Coding Tip: Atrial Fibrillation
Kim Carrier RHIT, CDIP, CCS, CCS-P
Director of Coding Quality Assurance
AHIMA Approved ICD-10-CM/PCS Trainer
Atrial Fibrillation – What is it and how do you code it?
With the implementation of ICD-10-CM came more codes for reporting many different conditions and diseases, and atrial fibrillation is one of those. For many years there was only one code available for reporting this condition, even when the physician further specified the type of atrial fibrillation that the patient had. In ICD-10-CM, there are four codes to report atrial fibrillation:
- I48.91 is used to report atrial fibrillation when no further specificity is available
- I48.2 is used to report atrial fibrillation when specified as chronic or permanent (Will be expanded 10/1/19)
- I48.0 is used to report atrial fibrillation when specified as paroxysmal
- I48.1 is used to report atrial fibrillation when specified as persistent (Will be expanded 10/1/19)
What is atrial fibrillation?
Atrial fibrillation is an irregular heartbeat or arrhythmia sometimes called a quivering heart. This arrhythmia can cause a patient to develop blood clots, have a stroke, heart failure or other conditions. The heart rate is most often rapid and causes poor blood flow. When a patient is in atrial fibrillation, the upper chambers of the heart (atria) are beating differently than the lower chambers (ventricles). When this occurs, the irregular rhythm/heartbeat, prohibits the atria from contracting/relaxing and causes ineffectual filling and emptying of the ventricles. This is referred to often as a chaotic dysrhythmia.
The causes of atrial fibrillation is oftentimes unknown, but can be the result of damage to the heart’s electrical system caused by conditions such as uncontrolled hypertension and coronary artery disease. Atrial fibrillation can develop in any person including children but the risk is higher in patients of advanced age, have hypertension, have underlying heart disease, binge drinking of alcoholic beverages, family history, sleep apnea sufferers, athletes, patients with thyroid disease, diabetes and asthma are some of the more common disease that put a patient at higher risk for developing atrial fibrillation.
Controlling the disease that causes the erratic heartbeat is a must, as well as treating the arrhythmia. Sometimes treating and controlling the underlying cause will make the atrial fibrillation go away. If this does not help the erratic rhythm, then the patient may require treatment with beta blockers and calcium channel blockers to help slow the heart rate. The rhythm should be restored to a normal rhythm to reduce the high heart rate. Patients are often placed on a blood thinner to help prevent blood clot and stroke in addition to the rate and rhythm controller medication. The rhythm should be restored to a normal rhythm to reduce the high heart rate. There are other treatments available such as electrical cardioversion, radiofrequency/catheter ablation, pacemakers and an open heart maze procedure for the atrial fibrillation that does not correct on its own or does not respond to the medications.
How to code multiple documented types of atrial fibrillation?
The most recent coding advice has addressed how to report the appropriate code for the atrial fibrillation when more than one type is documented. Per this advice, if the physician diagnoses the patient with chronic persistent atrial fibrillation only the code I48.1 (persistent atrial fibrillation) is reported. The term chronic is a nonspecific term that could also be used to describe the other types of specified atrial fibrillation. Since I48.1 is a more specific code this is the one that should be reported. Even though the Alphabetic Index within ICD-10-CM has listed the different types of atrial fibrillation at the same indention level, only one code is reported. The most specific term should be reported.
Atrial Fibrillation Coding Tips:
- Atrial fibrillation is still reported in patients that are not currently experiencing the erratic rhythm as long as the patient is requiring ongoing medication to help control the rate
- Atrial fibrillation is very common in postoperative patients and should be verified as a complication before coding as such
- When multiple types of atrial fibrillation are documented in the record select the most specific type
There are other examples of how to code atrial fibrillation when multiple types are documented in the latest issue of Coding Clinic for ICD-10-CM/PCS, Second Quarter 2019: Page 3.
mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/atrial-fibrillation/symptoms-causes/syc-20350624Coding Clinic for ICD-10-CM/PCS, Second Quarter 2019: Page 3
Coding Clinic for ICD-10-CM/PCS, Third Quarter 2018: Page 6
Coding Clinic, Fourth Quarter 2013 Page: 11 & 98
Coding Clinic, Third Quarter 1995 Page: 8
The information contained in this coding advice is valid at the time of posting. Viewers are encouraged to research subsequent official guidance in the areas associated with the topic as they can change rapidly.
