Compare

    Two terms, side by side

    Pick any two terms to see definitions, context, pitfalls, and sources in parallel.

    Curated comparison tables

    In-depth, attribute-by-attribute tables for the most common MedTech term pairs. Each row is sourced from the linked term pages.

    Reimbursement

    ICD-10-CM / ICD-10-PCS

    In one line
    Diagnosis (CM) and inpatient procedure (PCS) coding systems used in U.S. claims.
    Definition
    ICD-10-CM codes are diagnosis codes used across all care settings; ICD-10-PCS codes describe inpatient procedures and drive MS-DRG assignment for hospital reimbursement. ICD-10-CM is maintained in the US by CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, and ICD-10-PCS by CMS, with annual updates effective October 1. New device procedures can apply for a new PCS code through the ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance Committee, which is often a step toward NTAP. Accurate diagnosis coding also supports medical necessity on claims.
    Why it matters
    Securing a unique ICD-10-PCS code can materially change inpatient payment for a new procedure or device. CMS holds public ICD-10 Coordination & Maintenance meetings twice yearly.
    Common pitfalls
    • •Assuming that a MedTech product automatically receives a unique ICD-10-PCS code without active engagement in the CMS coordination and maintenance process is a common mistake.
    • •Failing to understand the specific criteria and timelines for proposing new ICD-10 codes can lead to delayed market access or suboptimal reimbursement for new technologies.
    • •Incorrectly coding diagnoses (ICD-10-CM) or procedures (ICD-10-PCS) can result in claim denials, audits, and potential penalties.
    • •Overlooking the distinction between ICD-10-CM for diagnoses and ICD-10-PCS for inpatient procedures can lead to mischaracterization of a device’s impact or use.
    Sources
    Open full page
    Select term B to compare.

    Why compare MedTech terms side by side?

    MedTech terminology is full of pairs that look interchangeable but carry very different regulatory, clinical, and commercial consequences. Picking the wrong framework, pathway, or standard early in a project can add months to a submission, invalidate clinical evidence, or trigger an audit finding. Side-by-side comparison is the fastest way to surface those differences before they become costly mistakes.

    Each comparison on this page pulls from the same vendor-neutral, sourced definitions used throughout the MedTech Terms glossary. You see the one-line summary, the formal definition, why it matters in practice, common pitfalls, and the primary sources (FDA guidance, EU MDR/IVDR articles, ISO/IEC standards, MDCG documents, IMDRF principles) that back each entry. That makes the comparison defensible in regulatory strategy memos, design reviews, and submission narratives.

    Common comparison patterns

    How to use this tool

    Pick term A and term B from the dropdowns, or click a preset above. The URL updates with both slugs so you can bookmark or share the exact comparison with a colleague, a notified body reviewer, or your regulatory consultant. Click Open full page on either side for the complete entry, including FAQs, related terms, and the full citation list. If you are not sure which term to start with, browse the Categories view or the A-Z index.

    MedTech Terms is a vendor-neutral community resource sponsored by Blue Goat Cyber. Definitions are written for educational use and are not legal or regulatory advice.