Coding Tip: Inpatient Coding of Probable Diagnoses
This Coding Tip was updated on 12/4/2018
Kim Carrier RHIT, CDIP, CCS, CCS-P
Director of Coding Quality Assurance
AHIMA Approved ICD-10-CM/PCS Trainer
The rules about coding probable, possible and questionable diagnoses did not change with the implementation of ICD-10-CM.
A possible, probable, suspected, likely, questionable, or still to be ruled out condition can be coded if still documented as such at the time of discharge. Other similar terms used to describe possible conditions could include consistent with, compatible with, indicative of, suggestive of, and comparable with.
All the terms used above (and there could be others that would fit the definition) are terms used to describe conditions that the patient may have and that the patient is being treated or monitored for.
Per the OCG, coders can code these conditions as if they were confirmed as long as they are still documented as such at the time of discharge. Here are a couple of examples of this:
- Patient is admitted with SOB and has COPD. On admission, the patient is thought to have possible pneumonia. The patient is begun on IV antibiotics and responds to treatment. The patient is discharged with the diagnosis of COPD with acute exacerbation/acute bronchitis. There is no mention of pneumonia at the time of discharge or in the DS. In this case, the coder would need to query the MD to clarify if the possible diagnosis of pneumonia was ruled out. It may be that there is documentation in the record to elude to this and no query needed but if unclear it should be queried. The diagnosis of pneumonia would not be able to be reported unless the MD was queried and clarification of the diagnosis was given.
- Same patient as above BUT the DS does list the diagnosis of possible pneumonia as a final diagnosis. In this case, pneumonia is appropriate as a reportable diagnosis. It is a probable condition that is still being documented at discharge.
There are, however, exceptions to this rule. Here are some of the exceptions:
- Only confirmed cases of HIV/AIDS may be reported. If the diagnosis is listed with any of the terms used above and not confirmed, the disease should not be reported.
- Avian influenza, novel influenza, or other identified influenza should not be coded when they are documented as possible/probable or other terms. Only confirmed cases of Avian, novel and other identified influenza should be coded as such.
- Only confirmed cases of Zika virus can be coded.
- If there is a code for a suspected condition and the condition is listed as such, then this code would be reported instead of the code for the condition. An example would be for suspected adult and child abuse, neglect and other maltreatment. There are specific codes to report if this is suspected abuse.
Comparative/contrasting secondary diagnoses
These should be coded as if they were established in ICD-10-CM. The OCG for uncertain diagnoses should be followed. This was not the case in ICD-9 when instead of coding each of the comparative/contrasting SDX, the symptom was coded instead. Here are a couple of examples of this:
- Patient is admitted with pneumonia and during the admission complains of abdominal pain. Workup is done without confirmation of the cause of this pain. The physician documents in the record, at the time of discharge, abdominal pain was worked up with no clear cause. This was thought to be mild acute pancreatitis vs. alcoholic gastritis. In this case, both acute pancreatitis and alcoholic gastritis would be reported. No code would be reported for the symptom of abdominal pain.
- Patient is admitted with sepsis with no definitive cause. At the time of discharge, the MD documented that the sepsis was thought to be due to possible pneumonia vs. severe acute bronchitis. In this case, both pneumonia and acute bronchitis would be reported.
Comparative/contrasting principal diagnoses
This rule did not change with implementation of ICD-10-CM. If two or more contrasting/comparative diagnoses are documented at the time of discharge (and are considered as PDX) they are coded as if they were confirmed diagnoses. Sequencing would depend on the circumstances of admission. If treatment was considered equal, then either may be sequenced as the PDX.
Probable or possible malignancy
This may be the most difficult diagnosis that coders face. It is very difficult to assign a diagnosis of malignancy/cancer to a patient when this is only documented as a possible/probable or suspected condition. However, there is official coding advice that directs the coder to do just this. Even though most don’t like to do this it is what must be done. Here are a couple of examples (one PDX and one SDX):
- Patient was admitted with flank pain and workup was begun. The patient had CT scan that did show a mass in the left kidney. The patient wanted further workup as an outpatient. At the time of discharge, the physician documented the final diagnosis as kidney mass, most likely renal cell carcinoma. Workup was planned as an outpatient. In this case, the PDX should be reported as renal cell carcinoma.
- Patient was admitted with pneumonia. They had a history of lung malignancy that had been removed years ago. On this admission, patient had CT of the lung. This showed multiple lung nodules suspicious for metastasis. During the admission, the patient also complained of headache so a CT of the head was also performed. This showed multiple areas in the brain that were suspicious for metastasis. The patient refused further workup of these sites at this time. At the time of discharge, the physician documented the final diagnoses as pneumonia, history of lung cancer with possible metastasis to the lung and brain. Further workup will be discussed on follow up visit. In this case, both the lung metastasis and the brain metastasis would be reported as secondary diagnoses.
