Electronic Health Records

Policy & Regulation News

Perils of Using GEMs as Crosswalks for ICD-10 Transition

CMS advised that GEMs should not be used to code patient encounters due to numerous documented shortcomings, assumptions, exceptions and deficiencies as a coding translation tool for coding.

By John Pitsikoulis of Berkeley Research Group

- During the ICD-10 preparation phase, many vendors, clinicians, and IT administrators converted their current I-9 environment with an approach that included using the general equivalence mappings (or a version of the GEMs) as the key mechanism for preparing their ICD-10 coding and billing tools. One of the challenges with the conversion to the ICD-10 code set was the initiative to duplicate the ICD-9 code set in the EHR system with the new expanded ICD-10 code set.

ICD-9 to ICD-10 crosswalks could prove dangerous

Since there was no standard approach for preparing the industry for the new ICD-10 environment, healthcare entities adopted various approaches and methodologies to accomplish this goal.

The GEMs have become the gold standard approach for many payers, providers, and software vendors for the transitions from ICD-9 to ICD-10. It is understandable how one would use the GEMs — if they wanted general equivalence code translations. However for functions such as coding and billing, this is not a logical solution as the GEMs intent was to generally match an I-9 code to the ICD-10 code.

Since the development of the GEMs, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has stood firm in their advisement that GEMs are not crosswalks, rather reference mappings to help the user navigate the complexity of translating meaning from one code set to others. CMS advised that GEMs should not be used to code patient encounters due to numerous documented shortcomings, assumptions, exceptions and deficiencies as a coding translation tool for coding.  

  • SHIEC Patient Centered Data Health Information Exchange Goes Live
  • EHR best practices: Assessing your infrastructure
  • CT Hospital Patients Frustrated After Cerner EHR Implementation
  • How does a failed meaningful use audit affect providers?
  • 50% of Physicians Want Better Access to Patient Data in EHR Use
  • HHS unveils two moves to improve patient-centered care
  • Accountable care success depends on HIT, business alignment
  • Lean Methodology Reduces Provider EHR Use by 1 Hour per Day
  • CMS Chief to Address ICD-10 Implementation in National Call
  • Halamka: How do providers prepare for meaningful use audits?
  • EHR adoption tops 50% but Stage 2 remains problematic
  • EHR Problem Lists Not Accurate Enough for Risk Adjustment
  • What must providers do when their cloud-based EHR goes down?
  • Why is establishing standards of EHR use important?
  • EHR vendor selection checklist for small practices
  • Awarding of DoD EHR Modernization Contract Forthcoming
  • How Increasing EHR Adoption, HIE Use Fuels Healthcare Industry
  • Patient identification pitfalls plague HIE networks
  • CMS Approves ASCP for Qualified Clinical Data Registry Status
  • AHA backs bill to streamline merger, acquisition reviews
  • eClinicalWorks Allows Integration with CommonWell, Carequality
  • Aetna, Cigna, Humana reveal new accountable care strategies
  • CMS Releases Batch Options for Meaningful Use Reporting
  • Medicare competitive bidding program to undergo OIG review
  • MT Hospital Swaps NextGen EHR for athenahealth EHR Replacement
  • Slow and steady likelier to win the race for EHR adoption
  • Physician Office EHR Adoption Increases, Meaningful Use Lags
  • GAO reports inequalities in regional Medicare incentive payments
  • VA wants to turn new EHR development into a competition
  • CMS Extends Deadline for April ICD-10 End-to-End Testing
  • Key Takeaways from ONC Health Data Exchange Strategy
  • Certified EHR: Breaking down the ONC fact sheet
  • Do Health IT Systems Help or Hinder Patient Safety?
  • HIMSS Announces New Value Score for EHR, Health IT Users
  • What makes providers see value health information exchange?
  • Meaningful use audits: Q&A with Ober|Kaler’s Joshua Freemire
  • 2014 ONC-ACB certified EHRs will be marked with new logo
  • CIOs to Benefit from CHIME’s KLAS, HIT Research Partnerships
  • Do mHealth apps targeting cancer live up to their promises?
  • KLAS Report Names Top 3 Best Practices for EHR Optimization
  • Improper physician payments, kickbacks lead to big penalties
  • Have EHRs, CPOE set the stage for ICD-10 acceptance?
  • Docs disapprove of tying Medicare reform to ACA mandate
  • Green Mountain Care Board Approves $151.7M Epic Implementation
  • Oregon Health System to Go Live With $79.5M Epic Implementation
  • MHS, Navy CIOs discuss EHR adoption, DoD choices at summit
  • AHRQ dashboard makes meaningful use easier for providers
  • AHIMA 2013: How Sutter Health educates physicians for ICD-10
  • South Carolina limits fees for copying medical records
  • Veterans Salute Secure Messaging in Study of Portal Users
  • AMA’s Madara Clarifies Remarks on Digital Snake Oil, EHR Use
  • Physician EHR Changes Improve Test Ordering, Patient Safety
  • For payers, dual processing may be key to ICD-10 success: Q&A
  • CMS Accepting Comments on 2016 eCQMs for Meaningful Use
  • CMS Extends Hospital 2014 Meaningful Use Reporting Deadline
  • VA to DoD: Adopt VistA for sake of seamless EHR integration
  • Can popular mHealth tool help post-surgical cardiac patients?
  • VA continues to revolutionize access to EHRs
  • Epic Systems Takes Home Top Honors in 2017 Best in KLAS
  • Self-care medical device market to near $17 billion in 2019
  • New physician-led HIE hopes to avoid competitive setbacks
  • Physicians Spend Less When EHRs Default to Generic Drugs
  • Cerner Makes Key Revenue Cycle Management Hire
  • ePrescribing Expected and Preferred in 82% of Older Patients
  • Best Practices for Approaching EHR Optimization Projects
  • CMS Comment Period for Quality Payment Program Ends Dec. 19
  • Preparing and registering for EHR Incentive Programs
  • Will health information exchange repair care coordination?
  • Has CMS Failed to Demonstrate Value of Meaningful Use?
  • New Calls for Meaningful Use Reporting Changes, ICD-10 Delay
  • Healthcare Organizations Call for Value-based Care Policy
  • CMS Issues Two Notices for PQRS, Meaningful Use Reporting
  • CMQs gain prominence in Stage 2 Meaningful Use
  • KBCore wins ONC Patient Safety Reporting System Challenge
  • Health IT should reinforce the personal nature of care
  • AHA, AMA respond to new CMS proposal for ICD-10 deadline
  • MEDITECH Web EHR Gains 5 New Health Organizations
  • Is Experian now the frontrunner in revenue cycle management?
  • ICD-10 survey: Vendors, payers barely creep towards readiness
  • What role can health information exchanges play in big data?
  • What determines the efficiency of risk-based models, ACOs?
  • Health information exchange at Mass HIway to take next step
  • New report reveals most connected US hospitals
  • AMA supports SGR repeal, merit-based incentive system
  • House Republicans to Reform of Meaningful Use Requirements
  • Refining Patient Matching Process for Stronger Health Data Exchange
  • Doubts Raised about 21st Century Cures Act Interoperability
  • Moving Toward a Universe of Health IT Interoperability
  • Permanent ONC-Authorized Testing and Certification Bodies (ATCBs)
  • EHR Incentive Programs Modified in New Proposed Ruling
  • Clinical decision tools help emergency rooms reduce drug errors
  • Rural Health Providers Form New Accountable Care Organizations
  • CMS Announces Updates to Clinical Quality Measures
  • Penn. study shows patients at risk from EHR-related data errors
  • Ambulatory EHR Market to Become $5.2B Industry by 2021
  • CIO Halamka highlights 5 health IT challenges in year ahead
  • The Week Ahead in Health IT Interoperability: Dec. 7-13
  • Are paper charts preferable to poorly done EHR?
  • CMS Administrator Welcomes Providers to ICD-10 Compliance
  • Making the best of BYOD in a healthcare setting
  • Unfortunately, many practice managers and hospital administrators will be in for a rude awakening with ICD-10 outcomes. As a result of the very small percentage of one-to-one code matches between ICD-9-CM and ICD-10, EHRs, code search tools, and data conversions tools that relied on the GEMs as a crosswalk made the grave mistake of vastly underestimating the complexities of ICD-10 coding.

