The impact of conversion to International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision (ICD-10) on an academic ophthalmology practice

Justin B. Hellman, Michele C Lim, Karen Y. Leung, Cameron M. Blount, Glenn C Yiu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To determine the financial and clinical impact of conversion from International Classification of Disease, 9th revision (ICD-9) to ICD-10 coding. Design: Retrospective, database study. Materials and methods: Monthly billing and coding data from 44,564 billable patient encounters at an academic ophthalmology practice were analyzed by subspecialty in the 1-year periods before (October 1, 2014, to September 30, 2015) and after (October 1, 2015, to September 30, 2016) conversion from ICD-9 to ICD-10. Main outcomes and measures: Primary outcome measures were payments per visit, relative value units per visit, number of visits, and percentage of high-level visits; secondary measures were denials due to coding errors, charges denied due to coding errors, and percentage of unspecified codes used as a primary diagnosis code. Results: Conversion to ICD-10 did not significantly impact payments per visit ($306.56±$56.50 vs $321.43±$38.12, P=0.42), relative value units per visit (7.15±0.56 vs 7.13±0.84, P=0.95), mean volume of visits (1,887.08±375.02 vs 1,863.83±189.81, P=0.71), or percentage of high-level visits (29.7%±4.9%, 548 of 1,881 vs 30.0%±1.7%, 558 of 1,864, P=0.81). For every 100 visits, the number of coding-related denials increased from 0.98±0.60 to 1.84±0.31 (PC0.001), and denied charges increased from $307.42±$443.39 to $660.86±$239.47 (P=0.002). The monthly percentage of unspecified codes used increased from 25.8%±1.1% (485 of 1,881) to 35.0%±2.3% (653 of 1,864, P<0.001). Conclusion: The conversion to ICD-10 did not impact overall revenue or clinical volume in this practice setting, but coding-related denials, denied charges, and the use of unspecified codes increased significantly. We expect these denials to increase in the next year in the absence of Medicare's 1-year grace period.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)949-956
Number of pages8
JournalClinical Ophthalmology
Volume12
DOIs
StatePublished - May 18 2018

Fingerprint

International Classification of Diseases
Ophthalmology
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Medicare
Retrospective Studies
Databases

Keywords

  • Clinical coding
  • Electronic health records
  • ICD International Classification of Diseases
  • ICD-10
  • ICD-9
  • Medical records
  • Ophthalmology
  • Reimbursement

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

The impact of conversion to International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision (ICD-10) on an academic ophthalmology practice. / Hellman, Justin B.; Lim, Michele C; Leung, Karen Y.; Blount, Cameron M.; Yiu, Glenn C.

In: Clinical Ophthalmology, Vol. 12, 18.05.2018, p. 949-956.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{2fbf861817ff4c33a0929dc3a6f8fc67,
title = "The impact of conversion to International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision (ICD-10) on an academic ophthalmology practice",
abstract = "Purpose: To determine the financial and clinical impact of conversion from International Classification of Disease, 9th revision (ICD-9) to ICD-10 coding. Design: Retrospective, database study. Materials and methods: Monthly billing and coding data from 44,564 billable patient encounters at an academic ophthalmology practice were analyzed by subspecialty in the 1-year periods before (October 1, 2014, to September 30, 2015) and after (October 1, 2015, to September 30, 2016) conversion from ICD-9 to ICD-10. Main outcomes and measures: Primary outcome measures were payments per visit, relative value units per visit, number of visits, and percentage of high-level visits; secondary measures were denials due to coding errors, charges denied due to coding errors, and percentage of unspecified codes used as a primary diagnosis code. Results: Conversion to ICD-10 did not significantly impact payments per visit ($306.56±$56.50 vs $321.43±$38.12, P=0.42), relative value units per visit (7.15±0.56 vs 7.13±0.84, P=0.95), mean volume of visits (1,887.08±375.02 vs 1,863.83±189.81, P=0.71), or percentage of high-level visits (29.7{\%}±4.9{\%}, 548 of 1,881 vs 30.0{\%}±1.7{\%}, 558 of 1,864, P=0.81). For every 100 visits, the number of coding-related denials increased from 0.98±0.60 to 1.84±0.31 (PC0.001), and denied charges increased from $307.42±$443.39 to $660.86±$239.47 (P=0.002). The monthly percentage of unspecified codes used increased from 25.8{\%}±1.1{\%} (485 of 1,881) to 35.0{\%}±2.3{\%} (653 of 1,864, P<0.001). Conclusion: The conversion to ICD-10 did not impact overall revenue or clinical volume in this practice setting, but coding-related denials, denied charges, and the use of unspecified codes increased significantly. We expect these denials to increase in the next year in the absence of Medicare's 1-year grace period.",
keywords = "Clinical coding, Electronic health records, ICD International Classification of Diseases, ICD-10, ICD-9, Medical records, Ophthalmology, Reimbursement",
author = "Hellman, {Justin B.} and Lim, {Michele C} and Leung, {Karen Y.} and Blount, {Cameron M.} and Yiu, {Glenn C}",
year = "2018",
month = "5",
day = "18",
doi = "10.2147/OPTH.S161742",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "12",
pages = "949--956",
journal = "Clinical Ophthalmology",
issn = "1177-5467",
publisher = "Dove Medical Press Ltd.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The impact of conversion to International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision (ICD-10) on an academic ophthalmology practice

AU - Hellman, Justin B.

