Katie Curry • July 23, 2025

Coding Accuracy in a Value-Based World & Why It’s No Longer Just About the Right DRG

July 23, 2025

Summary of Presentation by Kathryn DeVault, MSL, RHIA, CCS, CCS-P, FAHIMA – July 14, 2025 

Hospitals can no longer focus exclusively on assigning the correct MS-DRG as value-based care (VBC) demands a more comprehensive approach that centers on complete, specific, and accurate documentation and coding. Reimbursement, quality rankings, and publicly reported outcomes now rely on data integrity at the patient level. 

The Shift to Value-Based Care 

Value-based care prioritizes quality over quantity. Payment models reward outcomes, care coordination, and patient experience rather than volume of services, and this transformation is reshaping inpatient payment strategies. According to CMS, over 90% of Medicare Advantage enrollees are now in plans that include some form of value-based payment model (CMS, 2023). Programs such as the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) program adjust hospital reimbursement based on performance in key domains: mortality, safety, patient experience, and efficiency.  

Under the VBP program, CMS withholds 2% of base DRG payments and redistributes those funds based on performance scores (CMS VBP, 2024). Hospitals that perform well receive a net increase in payments and those that underperform lose a portion of their DRG reimbursement. These performance scores also feed into the CMS Star Ratings, impacting public perception, competitive standing, and contract negotiations with commercial payers. 

The Role of Accurate Coding 

Coding accuracy is foundational to success in value-based models. Accurate codes support appropriate reimbursement, enable risk adjustment, and fuel quality improvement efforts. They also ensure complete and defensible clinical documentation. Inaccurate or incomplete coding can exclude key diagnoses from risk models, skewing expected outcomes and exposing hospitals to financial penalties or public underperformance.  

Understanding Risk Adjustment 

Risk adjustment allows payers to compare patient outcomes across hospitals fairly by accounting for differences in patient acuity and comorbidities. CMS uses tools such as the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index to assess 30-day mortality, readmissions, and safety events. Diagnoses must be coded correctly and tagged as Present on Admission (POA) to be included. The mortality domain under the CMS Stars program includes seven metrics and evaluates all-cause mortality within 30 days. According to CMS, more than 3,000 hospitals receive mortality scores based on risk-adjusted data derived from claims and coded diagnoses (CMS Hospital Compare, 2024). 

Risk adjustment also influences private payers and rankings. U.S. News & World Report hospital rankings and Leapfrog scores incorporate risk-adjusted data derived from coded information. Missing a chronic condition like COPD, CKD, or diabetes may not impact the DRG but could dramatically alter performance scores and ranking outcomes. 

CDI, Coding, and Strategic Impact 

Clinical Documentation Integrity teams must prioritize specificity and relevance to risk models. This includes expanding review focus to non-mortality domains such as readmissions and complications. Coders and CDS specialists should be equipped to query not only for DRG optimization but also for clinical accuracy and data completeness. 

Hospitals that invest in this strategy see results. According to the AHIMA Foundation, hospitals with strong CDI programs report an average increase in captured comorbid conditions of 25–30%, resulting in improved risk scores, quality metrics, and reimbursement (AHIMA CDI Impact Study, 2023). 


Real World Example 

Consider the following inpatient scenario: 

A patient is admitted with new-onset atrial fibrillation (A-fib) that triggers acute congestive heart failure (CHF). Both conditions are evaluated, treated, and monitored during the admission. The provider documents both diagnoses clearly in the record, and clinical indicators support the acuity of each. 

At the coding level, two principal diagnosis (PDX) options are clinically valid: 
  • I48.91 (Unspecified atrial fibrillation) results in DRG 310, with a relative weight of 0.553 and a reimbursement of approximately $4,736 
  • I50.9 (Unspecified heart failure) results in DRG 293, with a relative weight of 0.5615 and a reimbursement of approximately $4,795 
  • Although CHF offers a slightly higher payment, it carries added risk in value-based care programs. Coding CHF as the PDX places this case in the CMS Heart Failure 30-Day Readmission Cohort, which is publicly reported and directly impacts a hospital’s readmission scores and star ratings. Coding A-fib, by contrast, avoids triggering that metric. 

Key takeaway for coders: Don’t make DRG assignment decisions in isolation. Collaborate with CDI and quality teams to understand downstream implications. Even small DRG differentials may lead to long-term financial risk if they adversely impact quality metrics. Be aware of cohort inclusion criteria tied to mortality, complications, and readmissions when selecting the principal diagnosis. 

