Posted by Mandy Stahre · Feb 06, 2018 at 7:49 PM

ICD 9 to 10 transition presentation for April

Greetings, we will have Donna Puckett from NCHS (CDC) presenting on the ICD9 to ICD 10 transition and some issues that have arisen related to surveillance or analyses. They would love to hear about concerns or questions you are having with the transitionso they can tailor the presentation to meet your needs. Please post your comments here no later than March 10th so I can pass the info along to them.

Mandy

Comments & Events

Alastair Matheson

Here are some numbers from our Medicaid data looking at avoidable ED visits. Using the definition from CA (starting on page 49 here: http://partnershiphp.org/Providers/Quality/Documents/PCPQIP1516Spec2.pdf), we see the following in King County:

<table>
<tr>
<th>Year</th>
<th>Persons with 1+ ED visit</th>
<th>Total number of ED visits</th>
<th>Percent avoidable </th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2012</td>
<td>70,328</td>
<td>132,193</td>
<td>13.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>20123</td>
<td>70,328</td>
<td>132,193</td>
<td>13.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2014</td>
<td>91,184</td>
<td>172,923</td>
<td>12.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2015</td>
<td>112,686</td>
<td>214,194</td>
<td>11.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>20126</td>
<td>121,482</td>
<td>237,536</td>
<td>8.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2017</td>
<td>103,302</td>
<td>189,417</td>
<td>7.8%</td>
</tr>
</table>

We will check the coding to make sure there isn't an error there, but the switch to ICD-10-CM does seem to make a substantial difference in what gets called an avoidable ED visit.

EDIT: I'm not sure why the HTML's not working but here's a plain version:
| 2012 | 70328 | 132193 | 13.5%
| 2013 | 73183 | 139486 | 13.1%
| 2014 | 91184 | 172923 | 12.7%
| 2015 | 112686 | 214194 | 11.2%
| 2016 | 121482 | 237536 | 8.0%
| 2017 | 103302 | 189417 | 7.8%

Mar 16, 2018 at 4:06 PM Notified 36 people