Skip to main content

Military Health System

Special Report: Early Use of ICD-10-CM Code “U07.1, COVID-19” to Identify 2019 Novel Coronavirus Cases in Military Health System Administrative Data

Image of Hospital ship USNS Comfort returns to its homeport after treating patients in New York and New Jersey in support of the COVID-19 pandemic. The hospital ship USNS Comfort returns to its homeport after treating patients in New York and New Jersey in support of the COVID-19 pandemic. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Joshua D. Sheppard/Releaseds)

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

What Are the New Findings?

This study identified possible cases of COVID-19 in distinct data record systems that included laboratory tests for the coronavirus, DRSi reports of cases, and records of health care encounters that included the new ICD-10 code U07.1 for the disease. Examination of 150 encounter records for individuals who were not identified in the laboratory or DRSi records revealed that 69% had confirmatory lab results in separate records or met clinical criteria for a case of COVID-19.

What Is the Impact on Readiness and Force Health Protection?

The findings provide evidence that use of the new ICD-10 diagnostic code for COVID-19 is occurring more frequently since its introduction. Search of encounter records for this code will augment the other methods of performing surveillance for this disease. Such enhanced surveillance will enable actions to prevent and control the current COVID-19 epidemic, which threatens the health of the force.

Abstract

This report describes early exploratory analysis of ICD-10-CM code U07.1 (2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease [COVID-19]) to assess the use of administrative data for case ascertainment, syndromic surveillance, and future epidemiological studies. Out of the 2,950 possible COVID-19 cases identified between 1 April 2020 and 4 May 2020, 600 (20.3%) were detected in the Defense Medical Surveillance System (DMSS) and not in the Disease Reporting System internet (DRSi) or in Health Level 7 laboratory data from the Composite Health Care System. Among the 150 out of 600 cases identified exclusively in the DMSS and selected for Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) review, 16 (10.7%) had a certified positive lab result in AHLTA, 17 (11.3%) met Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) criteria for a probable case, 46 (30.7%) were not cases based on CSTE criteria, and 71 (47.3%) had evidence of a positive lab result from an outside source. Lack of full capture of lab results may continue to be a challenge as the variety of available tests expands. Administrative data may provide an important stopgap measure for detecting lab positive cases, pending incorporation of new COVID-19 tests and standardization of test and result nomenclature.

Background

On 30 Jan. 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared that an outbreak of disease named 2019-nCoV, later named coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), was a Public Health Emergency of International Concern.1 One day later, on 31 Jan. 2020, WHO convened an emergency meeting of the WHO Family of International Classifications Network and Statistics Advisory Committee to create a specific International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) code for the new coronavirus: U07.1, 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease.2 On 20 Feb. 2020, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics announced that it would implement the new ICD-10-CM code on 1 October 2020.3

Following the WHO declaration that the novel coronavirus was a global pandemic (11 March 2020) 4 and the President's activation of the Stafford Act (13 March 2020),5 CDC, under sections 201 and 301 of the U.S. National Emergencies Act, announced that the effective date of the new diagnosis code would be moved from 1 Oct. 2020 to 1 April 2020.6

The Military Health System (MHS) made ICD-10-CM code U07.1 available for selection by appointers and other administrative personnel in MHS GENESIS and the Composite Health Care System (CHCS) in early April 2020. Soon thereafter, the code became available to medical providers utilizing MHS GENESIS and the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) to document the diagnosis of COVID-19. Since the end of April 2020, epidemiologists and analysts have been able to query administrative databases including the MHS Data Repository (MDR), MHS Mart (M2), the CHCS, and the Defense Medical Surveillance System (DMSS) using the new code.

The Armed Forces Health Surveillance Branch (AFHSB) creates a daily master positive list of COVID-19 cases by combining data from the Disease Reporting System internet (DRSi) and Health Level 7 (HL7)-formatted laboratory data (HL7 data) extracted from the CHCS and MHS GENESIS by the Navy and Marine Corps Public Health Center. The availability of the specific ICD-10-CM code U07.1 provides a new source of data for identification of possible cases of COVID-19 using the electronic health record (EHR). It also provides an opportunity to create a COVID-19-like illnesses (CLI) case definition for syndromic surveillance modeled after influenza-like illness (ILI) surveillance. This report documents early exploratory analysis of ICD-10-CM code U07.1 to assess the potential use of administrative data for case ascertainment and use of the code for syndromic surveillance and future epidemiological studies (Figure 1).