When both conditions meet criteria for PDX, and documentation supports either as the focus of care, coders must weigh the immediate DRG return against long-term quality exposure. Query for specificity when it may influence cohort inclusion or risk adjustment, not just DRG grouping. 


From Code Assignment to Strategic Impact 

In today’s value-based care environment, coding professionals play a strategic role in shaping financial outcomes, quality performance, and public reporting. Accurate, complete, and specific coding is no longer just about selecting the highest-paying DRG. It is about capturing the full complexity of the patient’s condition, supporting risk adjustment models, and influencing quality domains that determine reimbursement, ratings, and reputation. Coders and CDI teams must operate as clinical and operational stewards, ensuring documentation supports both the clinical reality and the evolving expectations of payers and regulators. The future of hospital success depends on how precisely and thoughtfully each case is coded. 

 
Sources 
  • Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. “Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program.” CMS.gov 
  • CMS Star Ratings Fact Sheet. “Overall Hospital Quality Star Rating.” CMS.gov 
  • AHIMA Foundation. “CDI Program Impact Report.” 2023. AHIMA.org 
  • Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. “2024 Medicare Advantage and Part D Rate Announcement.” CMS.gov 
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). “Elixhauser Comorbidity Index.” AHRQ.gov 
MRI brain scans illustrating symptoms of PRES with title text overlay.
December 9, 2025
Learn the symptoms of PRES, key treatment considerations, ICD-10-CM code I67.83, and documentation tips for CDI and accurate DRG assignment.
Microscopic immune cells interacting in cellular environment, illustrating immune effector activity
By Katie Curry December 1, 2025
Understand ICANS documentation and ICD-10 coding with guidance on the ICANS grading system, ICE score, clinical indicators, and CAR T-cell neurotoxicity.
By Katie Curry November 3, 2025
Gestational Diabetes definition : Any pregnant person that shows abnormal glucose tolerance that was not present prior to the pregnancy. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) define GDM as "a condition in which carbohydrate intolerance develops during pregnancy.” Preexisting (pregestational) diabetes refers to type 1 or 2 diabetes diagnosed before pregnancy. Common Risk Factors: GDM in a prior pregnancy Family history of diabetes Pre-pregnancy BMI ≥30 kg/m2, significant weight gain in early adulthood or between pregnancies, or excessive gestational weight gain during the first 18 to 24 weeks of pregnancy Maternal age >/=35 years of age Key Points for Accurate Documentation Specify Diagnosis Clearly Use the term “Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM)” and indicate if it is diet-controlled (A1) or insulin/medication-controlled (A2). Avoid vague terms like “borderline diabetes” or “glucose intolerance.” Document Diagnostic Basis Include OGTT results or note that diagnosis was based on ADA/ACOG criteria (e.g., abnormal 1-hour or 3-hour glucose tolerance test). Capture Clinical Significance Note any maternal or fetal complications (e.g., polyhydramnios, macrosomia, preeclampsia). Document treatment plan: diet modification, insulin, oral agents, or glucose monitoring. Differentiate from Pre-existing Diabetes Confirm that hyperglycemia was first recognized during pregnancy. If diabetes existed before pregnancy, code as pre-gestational diabetes. Postpartum Follow-up Indicate if postpartum glucose testing or counseling for future diabetes risk was provided. Why It Matters: Precise documentation supports accurate ICD-10 coding (e.g., O24.41–O24.43), reflects severity of illness, and impacts quality metrics and reimbursement. AHRQ’s Maternity Care Measure Set includes post-partum glucose careening for gestational diabetes patients in Measure 10 – Post-Partum Follow-up and Care Coordination. This measure applies to all patients regardless of age, who gave birth during a 12-month period seen for post-partum care visit before or at 8-weeks of giving birth. There are no exceptions. References: ACOG/National Committee or Quality Assurance. (2012). Maternity Care Performance Measures Set. Maternity Care Performance Measurement Set American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2018). Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. Practice Bulletin Number 190. Gestational Diabetes Mellitus | ACOG Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. (2025). Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting. ICD-10-CM October 2025 FY26Guidelines Diabetes Care 2025;48(Supplement_1):S306–S320 https://doi.org/10.2337/dc25-S015 Durnwald, C. (2025). Gestational diabetes mellitus: Screening, diagnosis, and prevention. UpToDate.
