The code assignment is not based on clinical criteria used by the provider to establish the diagnosis.
Referring to the contentious ICD-10-CM Guideline I.A.19, which indicates that assignment of a diagnosis code is based on the provider’s diagnostic statement that a condition exists, Erica Remer, MD said during Tuesday’s Talk-Ten-Tuesdays broadcast that it is frequently bandied about as the reason why coders code diagnoses: because the doctor said so.
“I hypothesize that the Guideline’s true purpose was to prohibit coders from assigning codes to conditions (that) might be inferred from clinical indicators and criteria, instead requiring the provider to make a definitive (or uncertain), explicit declaration of the condition,” Remer said.
“Is a potassium of 6.9 hyperkalemia?” Remer asked. “It may be; the level is high enough to satisfy the diagnosis of hyperkalemia, but are there extenuating circumstances (that) would deter the provider from drawing that conclusion? Is the specimen hemolyzed in a patient with normal renal function, on no meds prone to causing hyperkalemia?”
“It requires a clinician to use their clinical judgment to make the determination of the significance of the elevated potassium,” Remer added. “A coder can’t, and may not, just compare to the normal range and conclude and code that the patient has a medical condition, based on the value.”
Remer also noted, however, that if a provider makes a diagnosis using their medical judgment, the coder shouldn’t discount it if “the patient didn’t read the textbook.” Remer said that if a clinician believes a patient has bacterial endocarditis, but doesn’t tick off enough major and minor criteria to meet the formal definition of infectious endocarditis, the coder should not reject the diagnosis out of hand; she noted that the best practice is for the provider to explain their thought process.
“When I read guideline I.A.19, I wonder to myself, ‘the fact that the provider said it may be sufficient … does that mean it is mandatory to code it?’” Remer asked rhetorically. “Even the most seasoned medical coder is not a clinician. If said coder, or perhaps a less experienced coder, questions whether the diagnosis is really present or not, wouldn’t you imagine that an auditor or a lawyer might be wondering the same thing?”
Remer said clinical validation is an ever-expanding issue. The reality is that the only one who can affirm that a diagnosis is clinically valid is a provider who has personally evaluated the patient.
“The rest of us are going on what is recorded in the chart,” Remer said. “If we have a concern about clinical validity, what we really have is a concern that the documentation as it stands does not seem to support the diagnosis offered.”
Remer told Talk-Ten-Tuesdays listeners that if coders or clinical documentation integrity specialists (CDISs) have a question about whether a diagnosis is legitimate, they may be permitted to code it in accordance with Guideline I.A.19, but this doesn’t mean they should or have to. The wisest approach, Remer said, is to generate a clinical validation query and have the provider either confirm the diagnosis and beef up their documentation or remove the diagnosis because it isn’t present.
During the Talk-Ten-Tuesdays broadcast, a listener asked if it is incorrect to code the condition documented by the provider. There wasn’t enough time to address it on air, but Remer said afterwards that according to the Guideline, it is sufficient simply to code the condition. However, if the coder/CDIS knows the condition to not be present and codes it anyway, that would not be compliant coding.
“At (the) very least, you would be risking a denial down the road, and at worst, you would be submitting a false claim,” Remer responded. “That is a big no-no called ‘fraud.’ Don’t do that! If you are unsure, a clinical validation query is indicated.”
The listener further asked if it is a clinical documentation integrity (CDI) issue, a coder issue, or both. Remer’s answer is that whoever recognizes that there is a clinical validity issue should initiate their institution’s clinical validation process.
“We want the documentation and the codes to be accurately depicting the patient encounter,” Remer cautioned. “Don’t let Guideline I.A.19 prevent you from getting to the truth,” she added.
This week Blue Cross Blue Shield published an article titled “Study suggests AI is boosting hospital billing.” The study was based on data analyzed by
Hospitals often approach clinical documentation integrity (CDI) and utilization review (UR) as separate operational functions. CDI teams focus on ensuring that documentation accurately reflects patient
Please log in to your account to comment on this article.
