Home Forums Discussions Feedback and Recommendations coding suggested improvements

Sorry if you have read this in two of the other places I posted it.

I am finding in the 6 hours we have been using the ICD10 coding that it is really lacking details in AC. My example: URI

ICD9: 465.9 Acute upper respiratory infections
ICD10 in AC: J06.9 acute respiratory infection
ACTUAL ICD10 code from the book: J06.9 Acute upper respiratory infection, unspecified
What code I really want to use: J00 Acute nasopharyngitis ("common cold" in AC)

I would love to see that "unspecified" aspect of J06.9 and all other codes (J39.0 UTI per AC but actually UTI sight unspecified --> really need to code acute cystitis without hematuria N30.00). I have been told that there is no way to make the code exactly as it reads in the ICD10 book and that I can submit a recommendation, which I did already. Wondering what you AC employees think.

Hi,

I received your request via the recommended improvements but felt it best to reply here so others on the UBB benefit knowing that we are researching this for you. We're looking into this and will get you a response as soon as possible. We may reach out via email or call for more details. You can get directly to J00 by searching for nasopharyngitis ..what are you using for your search term?

I had similar issues with specificity. I saw someone with acute knee strain. Could not find a specific code in AC. The code could be looked up by clicking on Code Look Up on the top menu bar but AC did not pull up in the note section / in Assessment. I know there are a lot of codes that we have to get used to but not having the codes at all will hurt us more.
Also when a vaccine is administered by the staff, the vaccine and the administration codes are being paired with ICD 9 codes of the last encounter. It is a bug that needs to be fixed.

I was using URI. There are numerous complaints about the non-specificity of the codes you guys have for short hand and I agree with all of them. In order to ensure that we get paid, we have to avoid "unspecified" and that term seems to be hidden for almost all of the diagnoses.

drsdavi,
Can you explain your concern a bit more, please?
Your patient has a cold.
You are searching on "URI" and the response it gives you is "J06.9 acute respiratory infection", which is not the response you want.
If the answer you believe is correct ("code I really want to use") is J00 Acute nasopharyngitis, then why not search on "cold" or "common cold" which gives that answer?

In the coding crosswalks that I see, when you put in 465.9 from ICD-9, you get J06.9 in ICD-10. That is the closest to the ICD-9 code for URI, and IS a billable code in ICD-10. On the other hand, I don't think ICD-9 included a more specific code for a cold, so how would you suggest that AC handle this?

I just coded J06.9 for URI. I am not sure what everyone is talking about. (nothing against drsdavi. I love ICD-10.

Mine shows when I put it "Upper Resp" as J06.9: Acute Upper Respiratory, Bacterial Upper Respiratory, and Upper Respiratory Infection. Take your pic, it works great!

My billing co. owner said today that he is going back to Florida and leaving his business to his manager - ICD10 has gone over without a hitch. He said it was like Y2K, and I asked him if he'd finished the buckets of beans yet.

I think ICD-10 has gone well too. My only concern is when I code for something like acute otitis media. Obviously, there should be laterality or bilaterality.

Acute right otitis media is H66.91, left is 92, bilateral is 93.

But, you can enter acute otitis media which is 90. It is green and, therefore, a billable code. But, would the insurance company say it should be more granular?

The other weird thing is the "acute otitis media" is H66.90 while chronic otitis media is H66.90. They seem completely opposite.

I am a little concerned that the 'clinical diagnosis' in the AC search window may not be granular enough for the future. If they start rejecting claims because it is not specified as L or R, I hope we will have a color change to show it as not billable, like we used to have with the 4 digit ICD-9 codes.

I think it is going to take some time to figure out which codes require "granularity".
Under ICD-9 we usually got paid for "unspecified" codes, even though there were more detailed codes available. But not always. And over time, billers learned the difference.

Just because someone gets a hip contusion from "falling off a skateboard," or a burned foot from "water skis on fire" -- doesn't mean we have to code to that degree of granularity to get paid.