Medical community jumping for joy over ICD-10 delay.
Finally. The medical community—not just the physicians, but especially those with medical coding, medical transcription, and even medical office assistant training —can now heave a collective sigh of relief for the extra time to prepare for what’s undoubtedly the most extensive revision of the way it processes medical data for storage, retrieval, and payment purposes.
This August, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that the one-year proposed delay in the implementation of the new medical code set ICD-10 (otherwise known as the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision) is now final, moving the compliance date from Oct. 1, 2013 to Oct.1, 2014 and putting an end to contentious debates over the merits of implementing the new code set.
The announcement actually was embodied in a final rule issued by HHS that, according to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, will save doctors and other healthcare providers money, resources, and time because of its implementation of a unifying health plan identifier (HPID).
HHS also announced important initiatives to help healthcare providers throughout the industry save over $21 billion over ten years.
First, it adopted new standards to accommodate healthcare electronic funds transfers (EFT) and remittance-advice transaction involving healthcare providers and health plans.
Second, it adopted rules involving two electronic healthcare transactions to facilitate determining patient eligibility for coverage, as well as to establish the status of a healthcare claim by a health insurer.
Third, HHS published an IFC adopting operating rules for electronic remittance-advice transaction as well as for healthcare EFT.
What’s your take? Please share your thoughts on ICD-10 in general and the delayed compliance date.
About the Author: Guest contributor, Paula J. Almonte works as a freelance writer and specializes in writing about the health care industry.
#1 by The Nerdy Nurse on September 30, 2012 - 4:12 AM
I find it interesting that the “Final Rules” from CMS never really seem to be final.
#2 by Samantha Gluck on September 30, 2012 - 6:57 PM
Yes, it’s very “interesting”, isn’t it? Of course, this is the government we’re talking about! Thanks for stopping by and taking the time to comment. It’s an honor to have your (final) thoughts on this topic.
#3 by John Lynn on October 3, 2012 - 4:15 AM
I’m not sure there was a collective sigh of relief across all of healthcare. Many institutions that have invested heavily in ICD-10 were likely annoyed by the delay after their big financial investment. A number of other health IT companies were no doubt annoyed even more by the delay. Although, those that have been procrastinating ICD-10 no doubt made up for the others that weren’t excited about the delay.
#4 by Samantha Gluck on October 3, 2012 - 2:01 PM
Great points, all, John! I think, though, that many health care professionals (procrastinators excluded) have felt a sense of dread and overwhelm at having to handle with all that’s involved with the changeover whilst still conducting the business of “doctoring” patients. Perhaps that’s what the author meant by “collective sigh of relief”.
You do raise a very astute point, however, about the dismay that must have been felt by those who had jumped right on the task and were prepared, only to have it delayed.
#5 by Mitch Mitchell on October 7, 2012 - 6:11 PM
Goodness, they’re never going to get this thing implemented. It was originally supposed to be implemented in 2003; 9 years later they have to push it back another year, again? What a way to run health care!
#6 by Samantha Gluck on October 7, 2012 - 7:13 PM
Hi Mitch,
I agree. There’s definitely something awry here with the system. I think part of the problem (along with myriad others) is that it’s run by government and not by the private sector. I don’t really have any well-thought out ideas about how the private sector could handle the implementation, but I would bet my right arm that they’d handle it better than the public sector. #justsayin
#7 by Mitch Mitchell on October 7, 2012 - 8:09 PM
The problem is that it’s all about reimbursement, mainly Medicare and Medicaid; that’s the only reason it hasn’t been implemented yet. No other country pays on diagnosis this way, which is why they’re all going to be on ICD-12 before we’re on 11. Although I support the new health plan on principle, it’s this issue that no one has resolved yet that’s messing things up in my mind. Not that New York state was going to even try to be ready by 2013 as it pertains to compensation or no fault anyway; that’s where I am.
#8 by Samantha Gluck on October 7, 2012 - 8:48 PM
I agree, Mitch. I don’t understand why we’ve structured the system to pay on Dx in this way either. It’s absolutely crazy. Lots of things work on principle, Mitch — even communism. It just won’t work in real life — not the way we want it to, anyway.