Methods

On 4 May 2020, the DMSS was searched for all patient encounters that contained ICD-10-CM code U07.1 in any diagnostic position. This list of possible COVID-19 cases was compared to the master positive list (cases identified based on positive test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, or SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and/or those who were reported as cases in the DRSi between 1 April 2020 and 4 May 2020). A convenience sample (25%) of these cases was selected for record review in AHLTA. Within AHLTA, for each case, information contained in the lab, radiology, previous encounters, Joint Legacy Viewer, and Health Artifact and Image Management Solution sections was reviewed by a licensed medical provider using a standardized Excel spreadsheet and systematic AHLTA review process. Cases in the DMSS-only subset were categorized as probable, confirmed, or determined not to be a case based on the guidelines established by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE)7 (Table).

On 8 May 2020, a 10-day "look-back" was performed. A separate DMSS list (U07.1 ICD-10-CM code list) from 28 April 2020 was compared with the master positive list (DRSi and/or HL7 data list) from 8 May 2020 to determine the number of DMSS U07.1 coded cases that were subsequently identified on the master positive list and, therefore, would have been captured without the use of administrative data.

Note that MHS GENESIS medical encounters did not become available in the DMSS until after this analysis was performed. While laboratory results from MHS GENESIS sites were included in this analysis, MHS GENESIS medical encounters were not included here.

Results

There were 2,350 individuals captured on the master positive list (cases identified based on positive lab test and/or those who were reported as cases in the DRSi between 1 April 2020 and 4 May 2020) and 865 individuals who were identified as having an encounter for COVID-19 (ICD-10-CM code U07.1) during the same time period. Among the 2,950 total individuals identified, 2,085 were exclusively on the master positive list, 600 were exclusively on the ICD-10-CM U07.1 diagnosis code list, and 265 were on both (Figure 2).

Among the 150 out of 600 cases identified exclusively in the DMSS and selected for AHLTA review, 16 (10.7%) had a certified positive lab result in the laboratory section of AHLTA, 17 (11.3%) met CSTE criteria for a probable case, 46 (30.7%) were not cases based on CSTE criteria, and 71 (47.3%) had evidence of a positive lab result from an outside source (Figure 3). Among the 46 cases that were determined not to be cases, 26 (56.5%) were seen for screening (e.g., pre-deployment screening rather than COVID-19 itself).

On 28 April 2020, there were 64 individuals on the U07.1 code-only list. By 8 May 2020, 7 (10.9%) had made it onto the master positive list (3 cases were represented exclusively in the DRSi, 2 cases were represented exclusively in HL7 data, and 2 were represented in both data sources) (Figure 4).

Editorial Comment

Availability of ICD-10-CM code U07.1 in administrative data is an important new development in COVID-19 surveillance. Given that 600 out of the 2,950 possible cases (20.3%) reviewed here were detected in administrative data and not in DRSi or HL7 data, addition of encounter data appears to be important to ensuring complete case capture moving forward.

Among the 150 cases selected for AHLTA review, 16 cases (10.7%) identified in encounter data were found to have a military treatment facility (MTF)-certified lab result in the AHLTA labs section but were not identified in the DRSi or the HL7 data and, therefore, were not represented on the master positive list. The 10-day look-back revealed that 7 cases were subsequently identified and entered into the master positive list, 2 of which were found exclusively in HL7 data, 3 of which were exclusively in DRSi data, and 2 of which were in both. While some of the remaining lab cases may eventually make it into the HL7 data, 2 of the missed lab results were from early April (2 April 2020 and 3 April 2020), suggesting that they might escape recognition altogether. Given that SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test names and results are not standardized in CHCS or HL7 data, this is understandable. While capture of these cases will likely improve as naming conventions are standardized and algorithms aimed at capturing COVID-19 test results evolve, lack of full capture of lab results may continue to be a challenge as the variety of tests available continues to expand. Administrative data may provide an important stopgap measure for detecting lab positive cases, pending incorporation of new COVID-19 tests and standardization of test and result nomenclature.

The CSTE definitions for confirmed and probable cases of COVID-19 are provided in the Table.7 Among the 150 cases reviewed, there were 17 probable cases of COVID-19: 2 had presumptive positive lab test results and met clinical or epidemiologic criteria; 15 met clinical and epidemiologic criteria. Among the 150 cases reviewed, 8 patients were hospitalized and 11 had chest imaging (x-ray or computed tomography [CT] scan) consistent with COVID-19.

