Bridging Financial, Clinical & Operational Processes for Optimal Outcomes
Coding • CDI • Denial Management • Risk Adjustment • PSI
Program Design, Implementation & Optimization • Assessments & Audits • Staffing & Managed Services • Education & Training
Expertise in Enhancing Revenue, Efficiency, Operations and Compliance for Healthcare Systems
40+ Years
Proven track record in revenue cycle management
1100 +
Hospital Facilities and Physician Groups Nationwide
540
Credentialed Consultants & Staff
96% +
Coding accuracy based on 3rd party audits
Top 3 Best in KLAS for outsourced coding for past 8 years
UASI is Trusted by 1100+ Hospital Facilities and Physician Groups Nationwide
Our Solutions
Mid-Rev Cycle Solutions that Work
Program Design, Implementation and Optimization
Our pragmatic approach targets specific opportunities to enhance standards, fiscal objectives, and regulatory compliance, thereby boosting performance and fortifying outcomes.
Assessments and
Audits
Achieve higher quality outcomes and an attainable ROI with ongoing and strategic audits and reviews of your operation.
Education and Training
We facilitate the shift to value-based care with expert support in people, processes, and technology, offering a measured approach for quick ROI and scalable success.
Staffing and Managed Services
Achieve coding, CDI, or revenue integrity staffing flexibility with confidence, surpassing accuracy, quality, and productivity goals through our tiered support model.
Health in Context: Understanding the Impact of Social Determinants of Health (SDoH)
Summary of a Presentation by Rachel Mack, MSN, RN, CCDS, CDIP, CCS, CRC at the 2025 CHIMA Annual Meeting
In this must-read article, you will:
Uncover how Social Determinants of Health (SDoH) like housing, food access, and education drive health outcomes beyond clinical care.
Reveal the real-world effects of SDoH on chronic illness, health disparities, and population-level risks.
Demystify the power of ICD-10-CM Z codes in capturing and addressing social needs in medical records.
Break down the nine Z code categories that illuminate a patient’s lived experience and care barriers.
Tackle the documentation challenges and discover innovative solutions that support equitable, data-informed care.
Download the FULL ARTICLE
for INSTANT ACCESS
“I have worked with UASI for many years, they are my go to for CDI. UASI provides experienced CDI staffing resources as well great products with their CDI assessment and their customizable CDI audits. Partnering with UASI is helping our CDI team continuously grow and improve.”
- Tallahassee Memorial Healthcare
Our Services
Discover a comprehensive range of healthcare solutions designed to optimize revenue, enhance compliance, and improve operational efficiency. From coding and CDI to risk-based services and revenue integrity, UASI provides expert support to meet your unique needs.
CODING SERVICES
Achieve accurate, compliant, and efficient coding with our professional coding services, supporting inpatient (IP), outpatient (OP), professional fee (Profee), home health, and ambulance coding needs with UASI.
RISK BASED SERVICES
At UASI, we optimize your risk adjustment and value-based care initiatives with our specialized risk-based services, ensuring accurate coding and improved financial outcomes.
CDI SERVICES
UASI enhances the accuracy and completeness of your clinical documentation, ensuring compliance and optimal reimbursement through our expert CDI services.
DENIALS & REVENUE INTEGRITY
Maintain financial health and compliance with UASI's comprehensive revenue integrity services, including auditing, denials management, and process optimization.
Explore our INSIGHTS section for valuable resources, including articles, results, whitepapers, case studies, and more. Stay informed and gain expert knowledge to drive your healthcare organization's success with UASI.