Coding complications of transplanted organs has always been a coding dilemma. With the implementation of ICD-10-CM that didn’t change. However, coders have multiple directives to help in determining what a complication of the transplant is vs. non-transplant conditions and diseases.
We interviewed our most productive coders, reviewers and members of our education team, asking them what steps they take to find a rhythm that works for them. This week, we talked with Beth Martilik, MA, RHIA, CDIP, CCS, Assistant Director of Education, about the steps she takes to find her routine.
We have a case where the physician removes mucoid casts found during bronchoscopy. We have also seen mucus plugs removed during bronchoscopy. The MD performs bronchial washings then removes a large amount of tenacious and thick mucoid casts via bronchoscopy. Is this coded drainage, extirpation or excision? What body part is used?
The key to making the query process more efficient is to look for words or documentation while reviewing the record that may signal a potential query opportunity and to note the finding at that time. By the time a coder reaches the end of a record, documentation may have been found to eliminate the need for the query.
Question: This patient is noted to have “Lymphangitic carcinomatosis of lungs with mediastinal lymph nodes.” How would I code the diagnosis? Would I code metastatic cancer to the lung (C78.01) or metastatic cancer to the lymph nodes (C77.1)?
Coding these can be challenging for coders when trying to decipher the operative notes and terms that are used. The physicians are still using the terms excision and resection interchangeably and review of the entire operative note is required to select the appropriate root operation. Remember, it is the coder’s responsibility to determine the root operation based on the details from the physician in the operative report.
This would be considered a “mechanical” complication of the stent graft since the MD states it is a fracture of the endograft and it is folded over on itself. I would change T82.898A TO T82.598A for Other mechanical complication of other cardiac and vascular devices and implants, initial encounter. I did not use “displacement” because the surgeon did not state that the graft was displaced, only that it collapsed upon itself causing obstruction.
We interviewed our most productive coders and reviewers, asking them what steps they take to find a rhythm that works for them. This week, we talked with Valerie Abney, CDIP, RHIT, CCS, about the steps she takes to find her routine.
Osteoporosis alone is responsible for over a million fractures every year. Stress fractures are not as common but they do occur. There are more than 1 million total joint replacements in the U.S. each year, so there was a need to create codes for injuries that occur around or near the prosthesis. These are called “periprosthetic” fractures.
Back in April, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) published a report detailing its findings from a review of two groups of high-risk diagnosis codes, acute stroke and major depressive disorder. The objective was to determine whether selected diagnosis codes submitted to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for use in CMS’s risk adjustment program complied with Federal requirements.
There seems to be differences of opinions on the issue of a 40w0day gestation Can you clarify if P08.21 should be assigned for 40w0day infant or if it would not be assigned unless the infant’s gestation age was 40w1day or greater?
Coders may find situations where a patient is documented as meeting SIRS or sepsis criteria, or has some clinical indicators reflective of possible sepsis, but the physician never documents sepsis as a diagnosis. Should the coder always query for sepsis in these instances?
In this example, would it be appropriate to code the complication code T82.03XA, Leakage of heart valve prosthesis, initial encounter as the principal diagnosis over the HFpEF (heart failure exacerbation) code?
We interviewed our most productive coders and reviewers, asking them what steps they take to find a rhythm that works for them. This week, we talked with Kerry Atkins, CDIP, CCS‑P, COC, CPC, CPCO, CPMA, CEMC, COBGC, RMB, Physician Services Consultant at HIA, about the steps she takes to find her routine.
