Sharing insights on assumptive coding
When I was a physician advisor, I used to offer a diabetic Charcot joint as an example of why we must be explicit with linkage.
Years ago, if a provider listed diabetes mellitus and a Charcot joint (neuropathic osteoarthropathy) as concomitant diagnoses without documenting clear linkage, the encoder would lead a coder to a syphilitic Charcot joint. I used to joke with my audiences that this would be quite a revelation to patients and their family members, in this day and age of medical record transparency.
Then a very astute neurologist friend of mine pointed out that I had taught her that the documentation must support the diagnoses. How could we arrive at a syphilitic Charcot joint as a diagnosis if the provider never mentioned syphilis?!
There are many conditions for which providers assume linkage would seem obvious. A query regarding whether I “think there is a relationship between the patient’s tobacco use and COPD,” or whether “the fact that the patient is anticoagulated is affecting their epistaxis” would make me roll my eyes in exasperation. My answer would be, “duh!”
Guideline I. A. 15, allowing presumptive linkage for code titles sporting “with” or “in,” was most welcome. Allow me some liberty in paraphrasing:
The word “with” or “in” (“in” first appeared in the 2018 Guidelines) should be interpreted to mean “associated with” or “due to” when it appears in a code title, the Alphabetic Index, or an instructional note in the Tabular List. The 2019 Guidelines added “either under a main term or subterm” after the Alphabetic Index phrase.
The classification presumes a causal relationship between the two conditions linked by these terms. The conditions are coded as related even in the absence of explicit linkage, unless the documentation clearly states the conditions are unrelated or when there is a superseding guideline demanding explicit linkage (like in sepsis-related organ dysfunction).
Diabetes mellitus is the poster child for this concept. There are many resultant conditions from the endocrinopathy that are overwhelmingly likely to be causally related. It would be the exception to the rule to see retinopathy in a diabetic that is unrelated to the diabetes. It likewise would be unusual to see peripheral neuropathy.
The causal relationship is established by the presence of “with” in the code title. If the condition were not related to the diabetes, the provider would have to make that explicit; otherwise, the relationship is assumed.
Inflammatory bowel diseases have assumptive linkage with rectal bleeding, intestinal obstruction, fistula, and abscess. The code title reads “with.” A perirectal fistula in Crohn’s disease is a result of Crohn’s, unless otherwise specified.
Here are some examples of “in.” If a patient has postpartum hemorrhoids, since the title of the code is “hemorrhoids in the puerperium,” you assume automatic linkage if hemorrhoids are diagnosed in the appropriate timeframe. Pericarditis in systemic lupus erythematosus is considered to be from lupus and coded to M32.12, unless specified as being due to something else.
If a patient has a diagnosis of arsenic poisoning and the manifestation of neuropathy, the indexing leads us to G62.2, Polyneuropathy due to other toxic agents, because the “in” is found in the Alphabetic indexing. The “due to” verbiage is listed in parentheses, making it non-essential.
I can’t take credit for having discovered this next one, which I think you will find very useful. A very astute friend and colleague of mine, Kathy Murchland, pointed this out to me and I am passing it along to you.
Prior to the adjustment in the guidelines, if a provider noted a positive culture in a patient with pneumonia, we would have to query for explicit linkage. We couldn’t presume that the organism was necessarily causal.
However, the Alphabetic Index lists “in (due to)” after the “hypostatic” entry, and then catalogs almost every organism you can imagine. It is our contention that the “with/in” convention renders querying unnecessary. If the provider documents pneumonia and a bacterial (fungal/viral) agent (e.g., pneumonia, cultures positive for E. coli.), these conditions can be inferred as being related; that is, the specific pneumonia would be the correct code. This may land the principal diagnosis into complex pneumonia as opposed to simple pneumonia. This is not gaming the system – it is appropriately representing the patient encounter.
I am sure there are other conditions that I haven’t stumbled across yet. I would love to hear other obscure examples of “with” and “in” linkage. If you have some to share, please email us at cbuck@medlearnmedia.com.
Program Note:
Listen to Dr. Remer every Tuesday on Talk Ten Tuesday, 10 a.m. ET.
As you may recall, last week I critiqued a webinar on the two midnight rule. As you will recall it was not pretty. Today I
As you may recall, last week I defended two payers that faced unwarranted outrage on social media. But if you read my Thursday article, you
Please log in to your account to comment on this article.