It could be argued that cases with both clinical and radiographic evidence of COVID-19 should be categorized as cases. This approach is substantiated by Ai and colleagues, who performed serial analyses of reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and CT scans and found that, using RT-PCR as a reference, the sensitivity of chest imaging for COVID-19 was 97%.8 Use of radiographic criteria for case identification would increase the proportion of individuals identified as cases in the EHR from 87 total cases (58.0%) to 98 total cases (65.3%). In this analysis, the CSTE case definition was applied to remain consistent with current public health practice.

Among the 150 AHLTA cases reviewed, the largest group of patients, 71 (47.3%), received lab testing at an outside facility, such as an urgent care center, hospital, or state health department, along with a documented encounter (most frequently a telephone consult) at an MTF. Lab results were sometimes scanned into the record and the test location was documented in 51/71 cases (71.8%). Given that these tests were not entered into the CHCS, they had no opportunity to be detected in HL7 data. The DRSi, a passive surveillance system with known limitations related to personnel, training, and accessibility, also did not identify these cases.9 This again demonstrates the value of using administrative data for comprehensive case capture.

Outsourced medical encounter data are available in MHS systems (e.g., the MDR, M2, and DMSS) after an encounter is billed. The billing process can take weeks to months, especially if a patient is hospitalized for a prolonged period of time. In the current analysis, many outsourced encounters not reported in the DRSi were detected because they were associated with a telephone consult undertaken for case management or public health purposes. Coding of the telephone consultations in the EHR allowed identification of cases at the time of illness rather than weeks later, as would be the case had these consults not been recorded. This finding suggests that the EHR may be an important adjunct to the DRSi for identification of cases requiring contact tracing.

The current analysis included 46 individuals (30.7%) who did not meet CSTE criteria for COVID-19 but who were, nonetheless, documented as having COVID-19, based solely on the ICD-10-CM U07.1 code. This misclassification was due to the use of ICD-10-CM code U07.1 for documentation of pre-deployment screening among asymptomatic service members rather than the appropriate screening code (ICD-10-CM code Z11.59, encounter for screening for other viral disease) in 56.5% of the 46 cases. Given the prospect of increased screening among recruits and other large military groups, continued improper use of this code for screening purposes could lead to significant misclassification of cases in the future, undermining the value of ICD-10-CM code U07.1 for case identification and development of a case definition for CLI syndromic surveillance. “ICD-10-CM Official Coding and Reporting Guidelines, 1 April 2020 through 30 Sept. 2020 advises against assigning ICD-10-CM code U07.1 to unconfirmed cases, including suspected, possible, probable, and inconclusive cases. It further directs the use of ICD-10-CM code Z11.59 for asymptomatic screening.10 The 13 May 2020 Defense Health Agency memorandum "Standardizing COVID-19 Laboratory Orders to Distinguish Among Diagnostic, Screening and Surveillance Testing Purposes" elaborates on these recommendations.11 Wide dissemination of these guidelines is warranted.

This review attempted to rapidly evaluate early use of ICD-10-CM code U07.1 in order to assure the accuracy of AFHSB's master positive list and to develop of a reliable CLI case definition. In the interest of timeliness, information in the medical record was extracted by a single individual rather than multiple providers, as would be required in a formal case series or systematic review. In addition, a convenience sample (the first 150 out of 600 cases) rather than a randomly selected sample of AHLTA cases was designated for review. These factors limit the validity and generalizability of the analysis. This analysis is further limited by the small number of cases reviewed and the fact that it was performed soon after adoption of ICD-10-CM code U07.1. Recognizing these limitations, it appears that use of ICD-10-CM code U07.1 to query administrative databases allows identification of cases that would not otherwise be detected using DRSi and HL7 data alone. Advocacy for use of administrative data to identify cases is tempered somewhat not only by the potential for misclassification but also by the manpower required to review the electronic medical record and apply CSTE guidelines for appropriate case classification. Lipstitch and colleagues astutely recognized that "case-based surveillance places exponentially increasing burdens on public health systems" and highlighted the importance of transitioning from case-based surveillance to automated syndromic surveillance as pandemics evolve.12

The use of ICD-10-CM code U07.1 for syndromic surveillance and future epidemiological studies warrants continued exploration, especially given use of this code for screening purposes and resultant misclassification. Continued addition of codes such as ICD-10-CM U07.2 COVID-19, virus not detected13 and refinement of codes sets used for syndromic surveillance will provide greater understanding of how COVID-19 is affecting military members and military-associated populations and ensure the integrity of future epidemiological studies related to COVID-19.

