Part 2: How Coders Can Address Coding Mismatches | CDI Series
RHIA, CDIP, CCS, CCS‑P, CIRCC
Executive Director Of Education
AHIMA‑Approved ICD‑10‑CM/PCS Trainer and Ambassador
This is part two of a three part series in which we address how coders can better interact with Clinical Documentation Integrity (CDI) professionals. In this part, we discuss mismatches and how to best go about resolving them. In part three we will provide a case example of best practice interaction.
What is “mismatch”?
The term “mismatch” is most often used to describe a situation whereby the CDI professional has obtained a different DRG than the coder has at final coding. This can be due to many reasons. The most frequent reason is that the CDI professional and coder have different principal diagnoses selected. In other situations, a CC or MCC may not have been coded by either the CDI professional or by the coder. In still other situations, a procedure code coded by the coder may have changed the DRG that the CDI professional arrived at. The CDI professional may not have coded the procedure impacting the DRG. There are also other reasons for mismatches.
So what happens? Usually the CDI professional will perform a final review of their case after it is final coded by the coder. In some cases coders must look at each case to see the CDI’s principal diagnosis and DRG. If a mismatch is found, the CDI professional may email the coder regarding the mismatch. This happens when the CDI professional either does not agree, or does not understand how the coder arrived at their codes and DRG. This is when issues can occur for some. Understandably, the CDI professional thinks their DRG is correct and the coder thinks their DRG is correct. It is up to the coder to communicate effectively with the CDI professional as to why they arrived at a different code and DRG. Sometimes this is easy, such as when the CDI professional has not included a surgical procedure code that alters the DRG. In this case, the coder includes the procedure code in response to the CDI email, and the procedure description for which it was coded. That usually will end the mismatch discussion as there is a logical explanation. There are also times when the coder agrees with the CDI professional after reading the email and explanation. That would be an easy email to respond back with.
When the case involves a different principal diagnosis, then things can get a bit hairy. The coder must then make sure to effectively communicate why they arrived at the PDX code they did if they think their coding is accurate after seeing the mismatch email. And, they must communicate effectively without insinuating blame or putting others on the defensive. This is a delicate communication that must be supported by facts and documentation.
The coder should first think, “How would I want to receive information if I was on the other end of the email I am about to send? What would I want to see to convince me of why the coder assigned the codes that they did?” Just thinking this through will help communication. Also, pausing before sending to reread your email may catch some verbiage you may wish to change. Sometimes there is a competitive atmosphere between the two departments, however this should not be reflected in communications. They should be positive, factual, and complete. Here are some suggested steps to take:
- Understand where the CDI professional is coming from. If you see where the CDI professional may have missed a coding guideline, include it with the explanation of your principal or other diagnosis.
- Be prompt with your response as the claim may be held or reimbursement affected.
- Always be pleasant, even if the email sent to you is not. Do not take the email tone personally. The CDI professional is just wanting to know why your DRG is different.
- Start with “I coded the principal diagnosis (or other diagnosis or procedure) based on this _____. (name official coding guideline, AHA Coding Clinic, Index and then tabular listing.)
- Next include “The documentation for the basis of my code selection is ________. (Include the exact documentation (deidentified if possible) that was the basis of the code assignment. Copy the documentation exactly. Do not paraphrase.
- Do not include extraneous documentation that is not pertinent to the code assignment.
- Do not tell the CDI professional where to find the documentation and then not include it. It will save time and more emails by providing the documentation that is the basis of the code assignment Having to send and resend emails impacts productivity for both professionals.
- Do not get caught up in endless emails back and forth. Once you send your response with pertinent documentation, guidelines and reasoning, if the CDI professional still disagrees with your coding, refer the case to a coding manager who can address the situation at a higher level.
- If the response from the higher level manager or director is to code as the CDI has coded the case, put a notation in the case as to this directive. In some cases the coder will have to agree to disagree and follow the facility’s manager/director’s instructions.
- If a change involves a clinical determination, it may be wise to get a physician liaison to look at the case if it is possible for the coder and CDI to do that. Not all facilities have physician liaisons/advisors however.
In the final part of this series, we will present a case example to help you understand the above recommendations.
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.
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.
If the facility does a COVID-19 test, and test is negative, do I need a diagnosis code. The answer is yes, you will report a Z-code. The Z-code depends on the record documentation and circumstances of testing. For any patient receiving a COVID-19 test, if negative, there MUST e a Z-code to describe why the test was taken. (Test negative for COVID-19 and MD does not override negative results).
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.
The biggest reasons why some hospital systems are moving to single path coding is to eliminate duplicative processes and to optimize productivity. In addition, costs are reduced when only one coder “touches” the record and completes both types of coding.
