EMA® Is the EHR System With ICD-10 Codes Built In
Ready to learn more?
Other electronic health records (EHR) systems tout their ability to translate or somewhat narrow the number of new ICD-10 codes you have to select from, but Modernizing Medicine®’s EMA is born ready. It uses structured data to generate your medical ICD-10 codes right alongside your exam notes and populate them onto the encounter form.
No guesswork. No ICD-9 translation to ICD-10. Just tap, touch and you’re done. It’s that simple.
Why Should You Worry About ICD-10 Medical Coding?
- It has over 10 times more codes than ICD-9
- Each ICD-10 code is longer and more complex
- If your ICD-10 code data isn’t accurate, you won’t get paid
- Many EMR systems force you to search through codes yourself
This can add minutes to every visit.
What Does It Mean to Be Born Ready for Coding ICD-10?
Leveraging a structured data platform enables our system to do what most EMR software can’t; automatically generate ICD-10 codes without adding clicks or time to search.
It means freedom from tedious:
- Crosswalks with General Equivalence Mappings (GEMs)
- Added conversion software
- Translation tools
- Long lists of new ICD codes to sort through
Time Is Up
The initial deadline for the ICD-10 transition was October 1, 2015. While the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) gave providers a one-year grace period, this has now come to an end.
Now, any claim submitted with inaccurate or unspecified codes for ICD-10 can be denied or audited. This poses a big challenge to your practice’s workflow and financial outcomes. Are GEMs and ICD-9 to ICD-10 translator tools slowing down your coding process? Can you risk using a practice EHR that increases your chance of coding errors?
ICD-10 vs ICD-9 Codes
Only 5% of ICD-10 codes have equivalent ICD-9 codes, making exact 1:1 translations nearly impossible. If your EMR software uses GEMs or similar add-on ICD-9 to ICD-10 translation software, you’ll add more steps, more clicks and more work to find the right superbill ICD-10 code. Ultimately, it can cost you time and money.
Whereas ICD-9 has one code for an insect bite, ICD-10 requires specificity in clinical documentation. This turns one code for insect bite into 180, making translation tools a risky and time-consuming endeavor.
Your Old Habits Die Hard
ICD-9 has been around for a long time, and the codes are innately short. Inevitably, you’ve memorized the ones that you use most, but before you try to do the same with ICD-10 codes, consider the effort it would take to learn a new language. The entire Spanish dictionary has fewer words than the new ICD-10 classification of codes. Plus, the new alphanumeric ICD-10 codes are far more complicated than what you’ve been accustomed to, making memorization especially challenging.
You have enough things to worry about when treating patients. Coding shouldn’t be one of them.
To learn more, read our ICD-10 white paper: “Built-in or Bolted-on ICD-10: What’s the Difference and Why Does It Matter?”
Now that the ICD-10 mandate is in effect, make sure you don’t get lost in translation. Choose a specialty-specific, cloud-based healthcare suite that automatically generates codes and bills for you. One that minimizes disruption, eliminates crosswalks and mitigates the risk of human error.
Hear from our clients on how choosing EMA technology has helped make the ICD-9 to ICD-10 transition seamless.
“One of the biggest draws for me was knowing that EMA had a solution for ICD-10. The system already includes the ICD-10 codes, which automatically populate after touching the 3D Interactive Anatomical Atlas™, so there is nothing that needs to be done on my end. I’m able to increase my efficiency because EMA is straightforward with my billing.”
“I used to under-code for fear of being audited. EMA does the coding for us based on the documentation that has been done in the chart. Our billing collections have increased and I no longer have to worry if I’m choosing the right code; it does that for me.”
“With modmed® Ophthalmology, it’s amazing how it codes automatically and all of the data points are positioned with the appropriate number of diagnoses. I’m glad I have EMA for ophthalmology.”