In the complex world of hospital reimbursement, the distinction between APR-DRGs and MS-DRGs can mean millions of dollars for healthcare organizations, particularly those serving pediatric populations. These two classification systems may appear similar at first glance, but their approach to severity adjustment creates significant variations in how patient cases are categorized and ultimately reimbursed. For children's hospitals and pediatric units, understanding these differences isn't just about coding accuracy—it's about financial survival in an era of tightening margins. The Critical Differences Between APR DRGs and MS-DRGs At their core, both APR DRGs (All Patient Refined Diagnosis-Related Groups) and MS-DRGs (Medicare Severity DRGs) serve the same fundamental purpose: to categorize hospital inpatient cases into groups that reflect similar clinical characteristics and resource utilization. However, the systems diverge sharply in how they account for patient severity. While MS-DRGs, used primarily by Medicare, employ a relatively simple three-tiered approach (no complications/comorbidities, with CCs, or with major CCs), APR DRGs introduce a more sophisticated four-level severity stratification (minor, moderate, major, and extreme) that also incorporates explicit risk of mortality measurements. This distinction becomes particularly crucial in pediatric care, where patients often present with complex, chronic conditions that don't fit neatly into Medicare's primarily adult-focused severity framework. A premature neonate with bronchopulmonary dysplasia, congenital heart disease, and feeding difficulties might be classified as a straightforward case under MS-DRGs but would be recognized as an extreme severity case under APR DRGs, with reimbursement differences that can exceed 30-40% for the same hospitalization. Why APR DRGs Matter for Pediatric Financial Viability The enhanced sensitivity of APR DRGs to pediatric complexity explains why many state Medicaid programs and children's hospitals have adopted this system. Pediatric cases often involve multiple interacting factors, including chronic conditions, developmental delays, nutritional challenges, and social determinants of health, which collectively drive resource utilization but may be overlooked in simpler classification systems. APR DRGs' four-tier severity structure enables more nuanced categorization that better aligns with clinical reality. Consider two hypothetical patients admitted for asthma exacerbation. Under MS-DRGs, both might be grouped similarly if they meet the MCC criteria. But APR DRGs would differentiate between a child with well-controlled intermittent asthma experiencing a first-time severe attack (likely moderate severity) versus a technology-dependent patient with severe persistent asthma, tracheostomy, and chronic respiratory failure (extreme seriousness). This granularity ensures hospitals caring for the most medically fragile children receive appropriate compensation for the intensive services these patients require. The Documentation Imperative: How CDI Bridges the Gap The financial implications of these classification differences make robust clinical documentation improvement (CDI) programs essential for pediatric providers. Effective CDI in the APR DRG environment requires moving beyond simple diagnosis capture to comprehensive illness characterization. Documentation must establish: The interplay between chronic conditions and acute presentations The cumulative impact of multiple comorbidities Precise severity assessments for each relevant condition Clear temporal relationships between conditions and treatments For example, documenting "respiratory failure" generates some severity credit, but specifying "acute hypoxic respiratory failure secondary to viral pneumonia in a patient with underlying severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia and pulmonary hypertension" paints the complete clinical picture needed for accurate APR DRG assignment. This level of detail doesn't happen by accident - it requires intentional collaboration among clinicians, CDI specialists, and coders. Strategies for Success in an APR DRG World Leading pediatric health systems have developed several best practices to optimize APR DRG performance: Condition-Specific Documentation Frameworks: Creating structured templates for common pediatric scenarios (extreme prematurity, complex chronic disease exacerbations, etc.) that prompt clinicians to address all relevant severity factors. Real-Time Physician Education: Embedding CDI specialists in clinical units to provide just-in-time feedback on documentation gaps as cases evolve. Enhanced Query Processes: Moving beyond yes/no queries to structured inquiries that help physicians articulate clinical complexity in reimbursement-relevant terms. Longitudinal Condition Management: Ensuring chronic disease registries and problem lists are accurate and updated at each encounter to support severity capture. Coder-Clinician Rounding: Facilitating direct communication between coding professionals and care teams to resolve ambiguities while clinical details remain fresh. The Bottom Line: Documentation as a Financial Lifeline For pediatric providers, particularly those relying on Medicaid reimbursement, mastering APR-DRG documentation isn't optional - it's a financial imperative. In an analysis of one children's hospital's case mix, transitioning from MS-DRG to APR-DRG classification increased average reimbursement by 22% for medically complex patients, directly attributable to more accurate severity capture. As payment models continue evolving toward greater risk adjustment, the ability to thoroughly document and code patient complexity will increasingly determine which pediatric programs can sustain the specialized services their patients need. The path forward requires breaking down traditional silos between clinical care and revenue cycle functions. When physicians understand how their documentation translates into resources for their programs, when CDI specialists speak the language of clinical care, and when coders have access to complete clinical pictures, everyone wins - especially the vulnerable pediatric patients whose care depends on these systems working seamlessly together.