References

  1. World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak. https://www.who.int/westernpacific/emergencies/covid-19. Accessed 1 May 2020.
  2. World Health Organization. Emergency use ICD codes for COVID-19 disease outbreak https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/covid19/en/. Accessed 1 May 2020.
  3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ICD-10-CM Official Coding Guidelines-Supplement. Coding encounters related to COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak. Effective: Feb. 20, 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/icd/ICD-10-CMOfficial-Coding-Gudance-Interim-Advice-coronavirus-feb-20-2020.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2020.
  4. World Health Organization. Rolling updates on coronavirus disease (COVID-19). https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/events-as-they-happen. Accessed 2 May 2020.
  5. United States White House. Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-declaring-national-emergency-concerning-novel-coronavirus-disease-covid-19-outbreak/. Accessed 3 May 2020.
  6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. New ICD-10-CM code for the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19), April 1, 2020. Effective: March 18, 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/icd/Announcement-New-ICD-code-for-coronavirus-3-18-2020.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2020.
  7. Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. Standardized surveillance case definition and national notification for 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). 4 April 2020.
  8. Ai T, Yang Z, Hou H, et al. Correlation of chest CT and RT-PCR testing in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China: a report of 1014 Cases. Radiology. 2020;26:200642.
  9. Ambrose JF, Kebisek JK, Gibson KJ, White DV, O’Donnell FL. Gaps in reportable medical event surveillance across the Department of the Army and recommended training tools to improve surveillance practices. MSMR. 2019;26(8):17–21.
  10. 1Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ICD-10-CM Official Coding and Reporting Guidelines April 1, 2020 through Sept. 30, 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/icd/COVID-19-guidelines-final.pdf. Accessed 3 May 2020.
  11. Department of Defense. Defense Health Agency. Memorandum. Standardizing COVID-19 Laboratory Orders to Distinguish Among Diagnostic, Screening, and Surveillance Testing Purposes. 13 May 2020.
  12. Lipsitch M, Hayden FG, Cowling BJ, Leung GM. How to maintain surveillance for novel influenza A H1N1 when there are too many cases to count. Lancet. 2009;374(9696):1209–1211.
  13. World Health Organization. Emergency use ICD codes for COVID-19 disease outbreak. https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/covid19/en/. Accessed 5 May 2020.

FIGURE 1. COVID-19 data sources and products

FIGURE 2. COVID-19 case identification using the master positive list and ICD-10-CM code U07.1, 1 April 2020–1 May 2020

FIGURE 3. Cases reviewed in AHLTA (150 cases out of 600 total)
FIGURE 4. Ten-day look-back for identification of cases that were initially not found but subsequently identified in DRSi and/or HL7 data

TABLE. CSTE standardized surveillance case definition for COVID-19

 

You also may be interested in...

MSMR Vol. 29 No. 09 - September 2022

Report
9/1/2022

A monthly publication of the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Division. This issue of the peer-reviewed journal contains the following articles: Surveillance trends for SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory pathogens among U.S. Military Health System Beneficiaries, Sept. 27, 2020 – Oct. 2,2021; Establishment of SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance within the MHS during March 1 – Dec. 31 2020; Suicide behavior among heterosexual, lesbian/gay, and bisexual active component service members in the U.S. Armed Forces; Brief report: Phase I results using the Virtual Pooled Registry Cancer Linkage system (VPR-CLS) for military cancer surveillance.

Recommended Content:

Health Readiness & Combat Support | Public Health | Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

MSMR Vol. 29 No. 08 - August 2022

Report
8/1/2022

A monthly publication of the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Division. This issue of the peer-reviewed journal contains the following articles: Surveillance trends for SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory pathogens among U.S. Military Health System Beneficiaries, Sept. 27, 2020 – Oct. 2,2021; Establishment of SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance within the MHS during March 1 – Dec. 31 2020; Suicide behavior among heterosexual, lesbian/gay, and bisexual active component service members in the U.S. Armed Forces; Brief report: Phase I results using the Virtual Pooled Registry Cancer Linkage system (VPR-CLS) for military cancer surveillance.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Musculoskeletal Injuries During U.S. Air Force Special Warfare Training Assessment and Selection, Fiscal Years 2019–2021.

Article
8/1/2022
U.S. Air Force Capt. Hopkins, 351st Special Warfare Training Squadron, Instructor Flight commander and Chief Combat Rescue Officer (CRO) instructor, conducts a military free fall equipment jump from a DHC-4 Caribou aircraft in Coolidge, Arizona, July 17, 2021. Hopkins is recognized as the 2020 USAF Special Warfare Instructor Company Grade Officer of the Year for his outstanding achievement from January 1 to December 31, 2020.

