ICD-10 Coding and Diabetes

Health care providers will start using ICD-10 instead of ICD-9 medical codes on October 1, 2015. This animated video from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) uses diabetes to show how ICD-10 codes improve on ICD-9.
The expanded structure of ICD-10 codes captures more detail about a patient’s condition. For example, unlike ICD-9, ICD-10 codes distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes. ICD-10 diabetes codes describe underlying conditions or causes as well as complications. With ICD-10, important details about a patient’s diabetes can be easily communicated across health care providers and over time.
To find out more about ICD-10, visit www.cms.gov/ICD10.
This video is part of the CMS eHealth University. www.cms.gov/eHe...
We accept comments in the spirit of our comment policy: newmedia.hhs.go...
As well, please view the HHS Privacy Policy: www.hhs.gov/Pri...

[@gwendolynisler7035]

GREAT video, helps to better understand the significance of each digit's value in the coding process.

[@nnzfmly]

"Using ICD-10, doctors will capture much more information, meaning they can better understand important details about a patient's health than with ICD-9."
This is simply NOT a logical sentence. The "data capturing" part of the visit has nothing to do with doctors understanding their patient's health better. (That is done by talking to the patient, which we already do.) I am not aware of ANY data showing that coding to a greater level of specificity equates to better care for my patient.

[@nicoleauroux]

I believe the bottom line is that you code to what you are treating, or the reason for the visit, lab or medication. It isn't necessary to code every manifestation of diabetes if you aren't addressing that manifestation or if it is not of clinical significance.

[@eileenkcarpenter9217]

It hasn't improved anything, if I still need to have multiple entries in my problem list for a patient with diabetes with the very common combination of proteinuria, azotemia, peripheral neuropathy, background retinopathy, and coronary artery disease. It's not more detailed if you can pretty much do a 1:1 matching of old and new diabetes codes. Give me one code that includes everything, so I can have a problem list that is less than 20 items long for a diabetic.
All the change seems to provide very little improvement in specificity. Take multiple sclerosis: Everything from transient intranuclear ophthalmoplegia to quadripareses is all G35, just like it was all one code before.
How about prostate cancer? Everything from a unilateral nodule with a Gleason score of 4 to a bilateral tumor with a Gleason score of 9 and mets to the spine with spinal cord compression is still C61, just like it was all one code before. All the additional complications still need additional codes, just like ICD 9. They're just different numbers, but pretty much interchangeable with the old ones.
While this means a lot of the hand-wringing over ICD-10 is probably overplayed (except for folks like orthopedists who will actually have to code new information like right/left side), it also seems like it provides very little improvement in data management considering the amount of hassle with the changeover.

[@gem5483]

Does anyone know what software was used to create this video?

[@zippyflu]

I love this video! What program was used to create this?

[@ToddNorden]

Measurement of value of care - not volume - is where healthcare will be headed, will it not? The measurement of value can't be done using vague, unspecific codes from 36 years ago.

[@uw3ikbiybgrygbr54yiy]

This video actually appeared as an advertisement on TH-cam!

[@medicalbillingandcodingedu9103]

Great animated video! Thanks! Sharing it on my page facebook.com/medicalbillingandcodingonline