Latest news with #InternationalClassificationofDiseases
Time Business News
a day ago
- Health
- Time Business News
Degenerative Joint Disease DJD ICD 10: Complete Guide
Degenerative Joint Disease DJD ICD 10 (DJD), commonly referred to as osteoarthritis, is the most prevalent chronic joint condition, especially among the aging population. It leads to the progressive breakdown of cartilage in joints, causing pain, stiffness, and decreased mobility. In healthcare documentation and billing, DJD is classified using the ICD-10 system, which provides a standardized way to code and track medical diagnoses across healthcare systems. This blog explains what DJD is, how it's categorized under ICD-10 codes, and what patients and healthcare providers need to know for proper diagnosis and documentation. DJD ICD 10 is a chronic condition characterized by the wearing away of cartilage—the flexible, protective tissue at the ends of bones in joints. As the cartilage deteriorates, bones begin to rub against each other, leading to: Joint pain and stiffness Swelling or inflammation Decreased range of motion Bone spurs Knees Hips Spine (Cervical, Thoracic, Lumbar) Hands and fingers The International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) is a globally used coding system maintained by the World Health Organization (WHO) and adapted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in the U.S. It allows for standardized documentation, billing, and statistical tracking of health conditions. Each ICD-10 code provides specific information about: The type of disease of disease The location of the disease of the disease The laterality (right, left, bilateral) (right, left, bilateral) The severity (if applicable) In ICD-10, Degenerative Joint Disease is primarily coded under M15–M19, depending on the location and nature of the arthritis. ICD-10 Code Description M15.0 Primary generalized osteoarthritis M15.4 Secondary multiple osteoarthritis M16.0 – M16.9 Osteoarthritis of the knee M17.0 – M17.9 Osteoarthritis of the first carpometacarpal joint (thumb base) M18.0 – M18.9 Osteoarthritis of first carpometacarpal joint (thumb base) M19.0 – M19.9 Other and unspecified osteoarthritis DJD of Right Knee: ICD-10 Code: M17.11 Description: Unilateral primary osteoarthritis, right knee DJD of Bilateral Hips: ICD-10 Code: M16.0 Description: Primary osteoarthritis of the bilateral hips Generalized DJD: ICD-10 Code: M15.0 Description: Primary generalized osteoarthritis affecting multiple joints DJD of Lumbar Spine: ICD-10 Code: M47.816 Description: Spondylosis without myelopathy or radiculopathy, lumbar region Healthcare providers use ICD-10 codes to: Document clinical diagnoses in patient records in patient records Facilitate insurance claims and reimbursement and reimbursement Track epidemiological data Coordinate treatment plans Accurate ICD-10 coding ensures that the severity and location of DJD are well-documented, helping improve care and billing compliance. To select the correct DJD ICD-10 code, the provider must: Specify the joint(s) affected affected Note the laterality (left, right, or bilateral) (left, right, or bilateral) Clarify if the DJD is primary, secondary, or post-traumatic Mention if there's an associated condition (e.g., spondylosis or joint deformity) Type Description ICD-10 Implication Primary DJD Age-related wear and tear with no known cause M15.0, M16.0, M17.0 Secondary DJD Result of another condition or injury (e.g., trauma, obesity, gout) M15.4, M19.x Aging Joint overuse or repetitive motion (e.g., athletes, laborers) Obesity Previous joint injuries or surgeries Genetics Poor posture or spinal alignment Understanding risk factors helps with prevention and early diagnosis, which can delay progression and improve quality of life. Patients often report: Aching pain that worsens with activity Morning stiffness lasting < 30 minutes Clicking or popping in the joint Swelling or warmth around the joint Limited range of motion In the spine, DJD may also lead to nerve compression, causing numbness or tingling in the arms or legs. Physicians use: X-rays : To detect bone spurs and cartilage loss : To detect bone spurs and cartilage loss MRI or CT scans : For detailed soft tissue views : For detailed soft tissue views Physical exams : To assess mobility and tenderness : To assess mobility and tenderness Patient history: Essential for understanding progression Once diagnosed, ICD-10 codes are selected based on findings and included in the patient's record and claims. Although there's no cure for DJD, many treatments can manage symptoms and improve function: Physical therapy Weight loss programs NSAIDs and pain relievers Joint injections (steroids or hyaluronic acid) Assistive devices (braces, canes) Joint replacement (hip/knee) Arthroscopy Osteotomy (bone realignment) The ICD-10 code remains relevant through all stages of care for tracking diagnosis, treatment progress, and outcome. DJD ICD 10 is a chronic, progressive disorder that affects millions globally. Whether you're a healthcare provider documenting a diagnosis or a patient trying to understand your condition, knowing the correct ICD-10 code is essential for treatment, communication, and insurance. From M15.0 (generalized osteoarthritis) to M17.11 (right knee OA), each code tells a story about the location, severity, and origin of the disease. Proper coding ensures better care, faster claims, and more accurate data collection, benefiting both patients and practitioners. ICD-10 DJD Range: M15–M19 M15–M19 Most Common Locations: Hips, knees, spine, hands Hips, knees, spine, hands Important ICD Codes: M15.0 (generalized) M17.0–M17.9 (knee) M16.0–M16.9 (hip) Primary vs. Secondary DJD: Age-related vs. trauma/disease-related TIME BUSINESS NEWS
