Conversion of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Quality Indicators from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM/PCS: The Process, Results, and Implications for Users.

OBJECTIVE: To convert the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) Quality Indicators (QIs) from International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) specifications to ICD, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification and Procedure Classification System (ICD-10-CM/PCS) specifications. DATA SOURCES: ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM/PCS classifications, General Equivalence Maps (GEMs). STUDY DESIGN: We convened 77 clinicians and coders to evaluate ICD-10-CM/PCS codes mapped from ICD-9-CM using automated GEMs. We reviewed codes to develop "legacy" specifications resembling those in ICD-9-CM and "enhanced" specifications addressing enhanced capabilities of ICD-10-CM/PCS. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We tabulated the numbers of mapped codes, added nonmapped codes, and deleted mapped codes to achieve the specifications. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Of 212 clinical concepts (sets of codes) that comprise the QI specifications, we either added nonmapped codes to or deleted mapped codes from 115 (54 percent). The legacy and enhanced specifications differed for 46 sets (22 percent), affecting 67 of the 101 QIs (66 percent). Occasionally, concepts that defied conversion required reformulation of indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Converting the AHRQ QIs to ICD-10-CM/PCS required a detailed, thorough process beyond automated mapping of codes. Differences between the legacy and enhanced versions of the QIs are frequently minor but sometimes substantive.

Cost Analysis of the STONE Randomized Trial: Can Health Care Costs be Reduced One Test at a Time?

BACKGROUND: Decreasing the use of high-cost tests may reduce health care costs. OBJECTIVE: To compare costs of care for patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with suspected kidney stones randomized to 1 of 3 initial imaging tests. RESEARCH DESIGN: Patients were randomized to point-of-care ultrasound (POC US, least costly), radiology ultrasound (RAD US), or computed tomography (CT, most costly). Subsequent testing and treatment were the choice of the treating physician. SUBJECTS: A total of 2759 patients at 15 EDs were randomized to POC US (n=908), RAD US, (n=893), or CT (n=958). Mean age was 40.4 years; 51.8% were male. MEASURES: All medical care documented in the trial database in the 7 days following enrollment was abstracted and coded to estimate costs using national average 2012 Medicare reimbursements. Costs for initial ED care and total 7-day costs were compared using nonparametric bootstrap to account for clustering of patients within medical centers. RESULTS: Initial ED visit costs were modestly lower for patients assigned to RAD US: $423 ($411, $434) compared with patients assigned to CT: $448 ($438, $459) (P<0.0001). Total costs were not significantly different between groups: $1014 ($912, $1129) for POC US, $970 ($878, $1078) for RAD US, and $959 ($870, $1044) for CT. Hospital admissions contributed over 50% of total costs, though only 11% of patients were admitted. Mean total costs (and admission rates) varied substantially by site from $749 to $1239. CONCLUSIONS: Assignment to a less costly test had no impact on overall health care costs for ED patients. System-level interventions addressing variation in admission rates from the ED might have greater impact on costs.