Musculoskeletal (MSK) injuries are costly and the leading cause of medical visits and disability in the U.S. military.1,2 Within training envi­ronments, MSK injuries may lead to a loss of training, deferment to a future class, or voluntary disenrollment from a training pipeline, all of which are impediments to maintaining full levels of manpower and resources for the Department of Defense.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Brief Report: Pain and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Screening Outcomes Among Military Personnel Injured During Combat Deployment.

Article
8/1/2022
U.S. Air Force Airman 1st Class Miranda Lugo, right, 18th Operational Medical Readiness Squadron mental health technician and Guardian Wingman trainer, and Maj. Joanna Ho, left, 18th OMRS director of psychological health, discuss the suicide prevention training program, Guardian Wingman, at Kadena Air Base, Japan, Aug. 20, 2021. Guardian Wingman aims to promote wingman culture and early help-seeking behavior. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Anna Nolte)

The post-9/11 U.S. military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan lasted over a decade and yielded the most combat casualties since the Vietnam War. While patient survivability increased to the high­est level in history, a changing epidemiology of combat injuries emerged whereby focus shifted to addressing an array of long-term sequelae, including physical, psychologi­cal, and neurological issues.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Prevalence and Distribution of Refractive Errors Among Members of the U.S. Armed Forces and the U.S. Coast Guard, 2019.

Article
8/1/2022
Ophthamologist Air Force Maj. Thuy Tran evaluates a patient during an eye exam. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. John Hughel)

During calendar year 2019, the estimated prevalence of myopia, hyperopia, and astigmatism were 17.5%, 2.1%, and 11.2% in the active component of the U.S. Armed Forces and 10.1%, 1.2%, and 6.1% of the U.S. Coast Guard, respectively.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

MSMR Vol. 29 No. 07 - July 2022

Report
7/1/2022

A monthly publication of the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Division. This issue of the peer-reviewed journal contains the following articles: Surveillance trends for SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory pathogens among U.S. Military Health System Beneficiaries, Sept. 27, 2020 – Oct. 2,2021; Establishment of SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance within the MHS during March 1 – Dec. 31 2020; Suicide behavior among heterosexual, lesbian/gay, and bisexual active component service members in the U.S. Armed Forces; Brief report: Phase I results using the Virtual Pooled Registry Cancer Linkage system (VPR-CLS) for military cancer surveillance.

Recommended Content:

Health Readiness & Combat Support | Public Health | Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Establishment of SARS-CoV-2 Genomic Surveillance Within the Military Health System During 1 March–31 December 2020.

Article
7/1/2022
Dr. Peter Larson loads an Oxford Nanopore MinION sequencer in support of COVID-19 sequencing assay development at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, Fort Detrick, Maryland. (Photo by John Braun Jr., USAMRIID.)

This report describes SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance conducted by the Department of Defense (DOD) Global Emerging Infections Surveillance Branch and the Next-Generation Sequencing and Bioinformatics Consortium (NGSBC) in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Samples and sequence data were from SARS-CoV-2 infections occurring among Military Health System (MHS) beneficiaries from 1 March to 31 December 2020.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Surveillance Trends for SARS-CoV-2 and Other Respiratory Pathogens Among U.S. Military Health System Beneficiaries, 27 September 2020–2 October 2021.

Article
7/1/2022
Staff Sgt. Misty Poitra and Senior Airman Chris Cornette, 119th Medical Group, collect throat swabs during voluntary COVID-19 rapid drive-thru testing for members of the community while North Dakota Army National Guard Soldiers gather test-subject data in the parking lot of the FargoDome in Fargo, N.D., May 3, 2020. The guardsmen partnered with the N.D. Department of Health and other civilian agencies in the mass-testing efforts of community volunteers. (U.S. Air National Guard photo by Chief Master Sgt. David H. Lipp)

Respiratory pathogens, such as influenza and adenovirus, have been the main focus of the Department of Defense Global Respiratory Pathogen Surveillance Program (DoDGRPSP) since 1976.1. However, DoDGRPSP also began focusing on SARS-CoV-2 when COVID-19 was declared a pandemic illness in early March 2020.2. Following this declaration, the DOD quickly adapted and organized its respiratory surveillance program, housed at the U.S. Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine (USAFSAM), in response to this emergent virus.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Suicide Behavior Among Heterosexual, Lesbian/Gay, and Bisexual Active Component Service Members in the U.S. Armed Forces.