A diagnosis that is documented as “borderline” at the time of discharge is coded as a confirmed diagnosis, unless there is a specific index entry in ICD-10-CM for a borderline condition. Here are a couple of examples:
- If at the time of discharge there is a diagnosis of borderline diabetes, this is not coded as diabetes as there is a specific index entry for borderline diabetes.
- If at the time of discharge there is a diagnosis of borderline hypercholesterolemia, this would be coded as hypercholesterolemia since there is not a specific index entry for borderline hypercholesterolemia.
These are NOT the same as a possible/suspected condition or uncertain diagnosis. If it occurred, code it. If the impending or threatened condition did not occur during the admission then the coder would need to reference the Alphabetic Index to see if there is a subentry term for “impending” or “threatened” for the condition and also reference the main term entries for “impending” or “threatened”. If they are listed, then assign the code that is given. If not, then the diagnosis that is listed as impending/threatened would NOT be reported.
Concern for/concerning for
AHA Coding Clinic First Quarter 2018 confirms that the term “concern for” should be interpreted as an uncertain diagnosis and coded using the guidelines for “uncertain diagnoses” in the inpatient setting. Please disregard previous publications/emails regarding the coding of “concern for” as it has been best practice to NOT code these in the past.
ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting FY2019
Pages: 16, 18, 29, 53, 54, 83, 108, and 111
ICD-9-CM Coding Clinic, Third Quarter 2005 Page: 21
ICD-9-CM Coding Clinic, First Quarter 2006 Page: 4-5
ICD-9-CM Coding Clinic, First Quarter 2011 Page: 10
ICD-10-CM/PCS Coding Clinic, Second Quarter 2016 Page: 9
ICD-10-CM/PCS Coding Clinic, First Quarter 2018 Page 18-19
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.
With the implementation of ICD-10-CM came different codes and coding rules for many diagnoses. One of these is the coding of bowel obstruction when the patient presents for this condition that is caused by another condition.
This is Part 5 of a five part series on the new 2021 CPT codes. For the remaining areas we will just briefly summarize the section. Due to the intricate nature of these sections in CPT, it is recommended that the coder read the entire section notes associated with the new codes.
This is Part 4 of a five part series on the new 2021 CPT codes. In this series we will explore the CPT changes in the urinary, nervous, ocular and auditory systems. There are 2 new urinary/male reproductive system codes with no revisions or deletions; 3 new female reproductive codes with 2 deletions, 0 new with 4 deleted nervous system codes with 5 revisions; 5 new eye category III codes; and finally a 2 new auditory codes with one deletion.
This is Part 3 of a five part series on the new 2021 CPT codes. In this series we will explore the cardiovascular system CPT changes. There are 5 new cardiovascular CPT codes added with 0 deletions and 4 revisions.
This is Part 2 of a five part series on the new 2021 CPT codes. In this series we will explore the CPT changes for FY2021 and include some examples to help the coder understand the new codes. There are 0 new musculoskeletal CPT codes added with 0 deletions and 2 major revisions along with an extensive update to arthroscopic loose body removal requirements. For the respiratory system, there were 2 new codes, one code deletion and no revisions.
This is Part 1 of a five part series on the new 2021 CPT codes. In this series we will explore the CPT changes for FY2021 and include examples to help the coder understand the new codes. For 2021 in general, there were 199 new CPT codes added, 54 deleted and 69 revised.
In January, new CPT codes were released. There were 248 new CPT codes added, 71 deleted and 75 revised. Most of the surgery section changes were in the musculoskeletal and cardiovascular subsections. These included procedures such as skin grafting, breast biopsies, deep drug delivery systems, tricuspid valve repairs, aortic grafts and repair of iliac artery.
We have seen many updates and changes to COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) since the pandemic started. On January 1, 2021 we will see even more changes as outlined in this post. Also the CMS MS-DRG grouper will be updated to version 38.1 to accommodate the changes.
In the previous three parts of this four-part series, we discussed the new ICD-10-CM diagnosis code changes, ICD-10-PCS procedure code changes and FY2021 IPPS changes. In this last Part 4 of the series, we will review the NTAP procedure codes and reimbursement add-on payments for FY2021.
In the previous two parts of this four part series, we discussed the new ICD-10-CM diagnosis code changes and ICD-10-PC procedure code changes. In this session we will review the major IPPS changes for FY2021.
