I have 48 providers; about 1/3 of them simply will NOT document specifically now because ICD9 does not encourage it. (See 729.5) My ever present thorn in the side is diabetic manifestations.... 250.60 is not diabetic peripheral neuropathy, Dr.!
I believe that ICD10 actually will help providers in their selection of specific codes; we just won't have that benefit for 18 MORE months at least
So you know EXACTLY what I am talking about.
The provider I currently work for is also bad about specificity in documentation...and again, this is because ICD-9 does not encourage or even really require it.
ICD-10 is going to FORCE this specificity.
The way I'm looking at this is that I now have another year to train my providers to document in the manner needed.
Just today, I showed my doctor how Gout, which has about 11 codes in ICD-9 is going to have about 340 codes in ICD-10.
And I showed him the level of specificity needed.
For the example of Gout, we need
First, is it Chronic or not?
Second, if Chronic, is it with or without tophus?
Third, is it idiopathic, lead-induced, drug-induced, due to renal impairment, or other secondary gout?
Fourth, need to know which body part is affected - foot/ankle, knee, hip, hand, wrist, elbow, shoulder, vertebrae...and then
Fifth, if applicable, need to know if it is right-side or left-side.
ICD-9 lets you get away with 274.9 - Gout, NOS.
Not so, ICD-10.
So, getting providers up to - and in the habit of - precise documentation...is a very important part of ICD-10.
Me, I could care less if my provider knows the code numbers...frankly, that's my job anyway.
But it IS his job to give me the information I need in order to code correctly.