By Katie Curry October 20, 2025
Definition : Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) is an abrupt decline in kidney function, leading to retention of waste products, electrolyte imbalance, and fluid dysregulation. It is classified based on etiology and severity. 1. Types of AKI by Etiology Pre-Renal AKI Cause: Decreased renal perfusion without intrinsic kidney damage. Examples: Hypovolemia (dehydration, hemorrhage). Hypotension/shock (sepsis, cardiogenic shock) Heart failure, liver failure Documentation Tip: Specify underlying cause (e.g., “AKI due to hypovolemia from GI bleed”). Intrinsic (Intra-Renal) AKI Cause: Direct damage to kidney tissue. Examples: Acute Tubular Necrosis (ATN\) – ischemia or nephrotoxins Acute Interstitial Nephritis (AIN) – drug-induced, autoimmune Glomerulonephritis Documentation Tip: If ATN or AIN is suspected, document specifically (e.g., “AKI secondary to ATN from contrast exposure”). Post-Renal AKI Cause: Obstruction of urine flow. Examples: Ureteral obstruction (stones, tumors) Bladder outlet obstruction (BPH, neurogenic bladder) Documentation Tip: State the obstructive cause (e.g., “AKI due to bilateral ureteral obstruction from stones”). 2. Diagnostic Criteria (KDIGO) Increase in serum creatinine by ≥ 0.3 mg/dL within 48 hrs, OR Increase in serum creatinine to ≥ 1.5 times baseline within 7 days, OR Urine output < 0.5 mL/kg/hr for 6 hrs 3. Severity Staging Stage 1: 1.5–1.9 × baseline creatinine or ≥ 0.3 mg/dL rise Stage 2: 2.0–2.9 × baseline Stage 3: ≥ 3 × baseline or creatinine ≥ 4.0 mg/dL or dialysis required 4. CDI and Current Coding Guidance Avoid vague terms like “renal insufficiency”; use “acute kidney injury” or “acute renal failure” (interchangeable per coding). Always link AKI to the underlying cause (e.g., sepsis, dehydration, obstruction). If ATN or AIN are present, document explicitly (these are MCCs). Do not abbreviate AKI without context; clarify in the first mention. Trend labs and urine output to support diagnosis before querying. Assign code N17.0, Acute kidney failure with tubular necrosis, with a POA of N for documentation of a patient with AKI on admission who then develops ATN after admission. For a case of acute kidney injury (AKI) due to acute tubular necrosis (ATN) secondary to contrast-induced nephropathy, the correct coding assignment is N17.0 for acute kidney failure with tubular necrosis, N14.11 for contrast-induced nephropathy, and T50.8X5A for adverse effect of diagnostic agents, initial encounter. This combination accurately reflects the underlying cause, the specific kidney injury type, and the adverse effect of the contrast agent. Pro Tip: AKI impacts severity of illness and quality metrics (e.g., PSI-10 Post-Op AKI). Accurate documentation ensures correct DRG assignment and patient safety. References: AHA Coding Clinic, Third Quarter 2025, p. 22 AHA Coding Clinic, Fourth Quarter 2022, p. 33 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. (2025). Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting. www.cms.gov. Fatehi, P., & Hsu, C-Y. (2024). Evaluation of acute kidney injury among hospitalized adult patients. UpToDate. Palevsky, P. M. (2025). Definition and staging criteria of acute kidney injury in adults. UpToDate. Prescott, L., Manz, J. (2025). The ACDIS Inpatient CDI Pocket Guide. www.acdis.org
By Katie Curry September 30, 2025
CDI Tip: Capturing Firearm Injury Intent from Other Clinicians’ Documentation What’s New in FY 2026? CMS and ICD-10-CM guidelines now allow documentation by clinicians other than the patient’s provider (e.g., nurses, social workers, trauma team) to be used for assigning external cause codes, including firearm injury intent. This change supports more accurate public health reporting and injury surveillance Key Actions for CDI Specialists Review All Clinical Notes Check ED notes, nursing assessments, social work documentation, and EMS reports for statements about firearm injury intent (e.g., accidental, assault, self-harm, undetermined). Apply the New Intent Hierarchy If intent is clearly documented by any clinician, code accordingly: Accidental: W34 series Assault: X93–X95 series Self-harm: X72–X74 series Undetermined: Y22–Y24 series If no intent is documented, follow the updated guideline: default to undetermined intent for firearm injuries (Y24.9), unless otherwise specified. Query When Needed If conflicting documentation exists (e.g., ED note states “possible assault,” nursing note says “accidental”), query the provider for clarification. Document Source When coding based on another clinician’s note, ensure the documentation is clearly attributed in the record. Pro Tip: Incorporate firearm injury intent review into your trauma and ED CDI workflows. Educate providers that intent matters for coding, quality metrics, and injury prevention programs. Example Clinical Scenario with