD-9 Codes Video – Putting ICD-10 Codes in Perspective

Posted on August 11, 2015 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

In response to Jennifer Della’Zanna’s post on putting crazy ICD-10 codes in perspective, I wrote about the funny ICD-9 codes over on EMR and HIPAA. I guess ClinicSpectrum liked the post enough that the decided to create a video animation of the post. I thought it was pretty cool. Check it out:

ICD-10 is near. Are you ready?

Crazy ICD-10 Codes? Let’s Put Them In Perspective

Posted on July 16, 2015 I Written By

The following is a guest blog post by Jennifer Della’Zanna, medical writer and online instructor for Education2Go.
Jen HIM Trainer
Exhibit A: W55.21XA Bitten by a cow, initial encounter

Exhibit B: Y92.241 Hurt at the library

Exhibit C: Y93.D1 Accident while knitting or crocheting

Exhibit D: W56.22 Struck by Orca, initial encounter

These are the kinds of codes trotted out to “prove” how ridiculous moving the ICD-10 coding system is. What do we need these codes for? Everybody seems to be asking this question, from congressmen to physician bloggers to—now—regular people who have never before even known what a medical code was.

Here are a few things you should know about these codes. Some of you actually should know this already, but I’ll review for those who have been sucked into the maelstrom of ridicule swirling about the new code set.

  1. You’ll notice that all those crazy code examples start with the letters V, W, X and Y. These are all “external cause codes,” found in just one of ICD-10’s 21 chapters (Chapter 20). In my version of the manual, that encompasses 76 pages. Out of 848.

    External cause codes are the only ones ever trotted out as ridiculous. Do the math. They make up 9% of the codes. They are used mainly to encode inciting factors and other details about trauma/accident situations. There are some other uses, but not many. Do most people use them in everyday coding? No. That’s not going to change with the new system. If you’re a coder who is not already using external cause coding on a day to day basis, you will likely not have to start now. Most people never look in this chapter—ever.

  2. The reason there are such funny codes is the system allows you to “build” a code using pieces, which is what makes the book so easily expandable in all the right places (which is the point of the entire code change—the external cause codes just came along for the ride). Let’s look at Exhibit A: Bitten by a cow, initial encounter:
    The first three characters of the code indicate the category. Each additional character adds some detail.W55 is the category “Contact with other mammals”The 4th character 2 indicates contact specifically a cow (although included in this code is also a bull). You can change the animal to a cat by using 0 or a horse by using 1. You get the idea, right?

    The 5th character 1 indicates that the injury is a bite. A 2 would mean the patient was struck, not bitten.

    The 6th character X is a placeholder because this code requires a 7th character extension to indicate what encounter this visit was.

    The 7th character A indicates that this was an initial encounter. You could change this to a D if the patient has returned for subsequent visits or an S if the patient ends up with another problem later that could be attributed to this original cow—or bull—bite.

  3. We can code most of those same ridiculous codes with ICD-9, although most times not quite to the same specificity. I’ll match the ones below to the exhibits we have at the top:
    Exhibit A: E906.3 Bite of other animal except arthropod

    This is what we would currently have to use for “bitten by a cow.” There is no way in the current code set to indicate whether this is an initial encounter or a follow-up encounter for this accident, however. Since the code is so vague, this code could actually also be used to mean “bitten by a platypus” or “bitten by a pink fairy armadillo,” so yes, you can still code that in ICD-9, but not as well.

    Exhibit B: E849.6 Accidents occurring in public building

    Do you consider a library a public building? I do. Yep, you can code that with ICD-9, but not as well.

    Exhibit C: E012.0 Activities involving knitting and crocheting

    This is what we call a one-to-one mapping. A specific code for this already exists in ICD-9 with exactly the same description. Next.

    Exhibit D: E906.8 Other specified injury caused by animal

    This is the code we would have to use to indicate an attack by an Orca. Again, no indication of what encounter it is, but this time there is actually no reason to even use this code because, really, what information is it giving you? The patient was injured by an animal. We have no idea what kind of injury or what animal caused it. I’m all for going to a useful code for those rare occurrences of attacks by Orcas (which, as we all know, do occur from time to time!).

The real point is not what kinds of crazy things are now able to be coded, it’s what critical things can be coded with ICD-10 that could not be coded with ICD-9. The most newsworthy one is Ebola. In ICD-9, we have to use 065.8 Other specified arthropod-borne hemorrhagic fever. In ICD-10, we have A98.4 Ebola virus disease. But there are other reasons to go to the new system. There are new concepts in ICD-10 that didn’t exist in ICD-9, like laterality. We now have the ability to indicate which side of the body an injury or other condition occurs. This inclusion is one of the biggest reasons for the book’s code expansion. Each limb and digit has its own code (but, again, it’s the changing of one number in the overall code that indicates left or right, and which digit is affected). With all the complaints about the increased documentation required for the new code set, one would hope that most physicians already document which hand or arm or leg or ear or eye or finger is affected. As I mentioned above with the seventh-character extension, there is the ability to indicate the encounter and, more importantly, to link a prior condition with a current one with the use of the S character that indicates “sequela.”

There’s much evidence that the ICD-10-CM will help make patient records more accurate and reporting of conditions more precise. This will lead to improved research abilities and a healthier worldwide population. And the ridiculing of ICD-10 codes, which I’m sure will continue long after this blog post has disappeared from your newsfeed? Well, they always say that laughter is the best medicine!

About Jennifer Della’Zanna
Jennifer Della’Zanna, MFA, CHDS, CPC, CGSC, CEHRS has worked in the allied health care industry for 20 years. Currently, she writes and edits courses and study guides on medical coding and the use of technology in health care, as well as feature articles for online and print publications.  You can find her at www.facebook.com/HIMTrainer and on Twitter @HIMTrainer.