ICD-10-CM Implementation: Structure, Coding, and Challenges
This paper examines the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) and its implementation into the HIPAA-mandated code set. It traces the historical difficulties of statistically classifying diseases across different medical disciplines and explains how ICD-10-CM's alphanumeric coding scheme improves upon the numeric system used in ICD-9. The paper details the dagger-and-asterisk dual-classification system, explains how asterisk and dagger codes function together, and outlines four predicted consequences of the transition: reduced documentation productivity, increased demand for trained medical coders, substantial financial costs to the healthcare system, and widespread delays in necessary IT upgrades among hospitals and practices.
- Introduction to ICD and Its Statistical Challenges: History and rationale for disease classification systems
- Structure and Coding Scheme of ICD-10-CM: Alphanumeric coding structure and new chapter additions
- The Dagger and Asterisk Dual-Classification System: Dual-code rules for underlying diseases and manifestations
- Predicted Issues with ICD-10 Implementation: Four major operational and financial transition challenges
- Conclusion: Balanced assessment of ICD-10 advantages and drawbacks
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It grounds the technical explanation of ICD-10-CM in historical context, helping readers understand why the new system was needed before describing how it works.
- The dagger-and-asterisk section uses concrete code examples (e.g., G20, G21, G22*) to illustrate abstract classification rules, making the content accessible.
- The four-part list of predicted implementation issues provides a clear, organized structure for discussing both operational and financial consequences.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates systematic problem-solution framing: it first establishes the limitations of prior classification systems, then explains how ICD-10-CM addresses them, and finally evaluates the real-world trade-offs. This structure allows the writer to present a balanced assessment without abandoning a clear central argument.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a brief policy context (CMS announcement), moves into the historical and statistical rationale for ICD, explains the technical structure of ICD-10-CM including its dual-classification mechanics, enumerates four predicted implementation challenges with supporting data, and closes with a measured conclusion acknowledging both advantages and drawbacks. It follows a classic expository pattern: background → mechanism → consequences → evaluation.
Introduction to ICD and Its Statistical Challenges
The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) is a program designed to record statistics on morbidity and mortality and to support the indexing of hospital records of disease. It is published by the World Health Organization (WHO).
It has always been statistically difficult to categorize diseases according to any one specific category, since different professions that work with diseases have traditionally classified them according to different criteria. The pathologist, for instance, is primarily interested in the natural course of the disease process, while the anatomist may prefer a classification that groups diseases according to the affected part of the body. The statistical classification of diseases and injuries depends upon how the practitioner will use it, but since each practitioner uses it according to his or her particular field, statistical programs have generally had difficulty categorizing diseases in a uniform way.
Adjustments also have to be made to meet the different requirements of various agencies — for instance, armed forces, hospitals, and medical services. For these reasons, ICD-10-CM emerged as an attempted improvement over its predecessors.
Structure and Coding Scheme of ICD-10-CM
ICD-10-CM retains the traditional ICD structure. Its primary difference is an alphanumeric coding scheme that replaces the previous numeric one. The advantage of this change is that it provides a larger framework for coding as well as room for incorporating future changes without disturbing the numeration system, as had occurred with previous versions. New chapters have also been added for diseases of the eye and ear, in addition to other minor stylistic changes.
The Dagger and Asterisk Dual-Classification System
The dagger and asterisk system of dual classification for certain diagnostics has been expanded in ICD-10-CM. There are two codes for diagnostic statements that contain both a code for the general underlying disease and a code for the specific clinical manifestation itself. The code for the general disease is marked with a dagger (†), while the other is marked with an asterisk (*). When coding diseases, the dagger is always used; the asterisk cannot stand alone. The asterisk is sometimes — though not always — used for coding particular manifestations.
Asterisk codes always appear as three-character categories. There are separate codes for instances when a particular disease is not specified as an underlying category, while the code marked by an asterisk implies an underlying category classified elsewhere. For example, G20 and G21 are used for forms of Parkinson's disease that are specific to that condition (not manifestations of another disease), while G22* is used for "Parkinsonism in diseases classified elsewhere." Sometimes, dagger codes have categories of their own.
There are 83 special asterisk categories, and these are listed at the head of their respective chapters. If both the dagger symbol and the asterisk code appear within the same rubric categorization, it means that all diseases under that rubric must be understood as carrying both designations — that is, they have dual classification and share the same alternative code.
Conclusion
ICD-10 appears to be a definite improvement over its predecessors, primarily in that it replaces the numeric system with an alphanumeric one, allowing for further changes to be incorporated into the system. However, the far greater number of codes will most likely slow documentation processes, make the transition more expensive, and cause hospitals and other facilities to delay switching from one system to the other.
In some respects, therefore, the switch is advantageous, while in others it is disadvantageous. Either way, it will take considerable time — if it ever fully occurs — for users to become habituated to the new system. Understanding both the structural improvements and the operational challenges of ICD-10-CM is essential for healthcare administrators, coders, and providers navigating this transition.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.