Bridging the Gap: Why Pediatric Patients Matter in CDI
The mid-revenue cycle is often viewed as a financial and operational concern only —something for coders and documentation teams to manage. But when it breaks down, the consequences reach the boardroom. From missed revenue and rising denials to compromised patient trust and declining quality scores, C-suite leaders must recognize the mid-rev cycle as a critical lever of both financial and clinical performance. The mid-revenue cycle encompasses clinical documentation, medical coding, charge capture, and HIM. It’s the engine that translates clinical care into billable events. When mid-rev cycle isn’t optimized, the downstream effects are visible—not only in your A/R—but also to your patients, their experience and perception of your health system. When it fails, your organization feels the impact across four main pillars: Margin: The most obvious and direct area of impact is on the margin. Incomplete or inaccurate documentation leads to under-coding, denials, or missed reimbursement. Compliance: Misaligned documentation invites payer audits and potential penalties. Quality: Missed documentation can impact risk adjustment, mortality indexes, patient safety indicators and HCC capture—undermining value-based care metrics. Trust & Experience: Not as frequently talked about, but a priority for most health care leaders is the patient experience. A poorly run revenue cycle can result in billing confusion, delays in care, and communication breakdowns that erode loyalty.
When most people hear “risk adjustment,” their minds jump straight to HCCs and Medicare Advantage. But that’s just one piece of a much larger puzzle. Today, risk adjustment plays a critical role not only in outpatient and ambulatory settings but also across inpatient care—and its impact goes far beyond reimbursement. It shapes hospital quality ratings, public perception, and even contract negotiations with commercial payers. For Clinical Documentation Integrity (CDI) professionals, this means one thing: it’s time to expand the lens. To truly protect their organizations and improve patient outcomes, CDI teams must think strategically about risk adjustment across all care settings—and understand how each setting contributes to the bigger picture of value-based care. Why This Matters: The Financial Stakes Have Never Been Higher As healthcare moves steadily from fee-for-service to value-based models, the financial consequences tied to quality metrics have become more severe. Programs like the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) and Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) directly tie reimbursement to measures like 30-day mortality, readmissions, hospital-acquired infections (HAIs), and patient safety indicators (PSIs). In this budget-neutral world, CMS withholds a portion of payments—up to 3% under HRRP alone—and only hospitals that outperform national benchmarks get those funds back (and potentially more). This creates a high-stakes environment of financial “winners” and “losers,” where documentation accuracy and risk adjustment play pivotal roles in determining which side your organization lands on. Risk Adjustment: It’s About Leveling the Playing Field Risk adjustment ensures fairness by accounting for patient factors like age, chronic conditions, and overall disease burden. Without it, hospitals that care for the sicker, more complex populations would appear to have worse outcomes—penalized not for poor care, but for the very patients they serve. Tools like the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index and Vizient Clinical Database help calculate expected outcomes based on these patient complexities. This results in an Observed-to-Expected (O/E) ratio that tells the real story: a ratio below 1.0 signals better-than-expected performance; above 1.0 may indicate gaps in care—or gaps in documentation. CDI’s Expanding Role: From DRG Capture to Strategic Quality Management Historically, CDI teams focused on ensuring accurate documentation for MS-DRG assignment in hospitals and RAF scores in physician practices. But value-based care has raised the stakes. Accurate documentation now influences quality ratings (like CMS Stars and Leapfrog), public reporting, and even how organizations negotiate contracts with commercial payers. Take pulmonary hypertension as an example. This diagnosis may not impact the DRG assignment, but it significantly affects risk adjustment calculations for mortality and readmissions. Capturing it