Published in Pharmacoepidemiology & Drug Safety
Purpose: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) mandated the transition from ICD-9 to ICD-10 codes on October 1, 2015. Postmarketing surveillance of newly marketed drugs, including novel biologics and biosimilars, requires a robust approach to convert ICD-9 to ICD-10 codes for study variables. We examined three mapping methods for health conditions (HCs) of interest to the Biologics and Biosimilars Collective Intelligence Consortium (BBCIC) and compared their prevalence.
Methods: Using CMS General Equivalence Mappings, we applied forward-backward mapping (FBM) to 108 HCs and secondary mapping (SM) and tertiary mapping (TM) to seven preselected HCs. A physician reviewed the mapped ICD-10 codes. The prevalence of the 108 HCs defined by ICD-9 versus ICD-10 codes was examined in BBCIC's distributed research network (September 1, 2012 to March 31, 2018). We visually assessed prevalence trends of these HCs and applied a threshold of 20% level change in ICD-9 versus ICD-10 prevalence.
Results: Nearly four times more ICD-10 codes were mapped by SM and TM than FBM, but most were irrelevant or nonspecific. For conditions like myocardial infarction, SM or TM did not generate additional ICD-10 codes. Through visual inspection, one-fifth of the HCs had inconsistent ICD-9 versus ICD-10 prevalence trends. 13% of HCs had a level change greater than +/-20%.
Conclusion: FBM is generally the most efficient way to convert ICD-9 to ICD-10 codes, yet manual review of converted ICD-10 codes is recommended even for FBM. The lack of existing guidance to compare the performance of ICD-9 with ICD-10 codes led to challenges in empirically determining the quality of conversions.
