My question is this, why would you not code something that was documented. I am a graduating student from Everest University and one thing that has been instilled in all of the billing and coding students is that if it isn't documented it isn't coded. That was a specific diagnosis, and yes it seems to be a symptom for a condition, however, it was a presenting problem upon the entrance of the outpatient visit. So wouldn't or shouldn't it be coded, the code according to my ICD-9-CM 2010 edition states that the congestion code should have been 786.9.
I am just a student graduating and haven't had any hands on experience yet, because my externship hasn't started, however, I had some very good instructors that have been in this field for many years and I trust their guidence. Another things that stops me from knowing exactly why you are looking at the record this way is because I can't see what you see. Nonetheless, coding for the congestion just makes sense to me, I wouldn't code my diagnosis based on the procedure (Pathology test), I would code according to physician's specification and written documentation, unless other wise informed ( correctly informed that is).
- ICD-10 Trainings
- Comprehensive Courses
- CPC (Certified Professional Coder)
- COC (Certified Outpatient Coder)
- CIC (Certified Inpatient Coder) NEW!
- CRC (Certified Risk Adjustment Coder) NEW!
- CPB (Certified Professional Biller)
- CPMA (Certified Professional Medical Auditor)
- CDEO (Certified Documentation Expert – Outpatient) NEW!
- CPPM (Certified Physician Practice Manager)
- CPCO (Certified Professional Compliance Officer)
- VIEW ALL CERTIFICATIONS
Coding / Billing Solutions
- Audit / Compliance Solutions
Job Experience / Apprentice Removal
News / Discussion
- Other Resources
- Book Store
- Log In / Join