accurately changes how a hospital’s performance is judged—and could shield the organization from costly penalties. This is why CDI reviews must evolve beyond revenue capture. High-impact diagnoses that influence risk models need to be prioritized, even when they don’t change reimbursement directly. CDI professionals also play a vital role in ensuring that only appropriate cases enter mortality and readmission cohorts, directly affecting performance metrics. Understanding the Tools: Elixhauser, Vizient, and AHRQ Methodologies Different methodologies apply to different programs and understanding them is key to effective CDI intervention. Elixhauser Comorbidity Index: Used by CMS, focuses on 38 comorbidity categories derived from secondary diagnoses—many of which must be documented as present on admission. Vizient Clinical Database: Provides powerful benchmarking data, helping hospitals analyze performance and identify opportunities for quality improvement. Each methodology has its own nuances, but the common thread is this: documentation must be clinically valid, complete, and precise. Star Ratings and Public Perception: Why This Is About More Than Money CMS Star Ratings are public and highly visible. Patients use them. Payers use them. They directly influence a hospital’s reputation, competitive position, and even patient volumes. These ratings reflect performance across five domains: mortality, safety of care, readmissions, patient experience, and timely/effective care. A poor showing in just one domain—often influenced by incomplete documentation—can drag down an entire rating. Risk adjustment doesn’t just impact mortality rates; it influences penalties for readmissions, HAIs, and PSI reporting. Inaccurate or incomplete documentation skews these outcomes, exposing organizations to financial loss and public reputational damage. So, Where Should CDI Teams Focus? To make the biggest impact, CDI teams should prioritize reviews and queries that address: DRG Optimization – Capture CCs and MCCs accurately. Quality Measure Accuracy – Identify diagnoses that impact risk models for mortality and readmissions. HAC/PSI Prevention – Reduce exposure to costly penalties. Strategic Queries – Focus on high-leverage diagnoses that don’t always affect reimbursement but dramatically impact quality metrics. The Bottom Line: Accurate Data Drives Everything In the end, quality performance, financial success, and even public trust hinge on the accuracy of what’s documented and coded. CDI professionals aren’t just stewards of revenue anymore—they’re central to the organization’s strategy for thriving in a value-based world. As the healthcare environment grows more complex and margins shrink, the organizations that win won’t just deliver excellent care. They’ll also tell the full and accurate story of that care through precise documentation. And CDI teams will be the ones leading that charge.
Stay ahead in healthcare with UASI’s monthly newsletter—your source for expert insights, regulatory updates, and proven strategies that drive clinical and financial success. Each issue delivers real-world case studies, tips for navigating coding and compliance changes, and the latest tools to support your team.
Subscribe today to stay informed and empowered in a fast-changing healthcare landscape.
HCC RISK ADJUSTMENT
V24 - V28
Are You Ready?
Ensuring your organization makes a successful transition
Learn about the changes and implications of the HCC model transition from V24 to V28, featuring industry experts in medical coding and CDI. We will discuss the changes and implications of the HCC model transition from V24 to V28 and gain actionable insights on navigating challenges, optimizing workflows, and ensuring accurate risk scoring under the new model.
Understanding that risk adjustment is not just HCC but is underlying in everything we do in mid revenue.
Download the Provider Queries 101 article to learn how better documentation practices can have a significant impact on your organization's bottom line.
Explore UASI's comprehensive resource page for valuable insights, tools, and expertise in healthcare staffing, revenue cycle management, and compliance solutions
Definition: Tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) is an oncologic emergency caused by massive tumor cell lysis and the release of large amounts of potassium, phosphate, and uric acid into the systemic circulation. Deposition of uric acid and/or calcium phosphate crystals in the renal tubules can result in acute kidney injury.