The Star
5 days ago
- Health
- The Star
New healthcare payment model to begin next year
PUTRAJAYA: The first phase rollout of the much-awaited diagnosis-related group (DRG) payment model is planned for next year, says Datuk Seri Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad. The Health Minister said DRG's implementation is planned incrementally, with its first phase focusing on minor cases. 'It will take time but we plan to expand it to cover more complex cases. 'The implementation will be linked to the planned introduction of the basic medical and health insurance/takaful products,' he told a press conference at the ministry yesterday. Dzulkefly said patient categorisation under DRG will follow the World Health Organisation's existing International Classification of Diseases system. 'The implementation of DRG would be governed directly under the recently-formed joint ministerial committee on private healthcare cost,' he added. The committee is co-chaired by Finance Minister II Datuk Seri Amir Hamzah Azizan and Dzulkefly with the goal of reducing private healthcare costs and medical inflation. Medical partnerships: Dzulkefly (centre) witnessing the signing of an agreement between the Health Ministry and Pantai Medical Centre for radiotherapy services. — RAJA FAISAL HISHAN/The Star Dzulkefly also said that there has been a warm reception of DRG's planned implementation from across healthcare industry stakeholders without any major issues expected. 'There may be glitches or hiccups when DRG is implemented but I believe we will be able to finetune it with the support from all stakeholders,' he said. Under the DRG payment model, hospital patients will be categorised into groups based on diagnoses, procedures and expected length of stay. A payment rate will then be fixed for each of these groups, meaning patients will only have to pay standardised rates for treatment instead of being charged depending on how many services they are provided in hospitals. Dzulkefly also addressed concerns that the ministry's Rakan KKM programme signals a privatisation of public healthcare, noting that it will only apply to elective patient cases. 'Rakan KKM is not a privatisation programme as it does not use private funds but is a government investment financed by government-linked investment companies. 'It is designed to provide patients with non-emergency or elective cases the ability to expedite their elective procedures, while for emergency cases everyone will still receive equal treatment without any priority. 'This means patients with elective cases will now have the choice to either wait in the regular queue or get faster services through Rakan KKM,' he said. Dzulkefly said that revenue generated from the Rakan KKM programme would be reinvested into public healthcare facilities.
The Star
6 days ago
- Health
- The Star
First phase of DRG payment model planned for 2026, says Dzulkefly
PUTRAJAYA: The first phase rollout of the much-awaited diagnosis-related group (DRG) payment model is planned for 2026, says Datuk Seri Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad. The Health Minister said DRG's implementation was planned to be done incrementally over time, with its first phase to focus on minor cases. 'It will take time, but we plan to expand it to cover more complex cases as we move along 2026. 'But its implementation will be linked to the planned introduction of the basic medical and health insurance/takaful (MHIT) products,' he said during a press conference at the Health Ministry's office here on Monday (July 7). He also revealed that the group categorisation of patients under DRG would be according to the World Health Organisation's (WHO) existing International Classification of Diseases (ICD) system. He added that the implementation of DRG would be governed directly under the recently formed joint ministerial committee on private healthcare costs. Revealed on June 24, the committee is co-chaired by Finance Minister II Datuk Seri Amir Hamzah Azizan and Dzulkefly himself with the goal of reducing private healthcare costs and medical inflation. Dzulkefly also said that there has been a warm reception of DRG's planned implementation from across healthcare industry stakeholders without any major issues expected so far. 'We might face problems like possible glitches or hiccups when DRG is implemented, but I believe we will be able to easily fine-tune it when that happens with the support from all stakeholders,' he added. Under the DRG payment model, hospital patients would be categorised into groups based on diagnoses, procedures and expected length of stay. A fixed payment rate would then be fixed for each of these groups, meaning patients would only have to pay standardised rates for treatment instead of being charged depending on how many services they receive in hospitals. Dzulkefly also addressed concerns of the ministry's Rakan KKM programme being a privatisation of public healthcare, adding that it would only apply for elective patient cases. 'Rakan KKM is not a privatisation programme as it does not use private funds but is a government investment financed by government-linked investment companies (GLIC). 'It is designed to provide only patients with non-emergency or elective cases the ability to expedite their elective procedures, while for emergency cases, everyone will still receive equal treatment without any priority. 'This means patients with elective cases will now have the choice to either wait in the regular queue or obtain faster services through Rakan KKM,' he said in the same press conference. He added that revenue generated from the Rakan KKM programme would be reinvested into public healthcare facilities.
