Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The ICD-10-CM classification system contains more specificity than its predecessor ICD-9-CM. A stated reason for transitioning to ICD-10-CM was to increase the availability of detailed data. This study aims to determine whether the increased specificity contained in ICD-10-CM is utilized in the ambulatory care setting and inform an evidence-based approach to evaluate ICD-11 content for implementation planning in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Diagnosis codes and text descriptions were extracted from a 25% random sample of the IQVIA Ambulatory EMR-US database for 2014 (ICD-9-CM, n = 14 327 155) and 2019 (ICD-10-CM, n = 13 062 900). Code utilization data was analyzed for the total and unique number of codes. Frequencies and tests of significance determined the percentage of available codes utilized and the unspecified code rates for both code sets in each year. RESULTS: Only 44.6% of available ICD-10-CM codes were used compared to 91.5% of available ICD-9-CM codes. Of the total codes used, 14.5% ICD-9-CM codes were unspecified, while 33.3% ICD-10-CM codes were unspecified. DISCUSSION: Even though greater detail is available, a 108.5% increase in using unspecified codes with ICD-10-CM was found. The utilization data analyzed in this study does not support a rationale for the large increase in the number of codes in ICD-10-CM. New technologies and methods are likely needed to fully utilize detailed classification systems. CONCLUSION: These results help evaluate the content needed in the United States national ICD standard. This analysis of codes in the current ICD standard is important for ICD-11 evaluation, implementation, and use.