Syndrome of Inappropriate Antidiuretic Hormone (SIADH) occurs when the pituitary gland releases excessive antidiuretic hormone (ADH) , leading the body to retain fluid and dilute sodium levels in the bloodstream. This condition causes hyponatremia and hypo-osmolality , often triggering a complex clinical picture. What Causes SIADH? SIADH can develop in response to several underlying conditions or external factors: CNS disturbances: Stroke, hemorrhage, infection, and trauma can trigger abnormal ADH release. Cancer: Especially small cell lung cancer, extrapulmonary small cell carcinomas, head and neck cancers, and olfactory neuroblastomas. Medications: SSRIs, NSAIDs, opiates, some antineoplastic drugs, ciprofloxacin, haloperidol, and high-dose imatinib. Surgery: Often linked to pain response. Hormonal deficiencies: Including hypothyroidism and hypopituitarism. Exogenous hormone use: Vasopressin, desmopressin, and oxytocin. HIV infection Hereditary SIADH Diagnostic Criteria: Schwartz and Bartter Clinical Framework A diagnosis of SIADH typically includes: Serum sodium < 135 mEq/L Serum osmolality < 275 mOsm/kg Urine sodium > 40 mEq/L Urine osmolality > 100 mOsm/kg Normal skin turgor and blood pressure (absence of clinical volume depletion) Exclusion of other hyponatremia causes Correction of sodium levels via fluid restriction Important Note: Code only the SIADH, not the hyponatremia, as hyponatremia is considered integral to the disease process . Clinical Scenario A 68-year-old male presents to the ED with confusion , nausea , and a 12-pound weight gain over the past week. He was diagnosed with small cell lung cancer two months ago. Vitals: BP: 160/90 mmHg HR: 110 bpm Labs: Serum sodium: 122 mEq/L Serum osmolality: Decreased Urine: Elevated osmolality and high sodium concentration Indicators Suggestive of SIADH Hyponatremia: Sodium level of 122 mEq/L Diluted Serum Osmolality: From water retention Concentrated Urine: High osmolality and sodium levels despite low serum sodium Recent Weight Gain: 12 lbs in one week, pointing to fluid overload Underlying Malignancy: Small cell lung cancer is a well-known cause of ectopic ADH production Documentation Tips 1. Accurate Diagnosis Clearly state “SIADH” and link it to the underlying cause , such as cancer. 2. Clinical Findings Review provider and nursing notes for symptoms like confusion, nausea, and fluid retention. Confirm vital signs and weight gain. Include lab values: sodium, serum/urine osmolality, and urine sodium. 3. Treatment Plan Document fluid restriction orders . Check MAR for medications such as vasopressin receptor antagonists . Note any improvements in symptoms and lab values after treatment. Tip: High blood glucose can artificially lower serum sodium levels. Use a sodium correction calculator to determine the true sodium level. References Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. (2024). ICD-10-CM Official Coding Guidelines. cms.gov Pinson, R., & Tang, C. (2024). The CDI Pocket Guide. cdiplus.com Prescott, L., & Manz, J. (2024). ACDIS CDI Pocket Guide. acdispro.com Sterns, R. (2024). Pathophysiology and etiology of SIADH. UpToDate. Yasir, M., & Mechanic, O.J. (2023). Syndrome of Inappropriate Antidiuretic Hormone Secretion. StatPearls Publishing.
Understanding Stroke and Its Long-Term Impact Stroke is the third most common cause of disability and the second most common cause of mortality worldwide. The global 30-day fatality rate following an initial ischemic stroke is estimated at 16–23% . A U.S. study of 220 ischemic stroke survivors revealed a range of neurologic deficits at six months post-stroke, including: Hemiparesis (50%) Cognitive defects (46%) Hemianopia (20%) Aphasia (19%) Sensory deficits (15%) Additionally, survivors experienced long-term disabilities such as: Depression (35%) Inability to walk without assistance (31%) Institutionalization (26%) Bladder incontinence (22%) What is a Stroke? A stroke , also known as a cerebrovascular accident (CVA) , occurs when the blood supply to part of the brain is interrupted or reduced , preventing brain tissue from receiving oxygen and nutrients. As a result, brain cells begin to die within minutes . Types of Strokes Ischemic Stroke The most common type, accounting for approximately 87% of all strokes. It occurs when a blood clot blocks or narrows an artery leading to the brain. Hemorrhagic Stroke Occurs when a blood vessel in the brain bursts , leading to bleeding in or around the brain . Common Late Effects of CVA Physical: Hemiplegia, hemiparesis, dysphagia, ataxia Cognitive: Memory loss, attention deficits, executive function impairments Speech and Language: Aphasia, dysarthria Sensory: Visual field loss, neglect (lack of awareness of one side of the body) Emotional and Behavioral: Depression, anxiety, personality changes Other: Bladder and bowel control issues, fatigue Recrudescence of Stroke Symptoms Recrudescence refers to the reappearance of previously resolved neurological deficits from a prior stroke. These symptoms are typically mild , short-lived , and not due to a new stroke . Key considerations: Recrudescence is coded as a “late effect of stroke.” Follows the same coding and sequencing guidance as the principal diagnosis (PDX). Can be reported alongside a new acute infarction , if applicable. Clarity in documentation is essential to accurately capture the etiology of stroke-related symptoms— query the provider if necessary. Query Example for Clarification Dear Dr. Carlson , Patient with PMH of CVA. Per H&P, admitted with “dysphagia.” Other diagnoses include severe malnutrition, with plans for a PEG tube. Can this patient’s dysphagia be specified as the most likely cause? For example: Dysphagia is recrudescence of previous stroke Dysphagia related to other (please specify) ___ Unknown/undetermined Other clinical indicators/treatment from the patient’s record: H&P notes: “dysphagia, severe malnutrition, and failure to thrive. ST/PT/OT to see. Family thinks dysphagia has been going on for a while.” Treatment: RD consult, PEG tube placement, PT/OT/ST Why It Matters: A favorable query response could shift the DRG from DRG 392 (Esoph, gastro, and misc digestive disorders w/o MCC) with the PDX of dysphagia , to DRG 057 (Degenerative nervous system disorders w/o MCC) with the PDX of weakness/dysarthria as a late effect of CVA .