Article
7/1/2022
  The DOD’s theme for National Suicide Prevention Month is “Connect to Protect: Support is Within Reach.” Deployments, COVID-19 restrictions, and the upcoming winter season are all stressors and potential causes for depression that could lead to suicidal ideations. Options are available to individuals who are having thoughts of suicide and those around them (Photo by Kirk Frady, Regional Health Command Europe).

Lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals are at a particularly high risk for suicidal behavior in the general population of the United States. This study aims to determine if there are differences in the frequency of lifetime suicide ideation and suicide attempts between heterosexual, lesbian/gay, and bisexual service members in the active component of the U.S. Armed Forces. Self-reported data from the 2015 Department of Defense Health-Related Behaviors Survey were used in the analysis.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Brief Report: Phase I Results Using the Virtual Pooled Registry Cancer Linkage System (VPR-CLS) for Military Cancer Surveillance.

Article
7/1/2022
A patient at Naval Hospital Pensacola prepares to have a low-dose computed tomography test done to screen for lung cancer. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths among men and women. Early detection can lower the risk of dying from this disease. (U.S. Navy photo by Jason Bortz)

The Armed Forces Health Surveillance Division, as part of its surveillance mission, periodically conducts studies of cancer incidence among U.S. military service members. However, service members are likely lost to follow-up from the Department of Defense cancer registry and Military Health System data sets after leaving service and during periods of time not on active duty.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Morbidity Burdens Attributable to Various Illnesses and Injuries, Deployed Active and Reserve Component Service Members, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

Article
6/1/2022
Morbidity Burdens Attributable to Various Illnesses and Injuries, Deployed Active and Reserve Component Service Members, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

As in previous years, among service members deployed during 2021, injury/poisoning, musculoskeletal diseases and signs/symptoms accounted for more than half of the total health care burden during deployment. Compared to garrison disease burden, deployed service members had relatively higher proportions of encounters for respiratory infections, skin diseases, and infectious and parasitic diseases. The recent marked increase in the percentage of total medical encounters attributable to the ICD diagnostic category "other" (23.0% in 2017 to 44.4% in 2021) is likely due to increases in diagnostic testing and immunization associated with the response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Hospitalizations, Active Component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

Article
6/1/2022
Hospitalizations, Active Component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

The hospitalization rate in 2021 was 48.0 per 1,000 person-years (p-yrs), the second lowest rate of the most recent 10 years. For hospitalizations limited to military facilities, the rate in 2021 was the lowest for the entire period. As in prior years, the majority (71.2%) of hospitalizations were associated with diagnoses in the categories of mental health disorders, pregnancy-related conditions, injury/poisoning, and digestive system disorders.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Surveillance snapshot: Illness and injury burdens, reserve component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

Article
6/1/2022
Surveillance snapshot: Illness and injury burdens, reserve component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Absolute and Relative Morbidity Burdens Attributable to Various Illnesses and Injuries, Active Component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

Article
6/1/2022
Absolute and Relative Morbidity Burdens Attributable to Various Illnesses and Injuries, Active Component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

In 2021, as in prior years, the medical conditions associated with the most medical encounters, the largest number of affected service members, and the greatest number of hospital days were in the major categories of injuries, musculoskeletal disorders, and mental health disorders. Despite the pandemic, COVID-19 accounted for less than 2% of total medical encounters and bed days in active component service members.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Absolute and Relative Morbidity Burdens Attributable to Various Illnesses and Injuries, Non-service Member Beneficiaries of the Military Health System, 2021

Article
6/1/2022
Absolute and Relative Morbidity Burdens Attributable to Various Illnesses and Injuries, Non-service Member Beneficiaries of the Military Health System, 2021

In 2021, mental health disorders accounted for the largest proportions of the morbidity and health care burdens that affected the pediatric and younger adult beneficiary age groups. Among adults aged 45–64 and those aged 65 or older, musculoskeletal diseases accounted for the most morbidity and health care burdens. As in previous years, this report documents a substantial majority of non-service member beneficiaries received care for current illness and injury from the Military Health System as outsourced services at non-military medical facilities.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report
<< < 1 2 3 4 5  ... > >> 
Showing results 1 - 15 Page 1 of 13
Refine your search
Last Updated: October 24, 2022
Follow us on Instagram Follow us on LinkedIn Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Follow us on YouTube Sign up on GovDelivery