Effective with 4/1/2020 discharges, ICD-10-CM code U07.0 is used to report vaping -related disorders. ICD-10-CM code U07.0 (vaping related disorder) should be used when documentation supports that the patient has a lung-related disorder from vaping. This code is found in the new ICD-10-CM Chapter 22. U07.0 will be in listed in the ICD-10-CM manual under a new section: Provisional assignment of new disease of uncertain etiology or emergency use.
The US government and public-health officials are urging consumers to utilize telemedicine for remote treatment, fill prescriptions and get medical attention during the new coronavirus pandemic. The goal is to keep people with symptoms at home and to practice social distancing if their condition doesn’t warrant more intensive hospital care.
Coronavirus: Tips for working from home. Companies around the world have told their employees to stay home and work remotely. Whether you’re a new to this concept or a work from home veteran, here’s some tips to staying productive from our #HIAfamily.
This is the final part of a three part series in which we address how coders can better interact with Clinical Documentation Improvement (CDI) professionals. In this part, we provide an actual example of an effective communication response to CDI.
This is part one of a three part series in which we address how coders can better interact with Clinical Documentation Integrity (CDI) professionals. Many times these departments are separate and the remote environment makes it difficult to interact efficiently between the two departments. In part one, we will discuss the history and objectives of CDI so the coder has a better understanding of CDI’s role.
One reason that coders should report chronic conditions (including history and status codes) on outpatient records is the HCC’s—Hierarchical Condition Categories. The quick and easy explanation of what HCC’s are is each HCC is mapped to certain ICD-10-CM codes or code ranges. HCC coding is designed to estimate future health care costs for patients.
For Part 5 of this 5-part series, we will look at Chapter 4 within ICD-10-CM—E00-E89—Endocrine, Nutritional, and Metabolic Diseases. There is no possible way to include every guideline or coding reference for this chapter, but here are some of the most common issues.
For Part 4 of this 5-part series, we will look at Chapter 10 within ICD-10-CM—J00-J99—Diseases of the Respiratory System. There is no possible way to include every guideline or coding reference for this chapter, but here are some of the most common issues.
For Part 3 of this 5 part series, we will look at Chapter 9 within ICD-10-CM—I00-I99—Diseases of the Circulatory System. This chapter contains so many of the everyday diagnoses that we code such as hypertension, heart disease and stroke.
For Part 2 of this 5-part series, we will look at Chapter 1 within ICD-10-CM—A00-B99—Certain Infectious and Parasitic Diseases. There is no possible way to include every guideline or coding reference for this chapter, but here are some of the most common issues.
For Part 1 of this 5-part series, we will look at Chapter 21 within ICD-10-CM—Z00-Z99—Factors influencing health status and contact with health services. There is no possible way to include every guideline or coding reference for this chapter, but I’ll do my best to touch on some off the most common issues.
The HIM world has been buzzing recently with discussion of “Social Determinants of Health” and coded data. What does this mean for coders and the HIM field?
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is in process of developing a new code for the COVID-19 (coronavirus) that will be released October 1, 2020. In the meantime, the CDC has provided advice on coding the COVID-19 coronavirus.
We’re finally at the #1 most common DRG with recommendations by HIA for 2019. Just to recap, HIA reviewed over 50,000 inpatient records in 2019. Most have probably already guessed what the correct DRG would be with the most recommendations. There are just some diagnoses and DRG’s that will always be a thorn in the side for coders. #1 DRG with the most recommendations during HIA reviews : DRG 871—Septicemia or severe sepsis w/o mechanical ventilation >96 hours with MCC
We’re now at the second most common DRG with recommendations by HIA for 2019. Just to recap, HIA reviewed over 50,000 inpatient records in 2019. We are counting down to # 1. #2 DRG with the most recommendations during HIA reviews: DRG 872—Septicemia or severe sepsis w/o mechanical ventilation >96 hours w/o MCC.
In 2019, HIA reviewed over 50,000 inpatient records. Wow! That is a lot of records. Even with this large number of records, the DRG’s with recommendations are still the ones that coders typically see during audits. #3 DRG 190—Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with MCC.
In 2019, HIA reviewed over 50,000 inpatient records. Wow! That is a lot of records. Even with this large number of records, the DRG’s with recommendations are still the ones that coders typically see during audits. #4 is DRG 193—Simple pneumonia & pleurisy with MCC.
In 2019, HIA reviewed over 50,000 inpatient records. Wow! That is a lot of records. Even with this large number of records, the DRG’s with recommendations are still the ones that coders typically see during audits. #5 DRG with the most recommendations during HIA reviews : DRG 853—Infectious & Parasitic diseases with O.R. procedure with MCC