The question we hear most often: “What is this query for and why do I have to answer it?” We often incorrectly assume that because a physician is an expert in medical procedures, they are also an expert in documenting those procedures. Physicians are responsible for the care and treatment of millions of patients every single day who put their lives, quite literally, in the physician’s hands. However, to consistently maintain and improve upon safety and effectiveness standards, the system relies on more than just the skill and actions of the provider – it also relies on accurate and comprehensive clinical documentation. Precise and comprehensive clinical documentation is essential for: • Appropriate Reimbursement • Quality Metrics and Reporting • Consistency of Treatment Plans Central to this process is the physician query, a tool employed by medical coders and Clinical Documentation Integrity (CDI) professionals to clarify ambiguities, inconsistencies, or gaps in medical records. For providers, understanding why a query is in their inbox could help change a query from a source of frustration into an opportunity for patient safety and appropriate reimbursement.
Stay ahead with UASI Coding Tips section, featuring practical advice, industry updates, and best practices to enhance your coding accuracy and efficiency.
Under CPT guidelines, an office visit may be billable when a family member or caregiver attends in place of the patient, as long as the patient is already established and documentation requirements are met. Per 2025 E/M guidelines, time-based coding can apply to visits involving the physician and/or family/caregiver, not just the patient. Further instructions state that it includes both the face-to-face time with the patient and/or family/caregiver and non-face-to-face time personally spent by the physician on the day of the encounter. Additional tips and guidance: Confirm Patient Status First: Before billing, verify that the patient is already established in your practice. New patient visits cannot be billed if the patient is not present, even if a family member or caregiver is. Thoroughly Document : Ensure documentation clearly identifies that the patient was not present, the reason for their absence, the medical necessity of the visit, the topics discussed with the caregiver/family member, time spent (if using time-based coding) Use Appropriate E/M Code Level : When time-based coding is used, make sure the total time spent on the date of service is documented, including time spent with family/caregiver and r elevant non-face-to-face activities, such as reviewing records, documenting in the EHR, or ordering tests Check for Payer-Specific Limits : Some payers may not allow billing if the patient is not physically present, even if CPT supports it. Medicare, for instance, has historically had stricter interpretations. Always verify policy-specific rules. Reference: CPT Assistant, March 2013, Vol 23, Issue 3, page 13 Note: Always review payer-specific guidance, as interpretations may differ from AMA recommendations
Hemorrhagic Stroke: About 13 percent of strokes happen when a blood vessel ruptures in or near the brain. This is called a hemorrhagic stroke. When a hemorrhagic stroke happens, blood collects in the brain tissue. This is toxic for the brain tissue, causing the cells in that area to weaken and die. Are all hemorrhagic strokes the same? There are two kinds of hemorrhagic stroke. In both, a blood vessel ruptures, disrupting blood flow to part of the brain . Intracerebral hemorrhages (most common type of hemorrhagic stroke): they occur when a blood vessel bleeds or ruptures into the tissue deep within the brain. They are most often caused by chronically high blood pressure or aging blood vessels. Subarachnoid hemorrhages : Occur when an aneurysm (a blood-filled pouch that balloons out from an artery) on or near the surface of the brain ruptures and bleeds into the space between the brain and the skull. Ischemic Stroke : The majority of strokes (87%) occur when blood vessels to the brain become narrowed or clogged with fatty deposits called plaque. This cuts off blood flow to brain cells. A stroke caused by lack of blood reaching part of the brain is called an ischemic stroke. High blood pressure is a leading risk factor for ischemic stroke An ischemic stroke occurs when a clot or a mass blocks a blood vessel, cutting off blood flow to a part of the brain. There two main types of ischemic stroke. Cerebral thrombosis is caused by a blood clot (thrombus) in an artery going to the brain. The clot blocks blood flow to part of the brain. Blood clots usually form in arteries damaged by plaque. Cerebral embolism is caused by a wandering clot (embolus) that’s formed elsewhere (usually in the heart or neck arteries). Clots are carried in the bloodstream and block a blood vessel in or leading to the brain. A main cause of embolism is an irregular heartbeat called atrial fibrillation. Also code : Report all neurological deficits that occur during the hospitalization, even if they resolve before discharge. Please pay special attention to laterality . When reading the chart, please try to find specificity regarding whether the deficit affects the dominant or non-dominant side of the body. Also code: NIHSS Scores : The NIHSS is a neurological exam that is scored on all acute stoke patients. The score describes the severity of the stroke from no stroke (score of zero) to severe stroke (score of 21-24). - info from Coding clinic 4th Q 2016 p.61 *information obtained from the American Stroke Association
H ow to code a hepatic thrombus that extends into the atrium.
