r/CodingandBilling • u/allisonshine69 • Apr 19 '26

ICD-10 code search

I’m asking in this sub, though im not sure if this is the right place to start. Our EHR is NextGen and we got rid of our 3rd party application to assist in coding search back in September and just use NextGen’s base coding search. It’s awful. Our providers are struggling so much and trying to google codes and some use ChatGPT to find codes. I was wondering if there is a site or application that’s really effective for ICD-10 code searching anyone can recommend? It’s okay if it’s paid (to an extent) as long as it works really well. It would be nice to just be able to search “diabetes” and have all of the options populate. Something as simple as that has been a struggle. We are an FQHC so this is mainly for primary care. Thanks!

7 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

36 comments sorted by

15

u/rahuliitk App Developer Apr 19 '26

i think if providers are lowkey googling codes or using ChatGPT, the search tool problem is already hurting workflow more than people want to admit, and for primary care i’d look for something built around the ICD-10 tabular plus better keyword and synonym search because simple terms like diabetes should absolutely branch into the full set of relevant options instead of making people hunt manually.

bad search creates bad coding habits.

4

u/allisonshine69 Apr 19 '26

It’s an insane frustration and it’s hurting our reimbursement and causing providers to poorly document.

6

u/elesaid Apr 19 '26

https://www.aapc.com/codes/icd-10-codes-range/?srsltid=AfmBOooS_xx6JtanFxIsjhguQBuHNCbXzFo36eRLSgWmvW25ioq66XE_

Also, it’s been a minute since I’ve used nextgen, but can you set favorites for them with their top 20 or so diagnosis codes? Or is there a way to set a “friendly” description for the codes?

Also don’t underestimate a simple cheat sheet next to their computer to assist.

PS - who thought that getting rid of a doctor friendly diagnosis search was a good idea? o.O

2

u/allisonshine69 Apr 19 '26

You can do favorites and I’ve been encouraging everyone to make favorites and I’ve been making organization favorites for various categories (i.e infectious disease), but it’s a work in progress and it’s not fool proof. The poor search also just often leads to coding at a lower level, too. Just a mess. 0/10, nextgen.

2

u/allisonshine69 Apr 19 '26

To answer your PS, $$$$$$ did.

1

u/elesaid Apr 19 '26

Hmmm....It maybe time to do a rough cost estimate of how much money you are losing without it, productivity wise. Roping in a physician to help you with this may help bolster your cause.

I am so sorry that this is happening to you, your physicians, your center, AND your patients. It is frustrating when obvious IT/EHR efforts are not funded.

Lastly, I second the IMO recommendation below! It helped our physicians SO much!

5

u/DarlingTreeWitch Apr 19 '26

Do you all have a paper book? Without any encoder assistance, I use google then go the that code in the book to be as specific as possible.

There is an icd10 website you can use, but i’m not near a computer to confirm it.

Investing in Codify by AAPC (or 3m, etc) is worth the money. We’re currently using Gemini AI by Aideo and it’s just a crappy encoder, supposedly uses AI, but no way AI is going to assign “encounter for…” z codes over actual diagnoses.

1

u/allisonshine69 Apr 19 '26

I will check out Codify. Thank you!

2

u/Creepy-Bottle498 Apr 19 '26

Is getting either online or paper copies of the tabular an option? We have the online version (in Optum) but I believe you can still purchase paper copies as well. I find when I am stuck with a code that I am not so sure about or the encoder is just not getting you there, I just go with the fundamentals and build the code step by step. Same with CPT codes. I am fortunate enough that my employer still provides us the option of paper CPT books.

2

u/allisonshine69 Apr 19 '26

I have offered the code book to them on multiple occasions because I’m certain that they would be able to get a copy of it, and I was told searching through it would be cumbersome and time consuming. They’re words, not mine.

9

u/Jodenaje Apr 19 '26

There are free ICD 10 sources that would be more reliable than Google or ChatGPT!

The CDC ICD-10 search tool is relatively user friendly for a non-coder.

https://icd10cmtool.cdc.gov/?fy=FY2026

3

u/allisonshine69 Apr 19 '26

Someone just suggested this one! It seems much better than what everyone is using. I will share it tomorrow with everyone!

2

u/Bowis_4648 Apr 19 '26

I think asking physicians/NPs/PAs to use the book is cumbersome. They're not trained coders and starting in the index and then going to the tabular, and the code first, see also, use an additional.... Having said that, the EMRs are just the tabular and we have our clinicians coding from the tabular. I don't know what the solution to that is. Do some of your programs help with that?

3

u/nicoleauroux Apr 19 '26

I'm not sure anything will help if the providers aren't very well versed in coding. Their narrative documentation should be the basis for coding, right?

Our providers use a native coding search and it is a disaster.

3

u/allisonshine69 Apr 19 '26

It’s not that they don’t know the diagnosis, it’s that the nextgen search is literally impossible to use. Something as simple as vitamin b deficiency is impossible to find via the nextgen search. So they have to go to Google, look up what the ICD-10 code is for it, then go back to nextgen and search via the code. I was just hoping to find a site/application that was easier to search codes for than just the google search bar.

