ICD10 codes for type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and for other diseases.
There is no code for LADA.LADA means type 1 that occurs in adulthood.
ICD-10 is useless from a healthcare perspective.It does a lousy job of coding for insurance and public health reporting.The definitions are not clear if you read them.LADA is not covered, nor is any of the other diabetes types.The coding can't differentiate between type 1 and type 2.Most people with diabetes can becoded as E10 or E11.Most patients with diabetes would do best in the healthcare system if they advocated that they becoded as E10 in order to get the best covered access to healthcare.
Wouldn't you say that LADA is more of a descriptive term for type 1 that presents in adults in a specific way, not requiringinsulin at diagnosis?
I was not speaking in any way toward the ICD10 code.The original comment was that LADA was simply a language.My point was that I think it's more descriptive.
LADA is most typically adult-onset, so it would fall into E11 type 2.There are no diagnostic criteria for type 1 or type 2.You would expect type 1 to say something like that.
The bean counters seem to be the only clinical benefit to either the provider or the patient.I will have to keep an eye on the codes when I visit a lab next week.I will be watching the code.
The immune system attacks cells in type 1 of the disease.There isn't much to no insulin produced by Type 1 because the cells that make it are not present.
The cells are resistant to insulin in type 2.People with type 2 diabetes produce a lot ofinsulin.
One can happen at any age.The disease is the same regardless of the age factor.
The immune system attacks cells in type 1 of the disease.There isn't much to no insulin produced by Type 1 because the cells that make it are not present.
The cells are resistant to insulin in type 2.People with type 2 diabetes produce a lot ofinsulin.
One can happen at any age.The disease is the same regardless of the age factor.
The second scenario can result in a type 2 with very little resistance to the drug.We are good examples.My c-pep is barely visible and myTDD is less than 20.There isn't a lot of IR to overcome there.
The bean counters seem to be the only clinical benefit to either the provider or the patient.I will have to keep an eye on the codes when I visit a lab next week.I will be watching the code.
I agree with this 100%.A major pain in my fat butt is not a clinical benefit.
I think the entire type 1 / type 2 model benefits the bean counters the least of all the patients.
The switch to ICD-10 was necessary because I am studying health information management.While we are just starting to use ICD-10, other countries have been using it for years and some are even making the switch to ICD-11.It was difficult for the United States to keep up with other countries when it came to healthcare.ICD-9 was not up to date.ICD-10 has a huge advantage when it comes to accurately recording medical data.There were only 13,000 ICD-9 codes and 68,000 ICD-10 codes.
More codes don't mean better accuracy.They mean more codes.The codes are more accurate.The goal has not been achieved if the rest of ICD-10 is as incomplete as the diabetes section.
In theory, more codes means more granularity.It is likely that it will result in more errors, at least when it comes to reimbursable claims.More code likely means more Health IT and Health Informatics jobs.
More codes don't mean better accuracy.They mean more codes.The codes are more accurate.The goal has not been achieved if the rest of ICD-10 is as incomplete as the diabetes section.
I agree with this.The ICD-9 codes seem to be more accurate than the ICD-10 codes.
Thank you, Brian!It helps us understand what we should be looking for in our records.
Wouldn't you say that LADA is more of a descriptive term for type 1 that presents in adults in a specific way, not requiringinsulin at diagnosis?
Some people go years from initial issues and then migrate to T1 over time, that is the impression I have of LADA.I have not seen a lot of kid histories of diabetes happening that way.
I agree that the codes have flaws, but one that is critical is that coverage follows codes in many cases.I do not agree that T2 should be short supplied.
Making blood sugar testing a civil right would be my solution to that.Even an ocd can only test so much and I don't think anyone does it for fun.Let us see what happens.I think it would be a better way to approach testing and management of costs and I don't see it causing a public health crisis.Insurers could save a lot of money by not having armies of nurses redlining test strips or writing stupid letters of medical necessity for their patients.This whole song-and-dance seems like it would be better if those resources were put into care.
There were no surprises here.Insurers are prone to making foolish decisions.Something is inherent in the actuarial mind.The evidence shows that frequent testing would save them more than it would cost.According to the evidence, providing pumps and CGMs to anyone with diabetes would result in a net saving of billions of dollars a year.They don't do those things.
The ICD is not designed to manage conditions or offer insurance advantages.The purpose is to track, classify, and present mortality data.Changes are necessary as there are new conditions and advances in care.
Every place uses the International ClassIFICATION OF DISEASES coding system.The coding is important to make sure your provider gets paid, and it is best to have the right code assigned.The WHO has true mortality data.
If you don't check your codes on all of your charts and EOBs, you will end up making costly mistakes.