Has anyone figured on a way to make a paper superbill for Family Practice (or any other Specialty for that matter) with ICD-10 Coding that isn't nine pages long?
This is what I have been working on so far, as a solution - since I am dealing with a doctor who is reluctant to give up paper superbills.
I have identified the 35 most common, and easiest to report ICD-10 codes we use...for example, Hypertension is going to be I10 - and there is little differentiation in the coding on this, unless you are changing from benign to malignant hypertension...and the doctor could note this in the case of Malignant.
For other codes, that require a designation for Dextral/Sinistral/Bilateral we just put the base code on the Superbill, with place for a checkmark to indicate Dextral/Sinistral/Bilateral.
We also have each ICD-10 code preceded by a small line, so that doctor can designate order of Diagnoses 1-4.
We also have blank Diagnosis boxes for diagnoses not listed on the superbill itself, but which are still common. for those codes, my doctor's office will be provided, by me, a binder which lists all these diagnoses and their correct codes...and the doctor can write in the code needed.
And for those cases where the doctor is using a diagnosis not on the superbill or my binder, he can just write out the diagnosis and I will then determine the correct coding.
This still allows for a one-page Superbill, and a permanent binder listing all the codes (it makes absolutely no sense to list all the codes on a superbill and have nine page long superbills.) this is the only way I could come up with to keep Superbills at one page.
Anyone else have any other ideas which could work?
Or is this idea the best we can do?
Fortunately, ICD-10 seems to be fairly consistent with it's codes for designating right versus left and bilateral or unspecified. Likewise, on the Superbill model I am proposing here, we would have to have some IDC-10 Codes with a checkmark available to indicate Initial Encounter versus Subsequent Encounter versus Seculae.
Hey is it just me or are you glad that they aren't changing the CPT codes, too??
This is Y2K for the healthcare industry for sure!
This is what I have been working on so far, as a solution - since I am dealing with a doctor who is reluctant to give up paper superbills.
I have identified the 35 most common, and easiest to report ICD-10 codes we use...for example, Hypertension is going to be I10 - and there is little differentiation in the coding on this, unless you are changing from benign to malignant hypertension...and the doctor could note this in the case of Malignant.
For other codes, that require a designation for Dextral/Sinistral/Bilateral we just put the base code on the Superbill, with place for a checkmark to indicate Dextral/Sinistral/Bilateral.
We also have each ICD-10 code preceded by a small line, so that doctor can designate order of Diagnoses 1-4.
We also have blank Diagnosis boxes for diagnoses not listed on the superbill itself, but which are still common. for those codes, my doctor's office will be provided, by me, a binder which lists all these diagnoses and their correct codes...and the doctor can write in the code needed.
And for those cases where the doctor is using a diagnosis not on the superbill or my binder, he can just write out the diagnosis and I will then determine the correct coding.
This still allows for a one-page Superbill, and a permanent binder listing all the codes (it makes absolutely no sense to list all the codes on a superbill and have nine page long superbills.) this is the only way I could come up with to keep Superbills at one page.
Anyone else have any other ideas which could work?
Or is this idea the best we can do?
Fortunately, ICD-10 seems to be fairly consistent with it's codes for designating right versus left and bilateral or unspecified. Likewise, on the Superbill model I am proposing here, we would have to have some IDC-10 Codes with a checkmark available to indicate Initial Encounter versus Subsequent Encounter versus Seculae.
Hey is it just me or are you glad that they aren't changing the CPT codes, too??
This is Y2K for the healthcare industry for sure!
Last edited: