Uploaded image for project: 'eCQM Issue Tracker'
  1. eCQM Issue Tracker
  2. CQM-1705

V91.* Not in Pregnancy Value Sets

XMLWordPrintable

    • Icon: EC eCQMs - Eligible Clinicians EC eCQMs - Eligible Clinicians
    • Resolution: Answered
    • Icon: Minor Minor
    • ValueSet
    • None
    • Hide


      The code V91 is not included in the “Pregnancy” value set because it is considered a supplemental code for the multiple gestation codes 651.0-651.9. This means that in order to use V91 you first must code 651.0-651.9. Given this guidance, we felt that these patients would be captured better through codes 651.0-651.9 rather than a supplemental status code of V91. Below is a rationale for the codes that were included in the value set.
       
      ICD-9:
      Category 630-633: included codes that resulted in an intrauterine pregnancy
      Category 634-639: did not include as they are classified as ‘Other Pregnancy with Abortive Outcome’ – did not result in a delivery
      Category 640-649: only allowed for the use of .x1, .x2, .x3 as the fifth digit, when indicated as an appropriate 5th digit
      Category 650-659: only allowed for the use of .x1, .x2, .x3 as the fifth digit, when indicated as an appropriate 5th digit
      Category 660-669: only allowed for the use of .x1, .x2, .x3 as the fifth digit, when indicated as an appropriate 5th digit
      Category 670-677: only allowed for the use of .x1, .x2, .x3 as the fifth digit, when indicated as an appropriate 5th digit
      Category 678-679: only allowed for the use of .x1, .x2, .x3 as the fifth digit, when indicated as an appropriate 5th digit
      V Codes: included codes that indicated a pregnant state (not supervision of [eg, V22.0, V22.1])
       
      ICD-10:
      Using the ICD-9 codes included using above rationale, used the GEMs and other mapping resources to develop a synonymous list.
       
      SNOMED-CT:
      included concepts with an ‘is a’ relationship to the following hierarchies; these are all findings (with the exception of one concept, planned for removal) -
      · unplanned pregnancy
      · finding of pattern of pregnancy
      · patient currently pregnant
      Show
      ​ The code V91 is not included in the “Pregnancy” value set because it is considered a supplemental code for the multiple gestation codes 651.0-651.9. This means that in order to use V91 you first must code 651.0-651.9. Given this guidance, we felt that these patients would be captured better through codes 651.0-651.9 rather than a supplemental status code of V91. Below is a rationale for the codes that were included in the value set.   ICD-9: Category 630-633: included codes that resulted in an intrauterine pregnancy Category 634-639: did not include as they are classified as ‘Other Pregnancy with Abortive Outcome’ – did not result in a delivery Category 640-649: only allowed for the use of .x1, .x2, .x3 as the fifth digit, when indicated as an appropriate 5th digit Category 650-659: only allowed for the use of .x1, .x2, .x3 as the fifth digit, when indicated as an appropriate 5th digit Category 660-669: only allowed for the use of .x1, .x2, .x3 as the fifth digit, when indicated as an appropriate 5th digit Category 670-677: only allowed for the use of .x1, .x2, .x3 as the fifth digit, when indicated as an appropriate 5th digit Category 678-679: only allowed for the use of .x1, .x2, .x3 as the fifth digit, when indicated as an appropriate 5th digit V Codes: included codes that indicated a pregnant state (not supervision of [eg, V22.0, V22.1])   ICD-10: Using the ICD-9 codes included using above rationale, used the GEMs and other mapping resources to develop a synonymous list.   SNOMED-CT: included concepts with an ‘is a’ relationship to the following hierarchies; these are all findings (with the exception of one concept, planned for removal) - · unplanned pregnancy · finding of pattern of pregnancy · patient currently pregnant
    • CMS155v3/NQF0024, CMS165v3/NQF0018

      Could you please elaborate on why V91.* ICD-9 codes are not contained in the Pregnancy Value Sets? Is there a reason or was this an oversight?

            edave Mathematica EC eCQM Team
            prp5000 Philip Parker (Inactive)
            Votes:
            1 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            4 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: