With five times as many codes as ICD-9, ICD-10 is certainly more specific. It’s no wonder, then, that the use of unspecified codes has become a common topic of discussion among healthcare professionals. Unspecified codes are incredibly common in coding with ICD-9. However, there’s a general consensus that using unspecified ICD-10 codes could prove detrimental. In addition to corrupting the reliability and validity of the data, the use of unspecified codes could lead to claim denials. With such implications weighing over their heads, many people have become fearful of unspecified codes. However, according to a report from Health Data Consulting’s (HDC) Joseph C. Nichols, “While it is true that we should be as specific as possible to assure the best quality information, most of the discussions around unspecified codes don’t really get at what ‘unspecified’ means relevant to codes let alone when they should or shouldn’t be used.” So, with that, let’s get specific with unspecified.

Unspecified Defined

According to a presentation by the National Association of Rural Health Clinics (NARHC), unspecified is defined as:

Coding that does not fully define important parameters of the patient condition that could otherwise be defined given information available to the observer (clinician) and the coder.

When described in this way, “unspecified” takes on an altogether different definition of “unspecified codes.” “Unspecified” is simply coding that’s too vague when there’s actually information available that would allow for greater specificity. In this sense, yes, “unspecified” does have a negative connotation. “Unspecified codes,” however, are actual ICD-10 codes that describe diagnoses, but instead of containing specifics—such as laterality—the description of the code simply ends with “unspecified.” And herein lies the confusion. When does the use of an “unspecified code” correlate with the definition of “unspecified”? And when is it actually acceptable to use an unspecified code?

When to Use Unspecified Codes

According to NARHC and HDC, the following are instances in which an unspecified code may be acceptable:

  • The patient may be early in the course of evaluation, meaning the clinician may not yet know enough to apply a more specific code
  • The claim may be from a provider who is not directly related to the diagnosis of the patient’s condition
  • The clinician seeing the patient may be more of a generalist who is not able to define the condition at a level of detail expected by a specialist

For specific examples of these instances, scroll to page eight of this report. You may be wondering: in the abovementioned instances, why not select a more specific code even if the practitioner doesn’t necessarily have all the facts? As HDC’s Nichols explains, “Forcing coders to use a ‘specified’ code may result in the unintended consequence of creating misinformation that assumes something is true when there is no real evidence to support that level of specificity.” As a result, the patient might receive a diagnosis that isn’t truly representative of their condition. That affects treatment going forward as well as the historical accuracy of that patient’s health record.

When Not to Use Unspecified Codes

Again, according to NARHC and HDC, practitioners should avoid unspecified codes when:

  • There is sufficient information available to more accurately define the condition
  • They can account for basic concepts such as:
    • Laterality (right, left, bilateral, unilateral)
    • Anatomical locations
    • Trimester (of pregnancy)
    • Type of diabetes
    • Known complications or comorbidities
    • Description of severity, acuity, or other known parameters
  • They implement care that demands a more specific level of detail
  • They’re specialists, because as specialists, they should be able to provide the detail required

For specific examples of when not to report, scroll to page nine of this report.

Ultimately, like patient documentation, coding is about justification. If you’re simply selecting an unspecified code as a time-saving measure, or if you pause to wonder whether that unspecified code is appropriate for a particular diagnosis, then you probably shouldn’t use it. If you have questions or doubts, your payers likely will, too. After all, they need justification to reimburse you for your services.

The PT’s Guide to Billing - Regular BannerThe PT’s Guide to Billing - Small Banner
  • Founder Letter: ICD-What? Image

    articleSep 3, 2015 | 7 min. read

    Founder Letter: ICD-What?

    By now, it’s obvious that the entire US healthcare system is going to face a huge change come October 1: the transition to ICD-10 . This new—well, new to us—way of coding has been on the discussion table for decades , and for the last several years, its implementation has been the topic of much anticipation as well as a fair amount of resistance. So, if you find yourself in the dark—completely unaware that ICD-10 is happening—then …

  • ICD-10 FAQ Part 4 Image

    articleNov 3, 2015 | 5 min. read

    ICD-10 FAQ Part 4

    Like the many Land Before Time sequels, the versions of our ICD-10 FAQ keep on-a-comin’. But—unlike those beloved dinosaur tales—I don’t anticipate 12 more versions (plus a TV series) will be necessary to cover what’s to come with ICD-10. Still, the questions continue to roll in—albeit a bit slower than they did a couple of months ago. However, most of the inquiries we’ve received in recent weeks have been super specific. That’s why, our most recent webinar—the …

  • A Farewell Ode to ICD-9 Image

    articleSep 30, 2015 | 2 min. read

    A Farewell Ode to ICD-9

    As the hours count down It’s hard to believe That we’ve finally made it To ICD-10 Eve Our journey to get here Hasn’t been without strife As the US has clung To ICD-9 for dear life Letting go can be hard And change can be tough But in the modern medical world ICD-9 just isn’t enough Unlike a fine wine That gets better with time ICD-9 has aged poorly— It’s way past its prime Sure, we’ll always …

  • Preparing for ICD-10 Image

    webinarApr 29, 2014

    Preparing for ICD-10

    At the end of March, Congress passed legislation that delays the mandatory transition to ICD-10 until October 1, 2015. With all that extra time, some of you might be eager to push the new code set to the back of your mind. Au contraire! Even though we now have a year and six months until the US goes live with ICD-10, there’s still a lot to be done—and we’re here to help. In this month’s webinar, we’ll …

  • Your Roadmap to ICD-10 Image

    articleOct 10, 2013 | 5 min. read

    Your Roadmap to ICD-10

    By now you’ve already—hopefully—heard the news about the big ICD-10 transition that’s going down on October 1, 2015. But, if you’re like most US healthcare providers—about 75%, according to this article —you haven’t exactly stuck to the suggested preparatory timelines that CMS released a while back. We get it; you’re busy, and the last thing you have time for is sitting down and mapping out a plan of action for your clinic’s transition to ICD-10. But putting …

  • Beware of ICD-10 Shortcuts: The Case Against One-to-One Crosswalking Image

    articleFeb 24, 2015 | 7 min. read

    Beware of ICD-10 Shortcuts: The Case Against One-to-One Crosswalking

    ICD-10 is inherently more sophisticated and specific than ICD-9, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s more complicated. So, why are healthcare professionals pulling their hair out over the mandatory transition to these new codes? Because learning ICD-10 is like learning a new language. If we were going into this with a clean slate–like a newborn babe—perhaps it wouldn’t be so tough to learn the language. Unfortunately, though, the US healthcare industry has relied on ICD-9 codes for …

  • ICD-10 Bootcamp: Coding Exercises for PTs, OTs, and SLPs Image

    webinarJul 30, 2015

    ICD-10 Bootcamp: Coding Exercises for PTs, OTs, and SLPs

    As the old saying goes, “Practice makes perfect.” But with the transition to ICD-10 kicking off in a little more than a month, there’s not a whole lot of practice time left. Before you know it, you’ll be taking the field for game time—and this is one game where you definitely can’t rely on talent alone. Looking for a way to get you and your staff members in ICD-10-coding shape—fast? Consider this your ICD-10 boot camp. In …

  • Translating ICD-9 to ICD-10 Image

    articleApr 2, 2014 | 4 min. read

    Translating ICD-9 to ICD-10

    So, ICD-10 is a tad more complex than ICD-9. Okay, it’s a lot more complex. In fact, compared to ICD-9, there are about 55,000 more codes in the new set. The good news, though, is that you’ll probably only ever use a handful of them. And one of the best way to prepare for the transition is to create a list of the new codes you know you’re going to need. Unfortunately, though, identifying the ICD-10 equivalent …

  • articleOct 15, 2013 | 3 min. read

    ICD-10 Checklist for Your Practice

    We’ve given you a lot of ICD-10 info to process this month. And in case you haven’t noticed, our main mantra has been “prepare, prepare, prepare.” Because like Confucius, we firmly believe that “success depends upon previous preparation, and without such preparation there is sure to be failure.” (And considering he’s the man behind one of the most influential movements in Asian history—not to mention the author of all five Chinese Classics—we’re thinking this Confucius guy gives …

Achieve greatness in practice with the ultimate EMR for PTs, OTs, and SLPs.