AU - Lim, Michele C

AU - Leung, Karen Y.

AU - Blount, Cameron M.

AU - Yiu, Glenn C

PY - 2018/5/18

Y1 - 2018/5/18

N2 - Purpose: To determine the financial and clinical impact of conversion from International Classification of Disease, 9th revision (ICD-9) to ICD-10 coding. Design: Retrospective, database study. Materials and methods: Monthly billing and coding data from 44,564 billable patient encounters at an academic ophthalmology practice were analyzed by subspecialty in the 1-year periods before (October 1, 2014, to September 30, 2015) and after (October 1, 2015, to September 30, 2016) conversion from ICD-9 to ICD-10. Main outcomes and measures: Primary outcome measures were payments per visit, relative value units per visit, number of visits, and percentage of high-level visits; secondary measures were denials due to coding errors, charges denied due to coding errors, and percentage of unspecified codes used as a primary diagnosis code. Results: Conversion to ICD-10 did not significantly impact payments per visit ($306.56±$56.50 vs $321.43±$38.12, P=0.42), relative value units per visit (7.15±0.56 vs 7.13±0.84, P=0.95), mean volume of visits (1,887.08±375.02 vs 1,863.83±189.81, P=0.71), or percentage of high-level visits (29.7%±4.9%, 548 of 1,881 vs 30.0%±1.7%, 558 of 1,864, P=0.81). For every 100 visits, the number of coding-related denials increased from 0.98±0.60 to 1.84±0.31 (PC0.001), and denied charges increased from $307.42±$443.39 to $660.86±$239.47 (P=0.002). The monthly percentage of unspecified codes used increased from 25.8%±1.1% (485 of 1,881) to 35.0%±2.3% (653 of 1,864, P<0.001). Conclusion: The conversion to ICD-10 did not impact overall revenue or clinical volume in this practice setting, but coding-related denials, denied charges, and the use of unspecified codes increased significantly. We expect these denials to increase in the next year in the absence of Medicare's 1-year grace period.

AB - Purpose: To determine the financial and clinical impact of conversion from International Classification of Disease, 9th revision (ICD-9) to ICD-10 coding. Design: Retrospective, database study. Materials and methods: Monthly billing and coding data from 44,564 billable patient encounters at an academic ophthalmology practice were analyzed by subspecialty in the 1-year periods before (October 1, 2014, to September 30, 2015) and after (October 1, 2015, to September 30, 2016) conversion from ICD-9 to ICD-10. Main outcomes and measures: Primary outcome measures were payments per visit, relative value units per visit, number of visits, and percentage of high-level visits; secondary measures were denials due to coding errors, charges denied due to coding errors, and percentage of unspecified codes used as a primary diagnosis code. Results: Conversion to ICD-10 did not significantly impact payments per visit ($306.56±$56.50 vs $321.43±$38.12, P=0.42), relative value units per visit (7.15±0.56 vs 7.13±0.84, P=0.95), mean volume of visits (1,887.08±375.02 vs 1,863.83±189.81, P=0.71), or percentage of high-level visits (29.7%±4.9%, 548 of 1,881 vs 30.0%±1.7%, 558 of 1,864, P=0.81). For every 100 visits, the number of coding-related denials increased from 0.98±0.60 to 1.84±0.31 (PC0.001), and denied charges increased from $307.42±$443.39 to $660.86±$239.47 (P=0.002). The monthly percentage of unspecified codes used increased from 25.8%±1.1% (485 of 1,881) to 35.0%±2.3% (653 of 1,864, P<0.001). Conclusion: The conversion to ICD-10 did not impact overall revenue or clinical volume in this practice setting, but coding-related denials, denied charges, and the use of unspecified codes increased significantly. We expect these denials to increase in the next year in the absence of Medicare's 1-year grace period.

KW - Clinical coding

KW - Electronic health records

KW - ICD International Classification of Diseases

KW - ICD-10

KW - ICD-9

KW - Medical records

KW - Ophthalmology

KW - Reimbursement

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85048005772&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85048005772&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2147/OPTH.S161742

DO - 10.2147/OPTH.S161742

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85048005772

VL - 12

SP - 949

EP - 956

JO - Clinical Ophthalmology

JF - Clinical Ophthalmology

SN - 1177-5467

ER -