Prevalence & New ICD-10-CM Code Updates Childhood obesity remains a pressing public health concern in the United States. According to the CDC, approximately 1 in 5 children and adolescents — about 19.7% of those aged 2–19 years—are affected. That’s an estimated 14.7 million young people across the country. Obesity Trends Among U.S. Youth Childhood obesity isn’t distributed evenly. Rates vary across age groups , racial/ethnic backgrounds , and socioeconomic status : By Age Ages 2–5: 12.7% Ages 6–11: Data not specified in this summary Ages 12–19: 22.2% By Race & Ethnicity Hispanic: 26.2% (highest prevalence) Non-Hispanic Black: 24.8% Non-Hispanic White: 16.6% Non-Hispanic Asian: 9.0% By Family Income Children in households at or below 130% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) have a 25.8% obesity rate—highlighting a clear socioeconomic link. New ICD-10-CM Codes for Pediatric Obesity – Effective October 1, 2024 To support more accurate diagnosis and classification, the FY 2025 ICD-10-CM updates introduced new and revised codes for pediatric obesity and BMI. New Obesity Classification Codes These now distinguish between three classes of obesity , based on BMI: E66.811 – Obesity, Class 1 (BMI: 30–34.9) E66.812 – Obesity, Class 2 (BMI: 35–39.9) E66.813 – Obesity, Class 3 (BMI: ≥40) Pediatric BMI Code Updates BMI coding for youth aged 2–19 years is now more detailed, enabling better tracking and clinical alignment with growth charts. Z68.54 – REVISED: Pediatric BMI at 95th percentile to <120% of the 95th percentile Z68.55 – NEW: Pediatric BMI at 120% to <140% of the 95th percentile Z68.56 – NEW: Pediatric BMI at ≥140% of the 95th percentile Reminder : Pediatric BMI codes apply to ages 2–19 . Adult BMI codes are for patients 20+ years . Why These Code Changes Matter The updated codes aim to: Improve diagnostic accuracy for healthcare providers. Align more closely with current pediatric obesity guidelines . Support better data tracking and research . Help identify patients at higher risk for comorbidities linked to severe obesity. Final Thoughts These coding updates aren’t just bureaucratic changes—they’re designed to enhance the way we identify, track, and treat obesity in young patients. Accurate coding leads to more personalized care, better public health interventions, and stronger advocacy for at-risk children. Sources: Childhood Obesity Facts | CDC ICD-10-CM Guidelines FY25, October 1, 2024 New Childhood Obesity ICD-10-CM Codes – Partner Promotion Materials
Sign up to receive monthly CDI & Coding Tips directly to your inbox!
Now Hiring Remote Healthcare Roles
Join UASI and make an impact from home with flexible, stable, and well-supported career opportunities.
CDI Specialist (RN) · CDI Auditor · CDI Second Level Reviewer · Coding Manager · Senior Inpatient Coder · OP Profee Coder · ED Remote Coder
Are you ready
to take the next steps?
Apply now and let's see if it's a good fit!
UASI is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