A higher CMI corresponds to increased consumption of resources and increased cost of patient care, resulting in increased reimbursement to the facility from government and private payers, like CMS. We know that documentation directly impacts coding.
With the implementation of ICD-10-PCS more codes were developed in order to accurately report procedures. Spinal fusion coding is still a problematic coding issue and at times, even a coder’s nightmare. Coders often report only the code for the fusion thinking that one code would include all of the other procedures that are performed.
Answer: I would code 0HPT0NZ for removal of tissue expander from right breast, open and change 0HPT0JZ, removal of synthetic substitute from right breast, open, for removal of the acellular dermal matrix to 0HPT0KZ, Removal of nonautologous tissue substitute from right breast, open approach.
There are certain conditions that have instructional notes in the ICD-10-CM tabular/coding conventions that guide the coder in sequencing. This is especially true when the condition has a common manifestation or underlying conditions of a chronic disease. If there is a “code first” note in the tabular, the coder should follow this instruction and sequence the underlying etiology or chronic condition first followed by the manifestation as an additional diagnosis.
When it comes to coding and documentation, finding your own rhythm can lead to positive results. For our series, Find Your Routine, we interviewed our most productive coders and reviewers and asked them what steps they take to find a rhythm that works for them. This week, we talked with Meghan Schumacher, CPC, CPMA, Provider Coding Consultant at Health Information Associates, Inc., about the steps she takes to find her routine.
Last year, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) performed an investigation that found, “between 2014 and 2016, Medicare Advantage organizations overturned 75% of their preauthorization and payment denials upon appeal,” which is why, at HIA, we always advise our clients to engage in the appeals process.
There may be instances where a coder will suspect the patient has acute kidney injury (AKI), but the physician has failed to document the diagnosis. In another scenario, the physician may have made the diagnosis, but there is a question of clinical validity. In either case, a query would be justified.
Changes to CC/MCC designations included in the proposal could have a potentially dramatic effect on casemix. The presence of a major complication or comorbidity (MCC) or complication or comorbidity (CC) generally is representative of a patient that requires more resources.
How many times have you heard “it only takes one code to get the claim paid”? With the emphasis on the severity of illness and the move toward value-based reimbursement in today’s healthcare climate, it is more important than ever for coders to report all applicable diagnoses. There are three important pieces: what the provider documents, how to the coder interprets that documentation and codes it, and then how it is extrapolated.
When a practitioner documents a diagnosis that does not appear to be supported by the clinical indicators in the health record, a coder has four choices: (1) Code the diagnosis; (2) Ignore the diagnosis; (3) Generate a query to confirm clinical validation of a diagnosis; (4) Follow the facility’s escalation policy for clinical validation.
A California-based healthcare services provider and several of its affiliates have agreed to pay $30 million to resolve allegations they submitted inaccurate information about the health status of beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Advantage Plans, according to the Department of Justice.
Happy National Volunteer Week! This week we celebrate the impact volunteer work has on building stronger communities. We know that our staff have a positive impact while they’re on the job, and we are proud to share a few ways our #PeopleBehindTheNumbers are taking time to volunteer in their own local communities.
Scrutiny of coding compliance in the growing ambulatory surgical center (ASC) market has increased in recent years from both Medicare and private payers. This will only increase as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) moves towards value-based care.
Patients being admitted for acute renal failure due to dehydration have been happening for many, many years now. Typically what happens is a patient gets dehydrated for one reason or another. Once dehydration sets in, it can quickly start to affect many body organs. This can lead to acute renal/kidney failure/injury.
In December 2018, a Pennsylvania for-profit hospital and health system, and its CEO agreed to pay a total of $12.5 million to settle allegations they submitted false claims to Medicare and other federal health care programs for orthopedic surgeries. The settlement resolves allegations that top executives exploited a loophole – AKA modifier 59 – that allowed them to double bill federal healthcare payers for surgeries and ignored coding consultants who advised them that they were improperly billing.