I'd agree with this.
Generally, I tend to code as I have learned to code...and when a specific insurance company tells me they want something coded a specific way - in order for them to pay - as long as it does not misrepresent the patient's diagnosis or the doctor's treatment, I just plain flat do it for that one claim and move on...continuing to code as I have always done on all future claims - unless I get the same situation with the same insurance company.
It can be daunting to keep a ton of notes about what each different insurance company wants, so, if you can't keep up with them, don't sweat it, code as you normally would, and make corrections when requested by insurance companies to get your doctor paid - as long as such changes do not misrepresent the diagnosis or the treatment performed.
I tend to keep a little online notebook with tabs for each insurance company, and I add to it whenever I learn something new about a specific insurance company's procedures. I happened across the program back when I was a transcriptionist - it is called Little Red Notebook. I have found it can be used for our purposes too. The program costs $19.95 to buy, but there's a free version, too...with fewer available tabs - the developer is Horus Development. The free version should probably provide you with enough tabs to document your different insurance company's quirks. I think the free version gives you five tabs, the paid version gives you 100.
Hope that helps! It's good if you can have some quick-reference notes available about certain insurance company's quirks, so that when you run across the situation again, you can do accordingly. Anything that can expedite the processing on a claim is a good thing, from our perspective...so long as it does not compromise the integrity of what we are doing (by, for example, misrepresenting services rendered or diagnoses made)
This is a similar situation with doctors. Some doctors call for things which technically should not go together, but, in the end, we are not doctors and cannot diagnose. I have one doctor who ROUTINELY codes 401.9 with 796.2 - even though the definition of 796.2 precludes 401.9 - however, if the doctor diagnoses it - I am going to code it. Never had a claim rejected or pended for having 401.9 and 796.2 - but it is not technically correct coding to have both.