Physician queries are essential for accurate documentation and claims data, but they are increasingly scrutinized by payors, leading to denials and revenue leakage. This webcast, led by industry expert Cheryl Ericson, RN, MS, CCDS, CDIP, provides actionable strategies to craft compliant queries, reduce denials, and enhance revenue integrity. Attendees will gain insights into clinical validation queries, how to avoid common pitfalls, and learn best practices to defend against query denials. Don’t miss this opportunity to refine your query process and protect your organization’s financial health.
Master the complexities of heart failure coding with this expert-led webcast by Emily Montemayor, CCS, CMBCS, COC, CPC, CPMA. Discover strategies to ensure compliance with ICD-10-CM guidelines, documentation integrity, and capture comorbidities like CKD and hypertension. Learn how to resolve coding challenges, improve documentation practices, and submit clean claims to minimize denials and safeguard your organization’s financial health. With practical insights and real-world examples, this session equips you to prevent revenue leakage, enhance compliance, and secure optimal reimbursement—all while supporting better patient outcomes.
Prepare your organization for the 2025 OPPS updates with expert insights from Tiffani Bouchard, CCS, CRCR, a Revenue Integrity Professional with over 30 years of experience. This webcast will address critical challenges in charge capture and coding, providing clarity on APC policies, C-APC packaging, exclusions, and payer-specific requirements. Attendees will learn actionable strategies to ensure compliance, optimize reimbursement, and mitigate risks of claim denials. Gain the knowledge needed to implement updates effectively, educate your team, and maintain seamless revenue cycle operations in the face of evolving OPPS complexities.
Join Beth Wolf, MD, CPC, CCDS, for an in-depth webcast on the FY2025 spinal fusion MS-DRG updates. Discover key changes in DRG classification, understand impacts on documentation and CMI, and learn strategies to ensure compliance.
Dr. Ronald Hirsch dives into the basics of Medicare for clinicians to be successful as utilization review professionals. He’ll break down what Medicare does and doesn’t pay for, what services it provides and how hospitals get paid for providing those services – including both inpatient and outpatient. Learn how claims are prepared and how much patients must pay for their care. By attending our webcast, you will gain a new understanding of these issues and be better equipped to talk to patients, to their medical staff, and to their administrative team.
Hospitals face growing challenges in measuring observation metrics due to inconsistencies in classification, payer policies, and benchmarking practices. Join Tiffany Ferguson, LMSW, CMAC, ACM, and Anuja Mohla, DO, FACP, MBA, ACPA-C, CHCQM-PHYADV as they provide critical insights into refining observation metrics. This webcast will address key issues affecting observation data integrity and offer strategies for improving consistency in reporting. You will learn how to define meaningful metrics, clarify commonly misinterpreted terms, and apply best practices for benchmarking, and gain actionable strategies to enhance observation data reliability, mitigate financial risk, and drive better decision-making.
The 2025 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule brings significant changes to payment rates, coverage, and coding for physician services, impacting practices nationwide. Join Stanley Nachimson, MS., as he provides a comprehensive guide to understanding these updates, offering actionable insights on new Medicare-covered services, revised coding rules, and payment policies effective January 1. Learn how to adapt your practices to maintain compliance, maximize reimbursement, and plan for revenue in 2025. Whether you’re a physician, coder, or financial staff member, this session equips you with the tools to navigate Medicare’s evolving requirements confidently and efficiently.
Dr. Ronald Hirsch provides critical details on the new Medicare Appeal Process for Status Changes for patients whose status changes during their hospital stay. He also delves into other scenarios of hospital patients receiving custodial care or medically unnecessary services where patient notifications may be needed along with the processes necessary to ensure compliance with state and federal guidance.
Copyright © 2025 RACmonitor. Powered by MedLearn Media.
Prepare for the 2025 CMS IPPS Final Rule with ICD10monitor’s IPPSPalooza! Click HERE to learn more
Get 15% OFF on all educational webcasts at ICD10monitor with code JULYFOURTH24 until July 4, 2024—start learning today!
CYBER WEEK IS HERE! Don’t miss your chance to get 20% off now until Dec. 2 with code CYBER24