Sepsis sequencing continues to challenge even experienced coding and CDI professionals, with evolving guidelines, documentation gaps, and payer scrutiny driving denials and data inconsistencies. In this webcast, Payal Sinha, MBA, RHIA, CCDS, CDIP, CCS, CCS-P, CCDS-O, CRC, CRCR, provides clear guideline-based strategies to accurately code sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock, assign POA indicators, clarify the relationship between infection and organ dysfunction, and align documentation across teams. Attendees will gain practical tools to strengthen audit defensibility, improve first-pass accuracy, support appeal success, reduce denials, and ensure accurate quality reporting, empowering organizations to achieve consistent, compliant sepsis coding outcomes.
Expert presenters Kathy Pride, RHIT, CPC, CCS-P, CPMA, and Brandi Russell, RHIA, CCS, COC, CPMA, break down complex fracture care coding rules, walk through correct modifier application (-25, -57, 54, 55), and clarify sequencing for initial and subsequent encounters. Attendees will gain the practical knowledge needed to submit clean claims, ensure compliance, and stay one step ahead of payer audits in 2026.
Accurately determining the principal diagnosis is critical for compliant billing, appropriate reimbursement, and valid quality reporting — yet it remains one of the most subjective and error-prone areas in inpatient coding. In this expert-led session, Cheryl Ericson, RN, MS, CCDS, CDIP, demystifies the complexities of principal diagnosis assignment, bridging the gap between coding rules and clinical reality. Learn how to strengthen your organization’s coding accuracy, reduce denials, and ensure your documentation supports true medical necessity.
Denials continue to delay reimbursement, increase administrative burden, and threaten financial stability across healthcare organizations. This essential webcast tackles the root causes—rising payer scrutiny, fragmented workflows, inconsistent documentation, and underused analytics—and offers proven, data-driven strategies to prevent and overturn denials. Attendees will gain practical tools to strengthen documentation and coding accuracy, engage clinicians effectively, and leverage predictive analytics and AI to identify risks before they impact revenue. Through real-world case examples and actionable guidance, this session empowers coding, CDI, and revenue cycle professionals to shift from reactive appeals to proactive denial prevention and revenue protection.
Federal auditors are intensifying their focus on inpatient psychiatric facilities, using advanced data analytics to spotlight outliers and pursue high‑dollar repayments. In this high‑impact webcast, Michael Calahan, PA, MBA, Compliance Officer and V.P., Hospital & Physician Compliance, breaks down what regulators are really targeting in IPF-PPS admissions, documentation, treatment and discharge planning. Attendees will learn practical steps to tighten processes, avoid common audit triggers and protect reimbursement and reduce the risk of multimillion-dollar repayment demands.
In this timely session, Stacey Shillito, CDIP, CPMA, CCS, CCS-P, CPEDC, COPC, breaks down the complexities of Medical Decision Making (MDM) documentation so providers can confidently capture the true complexity of their care. Attendees will learn practical, efficient strategies to ensure documentation aligns with current E/M guidelines, supports accurate coding, and reduces audit risk, all without adding to charting time.
Join Ronald Hirsch, MD, FACP, CHCQM for The PEPPER Returns – Risk and Opportunity at Your Fingertips, a practical webcast that demystifies the PEPPER and shows you how to turn complex claims data into actionable insights. Dr. Hirsch will explain how to interpret key measures, identify compliance risks, uncover missed revenue opportunities, and understand new updates in the PEPPER, all to help your organization stay ahead of audits and use this powerful data proactively.
Stay ahead of the 2026-2027 audit surge with “Top 10 Audit Targets for 2026-2027 for Hospitals & Physicians: Protect Your Revenue,” a high-impact webcast led by Michael Calahan, PA, MBA. This concise session gives hospitals and physicians clear insight into the most likely federal audit targets, such as E/M services, split/shared and critical care, observation and admissions, device credits, and Two-Midnight Rule changes, and shows how to tighten documentation, coding, and internal processes to reduce denials, recoupments, and penalties. Attendees walk away with practical best practices to protect revenue, strengthen compliance, and better prepare their teams for inevitable audits.
Prepare for the 2025 CMS IPPS Final Rule with ICD10monitor’s IPPSPalooza! Click HERE to learn more
Get 15% OFF on all educational webcasts at ICD10monitor with code JULYFOURTH24 until July 4, 2024—start learning today!
CYBER WEEK IS HERE! Don’t miss your chance to get 20% off now until Dec. 1 with code CYBER25
CYBER WEEK IS HERE! Don’t miss your chance to get 20% off now until Dec. 2 with code CYBER24