Bangkok Post
29-06-2025
- Health
- Bangkok Post
Is being born as an LGBTI person a medical issue?
June is a propitious time to remember the history of lesbian, gay, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people and their struggles to overcome discrimination and violence. One of the difficulties confronting them throughout the ages has been how the medical sector and related science view them, and how they should be treated by medical classifications. What is the situation today both locally and globally? On the positive front, there is the medical issue facing the LGBTI community and everyone else in terms of their right to healthcare and related access. Thailand can be proud that it aspires to provide universal healthcare, whereby people can access the highest attainable standard of health, to the maximum extent of available resources. The so-called 30-baht medical care system, with little to be paid for medical services as social protection for all Thais, has been recognised worldwide. Of course, there is room for improvement, such as making the system more efficient and more comprehensive in regard to gender diversity, but it is undeniable that medical care has been one of the key successes in policy planning and practice for the past two decades. On another front, there is more room for debate. At the topmost level of the global health system, it should not be forgotten that even in the medical arm of the UN, gays and lesbians were seen as having a mental disorder till 1990. This embodied a pathological approach that viewed gender diversity as an abnormality, illness or disorder. The shift in mindset in the 1990s helped to "depathologise" in regard to gays and lesbians. Being gay or lesbian is simply a part of human biodiversity, not a disorder. In Thailand, it took the medical sector several years to adjust to that catalytic change. Regrettably, over 60 countries still criminalise same-sex relations, particularly affecting LGBTI groups. The authorities of some countries still oblige parents to take their children to psychiatrists to change their sexual orientation and gender identity as part of "conversion therapy". Today, several countries are adopting laws against conversion therapy, and judicial intervention in a big Asian country has significantly prohibited such practice. The medical approach towards transgender people has also been problematic. Previously, the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) under the World Health Organization, a UN agency, viewed transgender people as having a disorder. Words such as "gender disorder" and "gender dysphoria" were used nationally and internationally to describe the group, compounding the stigma and discrimination against them. This was tantamount to the "pathologisation" of gender diversity emanating from the medical sector, shaping the public perception. It was only in 2019 that the agency started to depathologise with regard to the classification of transgender people. The revamped ICD was to classify the group as not having a mental disorder but having an issue of "sexual health". This was an improvement, shifting from the previous pathology-based perception. While this was a progressive stepping stone, some terms in the newer ICD are still ambivalent. For example, phrases such as "gender incongruence of adolescence and adulthood" and "gender incongruence of childhood" appear in the new text covering transgender people. On the one hand, these terms are justified by some quarters as enabling a diagnostic link to enable access to healthcare. On the other hand, from a less medical perspective, even the term "incongruence" might be seen to be stigmatising and discriminatory. Interestingly, in Thailand, over a decade ago, a dilemma arose concerning the military conscription form which, at the time, classified transgender people as persons with a mental disorder. That classification was problematic, and there was a case before the Administrative Court to invalidate the terminology. The court agreed, and the military proposed to change the classification to "current sex status does not match that of birth". That description is more respectful of gender diversity. Incidentally, when people undergo surgery to self-identify as transgender, the preferred term is "gender affirmation" rather than "gender reassignment". There remains a challenging spectrum concerning intersex people who have particular characteristics, with sometimes both male and female organs. A United Nations-related description is as follows: "Intersex people are born with sex characteristics (such as sexual anatomy, reproductive organs, hormonal patterns and/or chromosomal patterns) that do not fit typical binary notions of male or female bodies." This group was raised as a key concern for discussion with the UN Human Rights Council last year and this will be continued this year. The description found in medical practice is that the group has "disorders of sex development". From the angle of biodiversity, that term is not empathetic. Other terms, such as "variations of sex characteristics", "differences of sex development" or simply "intersex", are regarded as more balanced. With this group, it is important that doctors and parents refrain from deciding on behalf of the child at an early stage and subjecting the child to a medical procedure, choosing the sex/gender of the child. Such a procedure should be left to a later stage when the child has grown up, with due respect for the person's choice. At a seminar with doctors in which this author participated in Bangkok recently, doctors said they advise parents should wait and not hasten the decision-making until the child reaches a suitable age. In a draft Thai law on this issue, 15 years old is the proposed minimum age for exercising the choice for the procedure. Given that Thai doctors are at the forefront of universal healthcare with key contributions at the international level, they should leverage well to overcome the stigma and discriminatory remnants of medical classifications and procedures globally. On a related front, another key initiative which Thailand can propel as a member of the UN Human Rights Council is to vote this year for the extension of the mandate of the UN Independent Expert on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity as a global monitor of these issues. Without equivocation, the authorities should not abstain but vote "Yes", exhibiting exemplary leadership for progressive, gender-diverse transformative change. Vitit Muntarbhorn is a Professor Emeritus at Chulalongkorn University. He has helped the UN as a UN Special Rapporteur, UN Independent Expert and member of the UN Commissions of Inquiry on Human Rights.