This is Part 2 of a 4 part series on the FY2021 ICD-10 Code and IPPS changes. In this part, the ICD-10-PCS procedure codes are presented. For FY2021 ICD-10-PCS there are 78,115 total codes (FY2020 total was 77,571); 556 new codes (734 new last year in FY2020)…
This is Part 1 of a 4 part series on the FY2021 changes to ICD-10 and the IPPS. In this part, we discuss some of the new ICD-10-CM diagnosis changes. Here is the breakdown: 72,616 total ICD-10-CM codes for FY2021; 490 new codes (2020 had 273 new codes); 58 deleted codes (2020 had 21 deleted codes); 47 revised codes (2020 had 30 revised codes)
Acute pulmonary edema is the rapid accumulation of fluid within the tissue and space around the air sacs of the lung (lung interstitium). When this fluid collects in the air sacs in the lungs it is difficult to breathe. Acute pulmonary edema occurs suddenly and is life threatening.
“Client S” is a small, not-for-profit, 40 bed micro-hospital in the Southeast. HIA performed a 65-record review this year for Client S and found an opportunity with 15 of them. 9 had an increased reimbursement with a total of $43,228 found.
The coma scale codes (R40.2-) can be used in conjunction with traumatic brain injury codes, acute cerebrovascular disease or sequelae of cerebrovascular disease codes. These codes are primarily for use by trauma registries, but they may be used in any setting where this information is collected. The coma scale may also be used to assess the status of the central nervous system for other non-trauma conditions, such as monitoring patients in the intensive care unit regardless of medical condition.
In the past, there had been an Excludes1 note at I46.- Cardiac arrest that excluded R57.0, Cardiac shock. HIA had also received a letter from AHA on a case in the past that had stated that only I46.- Cardiac arrest would be coded if both were documented. In addition, the Third Quarter Coding Clinic page 26 had a similar case that asked if both could be coded, and AHA had instructed that only I46.9, cardiac arrest, cause unspecified would be coded if both were documented and that the CDC would be looking at possible revision to the Excludes1 note.
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.
Lately we have seen several cases where the endarterectomy was assigned along with the coronary artery bypass (CABG) procedure when being performed on the same vessel to facilitate the CABG. A coronary artery endarterectomy is not always performed during a CABG procedure, so when it is performed it becomes confusing as to whether to code it separately or not.
Assign code Z20.828, “Contact with and (suspected) exposure to other viral communicable diseases” for all patients who are tested for COVID-19 and the results are negative, regardless of symptoms, no symptoms, exposure or not as we are in a pandemic.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced new procedure codes for treatments of COVID-19 – effective as of August 1, 2020. Among the new codes are Section X New Technology codes for the introduction or infusion of therapeutics including Remdesivir, Sarilumab, Tocilizumab, transfusion of convalescent plasma, as well as introduction of any other or new therapeutic substances for the treatment of COVID-19.
One common element in many value-based programs is risk adjustment using Hierarchical Condition Categories (HCCs) to create a Risk Adjustment Factor (RAF) score. This method ranks diagnoses into categories that represent conditions with similar cost patterns.
Why are so many AKI records being denied? It’s hard to give one answer for why so many AKI records are being denied lately, but most appear to be due to the multiple sets of criteria available for use in determining if a patient has AKI, as well as physician documentation. As stated in Part 3 of this series, there are three main criteria/classifications used to diagnose AKI.
In previous parts of this series we looked at the definitions of AKI/ARF, causes, coding and sequencing, and the common clinical indicators that patients present with that are diagnosed with this condition. In Part 4, we will look at the documentation that should be present to report the diagnosis without fear of denial, as well as when a query is needed to clarify the diagnosis.
In the first parts of this series we looked at definitions of AKI/ARF, causes, coding and sequencing. In Part 3, we will look at what clinical indicators would possibly be present to support the diagnosis of AKI/ARF.
The FY2021 IPPS Proposed Rule is out and here are some highlights from it regarding ICD-10 Code proposals. We will know if these changes are permanent after the public comment period is over on July 10, 2020 and CMS prepares the Final Rule, usually out by August 1.
As discussed in Part 1 of this series, AKI/ARF is a common diagnosis that coders see daily. In Part 2, we are going to focus on the different types/specificity of AKI/ARF. We’ll learn what they mean, as well as how to code the diagnosis.
This is part 1 in a series focused on coding of acute kidney injury (AKI) and/or acute renal failure (ARF). AKI/ARF is reported often, but is also one of the most common diagnosis found in denials.
With the proliferation of COVID-19 cases, we thought we would put together a quick reference listing of some of the common scenarios that coders have asked about. As with all coding, coders should follow Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting and the COVD-19 Frequently Asked Questions document by the AHA.
Effective March 1, Medicare will pay physicians for telehealth services at the same rate as in-person visits for all diagnoses, not just services related to COVID-19. This great for providers whose patients are reluctant to visit the office.