    EHR technology and coding tools intended to assist the physicians with code selections are many times configured in a manner that facilitates the selection of an incorrect code. The physician EHR user may only be accessing a subset of codes converted with the GEMs, thereby resulting in the assignment of unspecified or other coders converted as a GEMs default selection. Remember, the GEMs “crosswalk” only contains a very small percentage of one to one code equivalents; resulting in a system configuration that is in many instances less accurate than your ICD-9 system.

    As we all know, ICD-10 transition is not just a coding change; it is also a clinical documentation specificity issue. Many organizations provided clinical documentation specificity education, which was a necessity for preparing for ICD-10 compliance. However, physicians are not coders with many having received only minimal training on the new coding tools and less likely education on ICD-10 coding guidelines and conventions.

    An EHR system with an incorrectly configured coding workflow combined with the clinical documentation requirements significantly increases the revenue and compliance risk that the code selected by the physician is not supported by the clinical documentation in the EHR system.

    As with any major regulatory changes, opportunities to improve performance, mitigate risks and compliance with the regulatory changes become apparent through a detailed analysis. Knowing the risks associated with the misuse of the GEMs, starting with EHR coding tools and structure configuration is an optimal approach for providing the physicians with improved workflow.

    More importantly, enhancements to the EHR coding and billing functions, regardless of the EHR platform, will provide the physicians who perform their own coding an accurate and compliant process. Physician billing process workflow simplification and compliance must be a priority to provide the physician with a decreased administrative burden so that they can dedicate time to their top priority, the patient.

    John Pitsikoulis is a Managing Director at Berkeley Research Group with more than 30 years of consulting experience. He has provided advisory services to clients related to complex business problems including EMR optimization, operational process improvement, coding and clinical documentation.

    X

    EHRIntelligence

    Sign up to continue reading and gain Free Access to all our resources.

    Sign up for our free newsletter and join 60,000 of
    your peers to stay up to date with tips and advice on:

    EHR Optimization
    EHR Interoperability
    EHR Replacement

    White Papers, Webcasts, Featured Articles and Exclusive Interviews

    Our privacy policy

    no, thanks

    Continue to site...