We use the code-over-code approach recommended by the American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA) publication Benchmarking to Improve Coding Accuracy and Productivity published in 2009.
The code-over-code approach uses the reviewer’s codes as the denominator and the coder’s correct codes as the numerator. There are times when the coder’s correct codes may be 0 and, of course, that will lead to a 0 percent accuracy rating.
Additionally, if the reviewer deducts for codes that the coder should not have assigned, the net number of correct codes assigned by the coder could be a negative. For example, if the coder assigned two symptom codes and one definitive diagnosis code that those symptom codes supported, then the coder had one correct minus two incorrect codes or a negative one.
Although it’s an option, First Class Solutions stopped using a negative numerator. Instead, we use these situations as education moments.
Code-over-code can be used to assess accuracy of present on admission (POA), any subset of codes such as social determinants or health (SDOHs), and other items such as abstracted data elements.
Another approach that’s easier to use and requires less counting is the case-over-case approach that is often used to determine if the correct DRG or APC was attained.
For the DRG or when there is one APC, it’s either a yeah or nay. If there are multiple APCs, then the code-over-code approach can be used.
Case-over-case is also known as the financial accuracy rate when it is used to reflect DRG or APC accuracy. But, we all know you can get the right DRG but not use the most specific code. So, the DRG is right, but the code is wrong.
Bottomline, use code-over-code for coding accuracy and use case-over-case for financial accuracy. If you use case-over-case for coding accuracy, it’s harsh, and doesn’t give the coders credit for their correct codes.
No doubt you’re aware that some coding lives in the grey area. That is, there are some codes that are clearly correct, some that are obviously wrong, but some which are up to the interpretation of the coder.
How does an auditor handle that?
Coding professionals recognize that coders and reviewers may find documentation to support their codes in different and legitimate places. When a coder doesn’t agree with the reviewer, that’s the purpose of the rebuttal phase in any coding review.
One of those situations that’s up to the interpretation of the coder is the option in the Guidelines to choose between two conditions that clearly support the reason for admission and sequence one over the other as the principal. However, most organizations choose the diagnosis that is financially beneficial but that’s not a requirement and we know payers often deny and flip the diagnoses to their advantage.
The driver when we get into situations where there may be some “grey” is to revisit the documentation to see what is truly supported and then follow the hierarchy of “coding rules.”
To paraphrase a quote from the Godfather, take it to the Index and tabular.
Don’t assume your encoder took you down the right path. Go to the book index and tabular and if that comes up with something that doesn’t seem right, go to the Guidelines and the Coding Clinic.
If the documentation is unclear or questionable, take it to the physician with a query.
Finally, if the hierarchy of coding rules map to a diagnosis that just doesn’t tie with the documentation, then there’s the option to petition for a code from the Coordination & Maintenance Committee, which may lead to a Coding Clinic.
Here at MedLearn, we know cardiology coders are the unsung heroes of patient care. Every day, as a cardio coder you navigate complex cardiovascular procedures, including the constantly –changing CPT® and ICD-10-CM
The recent settlement between Kaiser Permanente and the federal government marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over risk-adjustment practices in Medicare Advantage (MA)
Please log in to your account to comment on this article.
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.
Sepsis remains one of the most frequently denied and contested diagnoses, creating costly revenue loss and compliance risks. In this webcast, Angela Comfort, DBA, MBA, RHIA, CDIP, CCS, CCS-P, provides practical, real-world strategies to align documentation with coding guidelines, reconcile Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 definitions, and apply compliant queries. You’ll learn how to identify and address documentation gaps, strengthen provider engagement, and defend diagnoses against payer scrutiny—equipping you to protect reimbursement, improve SOI/ROM capture, and reduce audit vulnerability in this high-risk area.
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.
As AI reshapes healthcare compliance, the risk of biased outputs and opaque decision-making grows. This webcast, led by Frank Cohen, delivers a practical Four-Pillar Governance Framework—Transparency, Accountability, Fairness, and Explainability—to help you govern AI-driven claim auditing with confidence. Learn how to identify and mitigate bias, implement robust human oversight, and document defensible AI review processes that regulators and auditors will accept. Discover concrete remedies, from rotation protocols to uncertainty scoring, and actionable steps to evaluate vendors before contracts are signed. In a regulatory landscape that moves faster than ever, gain the tools to stay compliant, defend your processes, and reduce liability while maintaining operational effectiveness.
Get clear, practical answers to Medicare’s most confusing regulations. Join Dr. Ronald Hirsch as he breaks down real-world compliance challenges and shares guidance your team can apply right away.
Federal auditors are zeroing in on Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) and hospital rehab unit services, with OIG and CERT audits leading to millions in penalties—often due to documentation and administrative errors, not quality of care. Join compliance expert Michael Calahan, PA, MBA, to learn the five clinical “pillars” of IRF-PPS admissions, key documentation requirements, and real-life case lessons to help protect your revenue.
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