Query: Setting: ED, trauma bay Patient: 28-year-old male with a through and through gunshot wound of the left thigh; hemodynamically stable. Documentation in record: ED triage RN note: “Pt states he was shot by someone outside a bar.” EMS run sheet: “Bystanders report drive by shooting; single GSW to L thigh.” ED SW note: “Patient reports unknown assailant; denies self-harm.” ED provider note: “GSW L thigh; hemorrhage controlled; analgesia given.” Intent not specified in provider note or discharge summary Query: Documentation in the medical record shows that the patient was injured by a firearm. Please clarify the intent of the firearm injury for this encounter, based on your clinical judgment and the medical record. Assault (injury inflicted by another person) Accidental/unintentional Intentional self-harm Undetermined (unable to determine intent from available information) Other (please specify): _______________________
By Katie Curry September 22, 2025
What is ventricular standstill? SA node is functioning, and P waves are present on EKG. There is no ventricular response, no contractions of the muscle. The presence of complete heart block with no escape rhythm. No cardiac output with the patient in full arrest. May be paroxysmal or prolonged.
Illustration of brain activity used to support CDI guidance and clinical documentation for neuro storm.
By Katie Curry September 7, 2025
What does it mean when “neurostorming” is documented? “Neuro storm” and other similar terms such as autonomic storms, hypothalamic dysregulation syndrome and sympathetic storms all equate to the condition paroxysmal sympathetic hyperactivity (PSH). This syndrome was formally named in 2014 by an international panel looking at preferred nomenclature, definition and diagnostic criteria. PSH is defined as a disorder in the regulation of autonomic function most observed in patients with acute brain injury, most notably severe traumatic brain injury. What are the risk factors for PSH? Traumatic brain injury (TBI) Hypoxic ischemic injury What are the clinical indicators of PSH? Sinus tachycardia Elevated systolic blood pressure Tachypnea associated with respiratory alkalosis Diaphoresis that can progress to dehydration Hyperthermia in some cases Severe cases may have dystonic posturing How is PSH treated? Reducing stimulation Managing hyperthermia and hyperventilation Medications IV Morphine Gabapentin Beta blockers Baclofen Precedex infusion Dantrolene Coding and CDI considerations for the documentation of “neurostorming” The ICD-10-CM condition code most appropriate for reporting of PSH is G90.89, Other disorders of autonomic nervous system. There is no specific code to identify neurostorm or PSH. There are also no instructional notes for the code G90.89. Per the ICD10-CM Official Coding Guidelines, “ If a main term cannot be located, consider a synonym, an eponym, or another alternative term. Once the main term is located, search for subterms, notes, or cross-references. Subterms provide many types of more specific information and must be checked carefully, following all the rules of alphabetization. The main term code entry should not be assigned until all subterm possibilities have been exhausted. During this process, it may be necessary to refer again to the medical record to determine whether any additional information is available to permit assignment of a more specific code. If a subterm cannot be located, the nonessential modifiers following the main term should be reviewed to see whether the subterm may be included there. If not, alternative terms should be considered” Current coding advice notes that when the index is confusing, leading to an inappropriate code, further research is needed when the title of the code suggested by the index clearly does not identify the condition correctly. Regarding the CDI professional, it is allowable to report code G90.89, Other disorders of autonomic nervous system in the instance where “neurostorm” is documented by the provider. A query would not be needed for clarification. References: American Hospital Association (AHA). ICD-10-CM Coding Clinic, Second Quarter 2025, p. 4. Available from: AHA Coding Clinic Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). (2025). ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting. Available from: CMS ICD-10-CM Guidelines Rabinstein, A. (2024). Paroxysmal sympathetic hyperactivity. UpToDate. Available from: UpToDate – Paroxysmal sympathetic hyperactivity
By Katie Curry August 7, 2025
