No one likes the "with" mess
When it comes to DM and CKD, "with" indicates there is a presumed causal relationship. The thought process for this guideline is that, more often than not, if a patient has both DM and CKD, they are related to one another. It's kind of like using DM2 as a default when the type is unknown. This is because MOST people have type 2.
But in your case, it would be incorrect to apply that logic. That would be like saying that, more often than not, if a patient is diagnosed with alcohol abuse and has anxiety, those conditions are related.
More importantly, when you follow the look-up in the index and get your code, you need to ask yourself if the code descriptor is accurate to your situation. So for Abuse>Alcohol (non-dependent)>with>anxiety disorder, you're directed to F10.180. The descriptor for F10.180 states "Alcohol abuse with
alcohol-induced anxiety disorder". Did the provider document that the alcohol abuse created, or was the cause of, the anxiety disorder? If so, then F10.180 would be correct. If not, then F10.180 would not be correct and each condition would be coded separately.
For PTSD, thinking logically about it, it would be
very unlikely that alcohol abuse would induce PTSD. It certainly wouldn't help things, but it would be more likely that the patient is self-medicating with alcohol to treat the PTSD symptoms.
Just skimming through the codes under Abuse>Alcohol (non-dependent)>with>, every code listed has "alcohol-induced" in the descriptor. That would be the key factor here.
F10.14 Alcohol abuse with
alcohol-induced mood disorder
F10.159 Alcohol abuse with
alcohol-induced psychotic disorder, unspecified
F10.182 Alcohol abuse with
alcohol-induced sleep disorder