Free EMR Newsletter Want to receive the latest news on EMR, Meaningful Use, ARRA and Healthcare IT sent straight to your email? Join thousands of healthcare pros who subscribe to EMR and HIPAA for FREE!!

Why Do People Find ICD-10 So Amusing?

Posted on April 2, 2014 I Written By

In case you missed the news, ICD-10 has been delayed a year. It’s likely that we’ll be taking a break from talking about ICD-10 for the next 6-10 months. However, before we put ICD-10 on the shelf, you might want to read two opposing arguments for and against ICD-10: The Forgotten Argument For ICD-10 and Why ICD-10? Plus, below is a guest blog post by Heidi Kollmorgen, Founder of HD Medical Solutions, putting some perspective on where we’re at with coding. She has some good insights I hadn’t heard before. I’ll probably wrap up this series on ICD-10 with a look at what organizations should do now that ICD-10’s been delayed.
Heidi Kollmorgen
Many people who don’t understand the value of ICD-10 go straight to the “humorous codes” as a reason to justify delaying its implementation or even not adopting it at all. Does anyone realize those codes only make up 67 of the 1583 pages of the 2014 Draft Set?

Those seemingly “useless” codes are stated in the ICD-10 Chapter 21 Guidelines as having “no national requirement for mandatory ICD-10-CM external cause code reporting”. External Causes of Morbidity codes “are intended to provide data for injury research and evaluation of injury prevention strategies” only.

The *real* ICD-10 codes are more specific and allow greater accuracy for clinical data purposes. Many would agree that patient safety and effective and timely patient-centered care are the goal of most healthcare providers. Clinical data gathered and analyzed is what allows this to be achieved and ICD-10 codes are critical for more accurate analysis (1).

ICD-9 was adopted and went “live” in 1979 – how many advances has medicine made since that time? The ICD-9 code set does not allow doctors to accurately identify how they are treating patients any longer, nor does it allow accurate reporting of the services they provide to their patients. In 2003 the NCVHS recommended the adoption of ICD-10 and fourteen years later providers still claim they haven’t had time to prepare (2).

Doctors and other healthcare professionals who choose to take advantage of the daily barrage of free ICD-10 training and education from CMS and countless other sources for themselves and their staff will not go out of business. Providers who recognize that hiring an educated and/or certified medical biller/coder is an investment with huge ROI potential.

Those individuals have the training and ability to prevent and decrease denials and rejected claims from the onset when the claims are initially prepared. They also understand the intricacies of carrier guidelines so providers who hire them will never go out of business or suffer from decreased cash flow, rather their reimbursement would improve and they would also be compliant.

The days of hiring your neighbors daughter or friend because they need a job, or because they like working with numbers are over. It shouldn’t be impossible to understand how saving money in overhead and payroll only costs you infinitely more in lost reimbursement. Is the irony lost in correlating the profession of Health Information Management to Nursing? In the history of medicine it was only in the last one hundred or so years that licensing of nurses went into law. Would any doctor today work with an unlicensed or inexperienced person who claimed to be a nurse? Would any hospital or facility hire someone who applied for a nursing position only because they liked working with people? That’s basically how the profession of nursing began.

In regards to the opinion held by many how ICD-10 codes are outlandish I would agree in some cases. I have a wicked sense of humor and because I know the codes I could create funnier cartoons than any you have come across. The difference is that coders understand how that argument holds no merit and only proves how providers don’t even understand ICD-9-CM. Unfortunately, most are probably using it incorrectly as well and it may be one of the causes of low reimbursement.

Just in case you see a patient today who is a water skier and has an accident while jumping from a burning ship use ICD-9-CM E8304. Have a patient who was knocked down by an animal-drawn vehicle while riding a bike? There’s a code for that too – ICD-9-CM E827.

The good news is how the Guidelines for ICD-9-CM patient encounters are similar to ICD-10-CM for these types of codes. If you don’t typically use them now you won’t when ICD-10 goes into effect either. Providers who document what they did, why they did it and what they plan to do do about it will have no problem switching to ICD-10. Aren’t we lucky nothing has changed about that?

Heidi Kollmorgen is the founder of HD Medical Solutions which offers practice management services for solo and multi-physician groups. She holds AHIMA certifications and is dedicated to optimizing reimbursement by following compliant measures. She can be found at or follow her on Twitter @HDMed4u.

CCHIT Admits to Being a Marketing Tool and Not Up for Task of ARRA

Posted on May 7, 2009 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of and John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

In a recent post on the CCHIT website, they have the written testimony on electronic health records and “meaningful use” that CCHIT submitted to the NCVHS. Here’s a quote from that written testimony:

During our initial years, certification served as a confidence-booster for providers concerned about buying EHRs that lacked the needed functionality, security, and interoperability. Financial incentives for EHRs then began to emerge, but they pale in comparison to the bold goals and nationwide scale of the Recovery Act.

I love that CCHIT’s noble goals in the beginning were to be a “confidence-booster” for those purchasing an EHR. Sounds like a nice big marketing tool to me. I’m just really happy that they’re finally open to admit that was the goal of the certification. There’s no doubt that CCHIT has done a great job selling itself as a way for doctors to trust their EHR vendor more than they would have otherwise.

It’s just unfortunate, that CCHIT hasn’t done any reporting on how effective their certification has done for those EHR that have certified. You’d hope that having this certification would mean that certified EHR users would have more “functionality, security, and interoperability.” At least for now, I have yet to see any data that confirms this notion. In fact, I hear some noise that it could be the opposite. Possibly why we haven’t seen any of this data?

Now, for the real kicker. Here’s a second part of the statement by CCHIT for the NCVHS:

Certification must step up to fulfill a more strategic role, serving not only to reduce risks, but as a dynamic coupling mechanism between advancing policies and the real-world development, marketing, adoption, and use of health IT.

A noble and important goal. I just personally don’t see any EHR certification being able to achieve that goal.