I agree with Dr. Jensen about not using the status of the assessment "stable, chronic, improved" as part of the HPI. So for example, if you see Type II Diabetes, Uncontrolled as your assessment, I wouldn't use "uncontrolled" as a history element.
But there are times you'll find history components in the assessment....
For example, I have a hosptialist whose notes often ramble on and on....and within his assessment, he's still documenting history elements. For example, he might say something like , "I am going to increase insulin again because the fasting BG levels have continuously increased since last month when he saw his primary care physician".
Additionally, I often see this in the MS exam: "Considerable pain with flexion, extension and rotation of hips. Patient describes pain as 8 out of 10." That comment is not objective...it's subjective and qualifies for a severity bullet.
If E&M coding was easy and convenient, all providers would list all history, review, exam and assessment verbiage under the proper headings. But not all providers were trained in the same way, others are more verbal and explanatory, so I always use the entire note to support the elements of the key components. As long as you don't use the same information twice, are reasonable in what you give credit for, and would feel comfortable defending yourself in an audit, then I would use the documentation where you find it. E&M Coding is not really an exact science, it's more of an art....
You'll find that an EHR is making this a lot easier for coders. The elements are right where they need to be. The problem now,is that the docs get click happy and over-document.