Updated on: July 9, 2018

Type 2 Myocardial Infarction: Not a Fake Diagnosis

Original story posted on: July 6, 2018

ICD-10 code I21.A1 identifies Type 2 MI.

Over the past two months, I have been making the rounds speaking at regional and national conferences and going on-site for my consulting business. Many of you have approached me and assured me that the message I am trying to convey is indeed the message you are receiving.

I am not about the money – I am intent on getting providers to document accurately, specifically, and sufficiently to take excellent care of patients and to demonstrate how sick and complex they are. This optimizes quality metrics and reimbursement while preventing unwarranted hospital-acquired conditions (HACs) and patient safety indicators (PSIs). I never endorse exaggerating or upcoding. I believe I am actually quite conservative. I’d rather get it right up front than to have to fight a denial on the back end.

On June 20, I did a webinar on myocardial infarction (MI) – which, of course, included Type 2 myocardial infarctions. There has been some pushback from some individuals who decry the existence of this clinical entity and feel it is a “made-up diagnosis” that serves to jack up the DRG. They believe using it undermines the credibility of physician advisors and even have suggested that it harms patients.

Recently, our good friend Ron Hirsch (Ronald Hirsch, MD) brought to my attention an article in Circulation published online June 11, titled, “Type 2 Myocardial Infarction – Diagnosis, Prognosis, and Treatment,” by Cian McCarthy et. al. out of Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. This article validated my viewpoint that Type 2 myocardial infarction is clinically relevant and important.

Their conclusion is this: “the diagnosis of Type 2 MI is associated with a poor prognosis: less than 40 percent of patients will live five years past their diagnosis.” They go on to explain that the poor prognosis is not surprising, because “Type 2 MI typically occurs among older patients with greater comorbidities and is identified in the context of hemodynamic instability.” The article goes on to note that “most deaths among patients with Type 2 MI are due to non-cardiovascular causes,” but that “approximately 30 percent of patients will have a cardiovascular event over five years,” which may even exceed that for patients with Type 1 MIs.

The article notes that there is precious little data and evidence-based guidelines regarding Type 2 MI. I am certain the fact that we didn’t have a way to separate out Type 2 MI from Type 1 MI in the ICD-10-CM code set strongly contributed to this shortfall. This was resolved in October 2017, when we got the unique code I21.A1 identifying Type 2 MI. We are now in a better position to be able to determine whether Type 2 MI demands its own treatment, or as has been the case in the past, you just treat the underlying condition. Insurance companies will have the ability to adapt their actuarial analyses, if needed.

I never recommend diagnosing and documenting conditions that are not present. I just want providers to practice excellent medicine and not to miss diagnosing and documenting conditions that are present. I say it harms patients if you don’t pick up the Type 2 MI, because it portends a worse prognosis. As Hippocrates would say, “primum non nocere” (first, do no harm).


Program Note:

Listen to Dr. Remer every Tuesday on Talk Ten Tuesday, 10 a.m. ET.

Disclaimer: Every reasonable effort was made to ensure the accuracy of this information at the time it was published. However, due to the nature of industry changes over time we cannot guarantee its validity after the year it was published.
Erica E. Remer, MD, CCDS

Erica Remer, MD, CCDS has a unique perspective as a practicing emergency physician for 25 years, with extensive coding, CDI, and ICD-10 expertise. She was a physician advisor of a large multi-hospital system for four years before transitioning to independent consulting in July 2016. Her passion is educating CDI specialists, coders, and healthcare providers with engaging, case-based presentations on documentation, CDI, and denials management topics. She has written numerous articles and serves as the co-host of Talk Ten Tuesdays, a weekly national podcast. Dr. Remer is a member of the ICD10monitor editorial board, a former member of the ACDIS Advisory Board, and the board of directors of the American College of Physician Advisors.

Related Stories

  • Proposed Biannual ICD-10 Implementation Dates: Weighing the Pros & Cons 
    Understanding the impact on business processes in the event that biannual ICD-10-CM and PCS updates are implemented is essential – as is your feedback.  With a comprehensive agenda covered at the virtual ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting earlier this…
  • CDC Releases Updated Guidelines
    The guidelines are effective from Jan. 1, 2021 through Sept. 30, 2021. On Dec. 16, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released updated ICD-10-CM Official Coding and Reporting Guidelines for 2021. The updated document can be found…
  • ICD-10 Codes Amid the Pandemic and the U.S. Election
    The mood of the country impacts claims. There are a few words that can be associated with the pandemic and the election. These words are the following: Stress – a state of mental or emotional strain or tension resulting from…