Reimbursementquality, often impacts reimbursement two years in the future
Diagnosis chapters with the lowest code accuracy included:
Accessing Deceased Patient RecordsFAQ
Diseases of the genitourinary system (N00-N99)
Reviewed and approved by a forum of certified coders, AHIMA-approved ICD-10-CM/PCS trainers and consultants, both internal and external
Diseases of the nervous system (G00-G99)
Certain infectious and parasitic diseases (A00-B99)
Higher productivity decreased outpatient coding accuracy by -20.3 percent
By changing our views on coding accuracy and accepting the differences between ICD-10 and ICD-9, we can better address code accuracy. As clinical documentation improvement programs focus on ensuring documentation is present and accurate, coding professionals need to focus on specified code assignment beyond the DRG.
Higher productivity decreased inpatient coding accuracy by -25.4 percent
onAre All Coding Denials Preventable?
onHow to Request Your Medical Records
The 2nd Annual National ICD-10 Coding Contest data show electronically unbiased measured results while providing a national comparison to benchmark ICD-10 coding accuracy rates. This years findings continue to reveal accuracy rates far below the 95 percent accuracy standard. As in 2016, coding accuracy was still strongest among inpatient cases and weakest among emergency department, both increasing from last year. Ambulatory surgery accuracy rates actually decreased from last year.
2nd Annual ICD-10 Coding Contest Results [Sponsored]
and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ICD-10 Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting and other published coding guidelines
Population health management initiatives
We all perform conventional auditsinternal and externalthroughout the year. Preparation for these audits can be time consuming and may limit the frequency of conducting them. To supplement your external audits, consider the benefit of having your coding staff code your own medical records without interrupting productionwith a way to score, analyze, compare results, and determine educational needs at the chapter, category, or code level.
Results uncover need for ongoing ICD-10 training and audits
Like the 2016 results, DRG 455 combined anterior/posterior spinal fusion w/o cc/mcc remained the DRG with the most potential revenue loss at -$4,248 per case (See Yellow Highlighted area in Table below). For the five new cases in 2017, DRG 871 septicemia or severe sepsis w/o mv 97 hrs. w/ mcc ($3,794 per case) reflected the most potential revenue loss (See Orange Highlighted area in Table below). The Office of Inspector General (OIG)released data September 7, 2017on DRG 870 septicemia or severe sepsis W/ MV 96 hours, stating that inpatient days are being calculated rather than actual ventilation time. Therefore, with the increased DRG focus, it will be important for providers to audit DRGs 870 and 871 to ensure accurate vent time calculation. Finally, opportunities for DRG 870 are evident since sepsis continues to be a major challenge both from a documentation and coding perspective.
How to Request Your Medical Records
Congenital malformation, deformations and chromosomal abnormalities (Q00-Q99)
From July 14thto August 11th, 2017, Central Learning measured inpatient ICD-10-CM/PCS coding and DRG accuracy, along with the outpatient (ambulatory surgery and emergency department) ICD-10-CM and CPT coding (excluding facility evaluation and management (E/M)). Contest participants coded a total of 1,636 real medical record cases using a uniform online coding platform. Participants chose the cases they preferred to code based on their area of coding specialty.
2nd Annual ICD-10 Coding Contest Results [Sponsored]
Central Learning users create their own answer key, load it into the application, and determine the correct codes for their cases. This provides the ability to continually monitor coding staff in between routine external audits and focus training on code specificity that impacts a specific facility. Code specificity is critical in todays value-based-payment world as it impacts risk adjustment and severity of illness, which impacts provider payments.
An important observation to note is the correlation between accuracy and productivity scores:
Clinical Documentation Improvement and Data Quality
Would it be possible for me to get a copy of the coding test so that I could check my coding accuracy?
Your email address will not be published.Required fields are marked*
The thought process around coding audits and accuracy rates must change as well. Perhaps in addition to the conventional overall case accuracy, we need to look at accuracy in different ways, considering multiple types of accuracy scores:
Once coded, the deidentified cases were electronically graded against Central Learnings standardized answer keys to remove any bias for accuracy scoring. Prior to contest initiation, the Central Learning answer keys were vetted, validated, and approved through a rigorous process:
Coding contest participants self-reported their primary coding certification. Among contest coders, 99 percent reported as certified coders (AHIMA or AAPC), and one percent reported no certification. The average years of experience Inpatient coding contestants reported was 14.3 years. Outpatient coding contestants reported 9.9 years of coding experience.
Who Has Rights to a Deceased Patients Records?
AHIMA Annual Convention and Exhibit
The contest also evaluated the DRG assigned by the contestants. Accuracy rates were very similar for 2016 and 2017. Again, this result is much lower than the 95 percent industry standard.
Diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue (L00-L99)
For more information about ICD-10 coding assessments,click here.
Coding Diabetes Mellitus with Associated Conditions
Since the implementation of ICD-10-CM/PCS two years ago, coding has taken on a new meaning. Code specificity is now used in many ways, and most impact provider payments in some way. Consider the following:
Reimbursementcurrent fee for service
onMyth Busted: Maximizing APR-DRG Risk Staves Off Performance Penalties
Based on the American Hospital Associations
Central Learnings 2nd Annual National ICD-10 Coding Contest participants were recruited via email and advertising through various HIM and coding publishing organizations. Contestants were given coding guidelines for each patient type and access to the Central Learning software. Access to encoder software was not provided within the contest, but coders were allowed to use their own individual encoder tools and coding references.