# deer tick removal



## HBULLOCK (Apr 26, 2011)

Pt came into office complaining tick in back.  Dr removed tick. What dx would you use for this??  thanks alot


----------



## btadlock1 (Apr 26, 2011)

HBULLOCK said:


> Pt came into office complaining tick in back.  Dr removed tick. What dx would you use for this??  thanks alot



911.4 if it's not infected, 911.5 if it is. Hope that helps!


----------



## ohn0disaster (Apr 27, 2011)

Isn't there a code in the parasite section of the icd 9 book for ticks? I thought deer ticks were the leading cause of Lyme disease in the US so wouldn't there be a code? It seems to me that ticks are parasites and having one latch on is not the same as your run of the mill ant bite. Just a thought, I haven't looked at the book so I could be totally wrong.


----------



## ohn0disaster (Apr 27, 2011)

I just googled "icd 9 code for tick" and the first link that was provided included the following information. 

http://www.aafp.org/fpm/2006/0300/p33.html

*ICD-9 code for tick removal* 

*Q*What is the proper ICD-9 code for removing a tick?

*A*There is no specific ICD-9 code for tick infestation on the skin, although there are such codes for chiggers, lice and leeches. Because a tick is technically a mite, the proper ICD-9 code would be 133.9, “Acariasis, unspecified.”


----------



## btadlock1 (Apr 27, 2011)

ohn0disaster said:


> I just googled "icd 9 code for tick" and the first link that was provided included the following information.
> 
> http://www.aafp.org/fpm/2006/0300/p33.html
> 
> ...



Hmmm...well, I've learned something today! 
I actually looked for something like that, because I thought the same thing as you - especially since it was a deer tick (those carry Lyme disease more than other species). I even looked up Lyme disease to see if there was a note about possible exposure, but everything kept leading back to 'superficial injury' - good work!


----------



## HBULLOCK (Apr 27, 2011)

Well ladies thanks so much for your input.


----------



## denarh40 (May 31, 2011)

*tick removal*

Would that make the article below incorrect as it states to apply 911.4 for a tick removed from the back.  


http://codingnews.inhealthcare.com/...tick-related-case-dxs-with-insect-fast-facts/


Dena Brandt CPC


----------



## ohn0disaster (May 31, 2011)

denarh40 said:


> Would that make the article below incorrect as it states to apply 911.4 for a tick removed from the back.
> 
> 
> http://codingnews.inhealthcare.com/...tick-related-case-dxs-with-insect-fast-facts/
> ...



Well, I'm going to go with yes, it's incorrect, for the tick removal and no, it's not incorrect, for the tick bite. AAFP is a fairly reputable source of information, that I know. However, I have never heard of "codingnews.inhealthcare.com" so I cannot speak on that. Anyway, the reason that I say yes and no is because I'm just using logic to reach my conclussion. When a tick bites, you're then left with a tick bite. If a tick bites and latches on, you are then left with a parasite which then needs to be removed. 

I am not registered with codingnews.inhealthcare.com so the article cuts off and I am unable to read past "One detail tells you whether you should call on one or two 910-919 codes. Ask, “Does the encounter involve tick removal?” 

If the answer is “Yes”, you should..."

I'm unsure what it tells you to assign if the patient is needing tick removal.


----------



## denarh40 (May 31, 2011)

Okay, thanks!  I appreciate your response.

Dena Brandt CPC


----------