Background: With the 2026 IPPS Proposed Final Rule comes a new diabetes code, E11.A, Type II diabetes mellitus without complications in remission. This is a non-CC/MCC and is assigned to MDC 10. ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting 2026: Section I.C.4.a.1.(b) - “Code E11.A, Type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications in remission, is assigned based on provider documentation that the diabetes mellitus is in remission. If the documentation is unclear as to whether the Type 2 diabetes mellitus has achieved remission, the provider should be queried. For example, the term “resolved” is not synonymous with remission.” Clinical criteria for diabetes in remission: Note* - Remission does not mean cure. Ongoing monitoring is essential as relapse is possible. 1. Prior Diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus Documented history of type 2 diabetes mellitus, diagnosed using standard criteria: HbA1c ≥ 6.5% Fasting plasma glucose ≥ 126 mg/dL 2-hour plasma glucose ≥ 200 mg/dL during an OGTT Random plasma glucose ≥ 200 mg/dL with classic symptoms 2. Normal or Controlled Glucose Levels Without Medications The patient is not taking any antidiabetic medications (oral agents, insulin, or non-insulin injectables). Glycemic control is sustained through lifestyle modifications, such as diet and exercise. HbA1c < 6.5%, and sometimes < 6.0%, on two occasions at least 6 months apart without pharmacologic therapy. 3. Duration of Remission Partial remission: HbA1c < 6.5% and fasting glucose 100–125 mg/dL for at least 1 year without medications. Complete remission: HbA1c in the normal range (<5.7%) and fasting glucose <100 mg/dL for at least 1 year. Prolonged remission: Complete remission lasting ≥5 years. 4. Documentation Must Include Clear statement that diabetes is in remission or resolution. No current use of diabetes medications. Current HbA1c values. Lifestyle interventions being used. Absence of ongoing diabetic complications (or if present, they are noted as sequelae) 5. What about Type I diabetes? Is remission associated? “Honeymoon Phase” vs. Remission Some individuals newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes may experience a "honeymoon phase": This is a temporary period (weeks to months) where insulin needs to decrease and blood glucose levels may normalize. However, this is not true remission, as the autoimmune process continues and insulin dependence eventually returns. Clinical Scenario Dr. Doctor, Documentation in your visit note indicates the patient has a documented history of type 2 diabetes mellitus, but current labs show: HbA1c: 5.6% No diabetes medications (e.g., insulin, metformin) currently prescribed Patient reports lifestyle changes (e.g., diet and weight loss) No hyperglycemia documented during this admission or recent visits Query Based on the clinical picture, can you please clarify the patient’s current diabetic status? ☐ Type 2 diabetes mellitus – continue to document and treat as active ☐ History of type 2 diabetes mellitus, currently in remission (no medications, normal glucose values) ☐ Other: ________________
By Katie Curry July 9, 2025
Definition: Neonatal encephalopathy (NE) is a clinically defined syndrome of disturbed neurologic function in the earliest days of life in a term or late preterm infant, manifested by difficulty with initiating and maintaining respiration, depression of tone and reflexes, subnormal level of consciousness, and often seizures. Clinical presentation: Low APGAR scores and/or weak/absent cry in the delivery room. Hyperalert, irritable, lethargic, obtunded. Decreased spontaneous movements, poor tone, blunted or absent primitive reflexes, seizure activity. Breathing and/or feeding difficulties. Documentation Tips: The CDS should review to identify the underlying etiology . (e.g., hypoxic-ischemic event, infection, metabolic disorder). Review clinical indicators that may indicate associated conditions , such as seizures, abnormal imaging, acidosis, or multi-organ dysfunction. Review the documentation for the timing of onset (e.g., at birth, delayed). Common clinical indicators include low APGAR scores, need for resuscitation, abnormal tone, or altered level of consciousness.  ICD-10-CM Coding: P91.811, Neonatal encephalopathy in diseases classified elsewhere P91.819, Neonatal encephalopathy, unspecified Use when the type or etiology of NE is not documented Query Example: To the Attending Neonatologist: Documentation in the medical record indicates the newborn infant delivered from mother with placental abruption demonstrates seizures, abnormal muscle tone, low APGAR scores, and required resuscitation at birth. Imaging showed evidence of cerebral edema. The diagnosis of “neonatal encephalopathy” was documented in the assessment. Query: Based on the clinical indicators, can you clarify the type and cause of the encephalopathy in this newborn? Please select the most appropriate option below or specify another diagnosis: Neonatal encephalopathy due to Hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) Neonatal encephalopathy due to other etiology (please specify) Other (please specify): __________
By Katie Curry May 12, 2025
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.
Show More