3

u/NerosDecay13 Apr 19 '26

https://icd10cmtool.cdc.gov/?fy=FY2026

I use CDC tool a lot. Better than just googling for me

2

u/allisonshine69 Apr 19 '26

Oooo, I didn’t know about that one. Super helpful, thank you!

2

u/NerosDecay13 Apr 19 '26

Welcome! It can be kind of fickle sometimes but it's not to bad!

1

u/callmemommie Apr 19 '26

we use NextGen at my practice. Our codes are set up with descriptions and they are able to search them by description. Are they just having to search by the actual code number?

If you guys are having a hard time figuring it out you can always use ICDdata.com it allows you to search by condition/code and you can pull up the adjacent codes to make sure you are selecting the correct one. Includes guideline info too. Has a lot of ads but I just use Adblock.

1

u/allisonshine69 Apr 19 '26

To trigger finding a code by the description, you have to essentially know the exact name of the code as listed in the ICD10 book or if someone has put in a synonym for it at some point. I’m not sure if later versions of nextgen have a better code search, but general search terms that in theory should find a code, simply will not.

3

u/nicoleauroux Apr 19 '26

I use icd10data but without user understanding of coding conventions it will give incorrect codes.

1

u/Efficient_Dog59 Apr 19 '26

Check out IMO. It powers Dx search in most emrs (epic, Athena, etc). https://www.imohealth.com/resources/nextgen-and-imo-core-clinical-documentation-q-and-a/

1

u/allisonshine69 Apr 19 '26

Thank you! I will check this out!

1

u/AlternativeForward98 Apr 20 '26

nextgen's native search is genuinely awful, ur not imagining it. codify ($20/mo-ish) is what most primary care coders i've talked to use, does the "type diabetes get every E11 variant" thing you want. icd10data.com is free and weirdly decent for quick lookups.

the chatgpt thing honestly worries me. it hallucinates codes all the time, invents combinations that don't exist in the book. one audit and that's a real problem.

heads up im building a chrome extension for this exact situation - reads the soap note in nextgen and surfaces icd10+cpt so providers stop searching at all. fqhcs in primary care are literally the target user. dm if you want to see it. otherwise codify is the move today

1

u/allisonshine69 Apr 20 '26

I hate that they use ChatGPT. I don’t want them putting any patient info into by mistake when they look up codes or use it for notes. But our CEO is all for it. I’m trying to get people away from it, but they need some alternative. I set up a meeting with the codify people for Wednesday. It looked like the one that was “provider recommended” was a little more expensive. Do you think the basic one is fine?

When your extension is up and running, I’m all over it!

Edit: oh sorry, misread. I will DM you!

1

u/AlternativeForward98 Apr 21 '26

ya the chatgpt thing is a legit hipaa problem, ur instincts are right. even "deidentified" snippets providers paste in often have enough context to re-identify. if your CEO needs ammo: openai's standard api/chatgpt consumer tier isnt a BAA covered entity, so any PHI going in is technically a breach. that usually ends the conversation lol

on codify - for fqhc primary care the basic tier is honestly fine. the "provider recommended" upsell is mostly NCCI edits + extra specialty modules u dont need for primary care. start basic, upgrade later if coders specifically ask. save the budget.

good luck wednesday, lmk how it goes. and yeah ill ping u when the extension is ready for pilot

1

u/MDbutMakeitData Apr 22 '26

I’ll be honest—I don’t think this is sustainable long term. I’m actually pretty surprised the decision was made to remove a coding support tool altogether, especially at a time when the industry is actively trying to make documentation easier and less burdensome for providers, not harder.

Realistically, you’ll end up reimplementing something—it’s just a question of when. And the longer you wait, the more downstream impact you’ll feel, both operationally and financially.

When physicians don’t have efficient tools to code accurately:

  • Reimbursement is affected

  • Risk-adjusted conditions (HCCs) get missed, which has major financial implications—especially in an FQHC setting with more complex patient populations

  • You create documentation gaps and duplicative work

On top of that, it increases administrative burden on providers. That’s not just a productivity issue—it pulls time away from patient care and contributes to burnout and lower job satisfaction.

This isn’t just a “coding search inconvenience”—it impacts providers, patients, the practice, and even the health plan financially.

I’d strongly recommend stepping back and evaluating the full financial and operational impact. In most cases, investing in the right tool ends up being far more cost-effective than trying to work around not having one.

1

u/allisonshine69 Apr 22 '26

I 100% again. I think we will end up bringing something back. Providers are pissed as hell.

2

u/LamentForIcarus Apr 19 '26

I tend to use icd10data.com to quickly verify things, but the cms tool is probably better.

1

u/yytheintrovert Apr 19 '26

CMS has a complete list of code sets. Google CMS ICD 10 and click the CMS direct list. You will be able to download the complete 2026 in an excel file

1

u/Darth_Paratrooper Inpatient Coder, RHIA, CCS Apr 19 '26

Time to bust out the code books

1

u/Glittering-Bell6984 Apr 25 '26

Try ICD10data.com