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
17-05-2025
- Health
- First Post
History Today: How homosexuality was removed from list of mental illnesses
On May 17, 1990, the World Health Organization (Who) removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses, the International Classification of Diseases. It conferred legitimacy and validation upon LGBTQ+ communities worldwide, many of whom had been subjected to involuntary medical treatments. On this day in 1954, the US Supreme Court banned racial segregation of students in schools read more The World Health Organisation scripted history on May 17, 1990, when it removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses. This decision marked a turning point in global health policy, human rights, and the LGBTQ+ movement. If you are a history geek who loves to learn about important events from the past, Firstpost Explainers' ongoing series, History Today will be your one-stop destination to explore key events. On this day in 1954, US Supreme Court issued one of its most transformative rulings in American history with the declaration of racial segregation in public schools as unconstitutional. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Here is all that took place on this day across the world. WHO removes homosexuality from mental illness May 17, 1990 is a day written in golden letter as the World Health Organization (WHO) made a landmark decision, removing homosexuality from the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Until then, homosexuality was pathologised by many medical institutions around the world, reinforcing social stigma and justifying discriminatory practices. The decision by Who followed decades of activism, research and growing understanding within the medical and psychological communities. It aligned with earlier changes by organisations like the American Psychiatric Association, which had already removed homosexuality from its own diagnostic manual in 1973. participants take part in the annual Gay Pride Parade. File image/AP This decision carried extensive and significant implications. It conferred legitimacy and validation upon LGBTQ+ communities worldwide, many of whom had been subjected to persecution, involuntary medical treatments and social ostracisation under the guise of mental health interventions. The reclassification also sparked policy reforms, influencing nations to commence the decriminalisation of same-sex relationships and to promote principles of equality within their respective healthcare systems. In commemoration of this significant milestone, May 17 is observed internationally as the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia, and Transphobia (IDAHOBIT). This observance functions as a global reminder of the advancements made and the persistent struggle for LGBTQ+ rights and acceptance across the world. School segregation outlawed by the US Supreme Court On May 17, 1954, the US Supreme Court passed a landmark judgement in the Oliver Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, unanimously declaring racial segregation in public schools as unconstitutional. This one of its most transformative rulings in American history. Brown, a consolidation of five distinct legal challenges to school segregation, reversed the 'separate but equal' doctrine articulated in the 1896 Supreme Court case of Plessy v Ferguson. The legal challenge was initiated by a collective of African American parents, with Oliver Brown as the lead plaintiff. He contested the policy mandating his daughter's attendance at a segregated and geographically distant Black school rather than a nearby white institution. Their argument, supported by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, asserted that segregation inflicted psychological harm on Black children by fostering feelings of inferiority, thereby constituting a violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD A White mother walks with her son past a group of African American students at the Bootheville Venice High School in 1966. File image/AP Chief Justice Earl Warren, in the Court's opinion, declared that 'separate educational facilities are inherently unequal,' directly rejecting the idea of truly equal opportunities under segregation. The ruling specifically highlighted the damaging psychological impact of segregation on Black students, citing research that demonstrated its negative influence on their development and sense of self-worth. The Brown ruling exerted a substantial influence on public education across the United States. Specifically, in Topeka, elementary schools underwent desegregation within a two-year timeframe. However, not all states accepted the Supreme Court's decision. This Day, That Year In 2004, Massachusetts became the first US state to legalise same-sex marriage. The first Kentucky Derby was run at Churchill Downs in Louisville, Kentucky on this day in 1875. The first meeting on what is now Wall Street in New York City took place in 1792.
