Countdown to ICD-10 is On
A two-year delay would be at least double the additional cost of a one-year delay, and the costs would continue to mount for every additional year. In addition, the healthcare industry suffers opportunity costs each year that the US fails to implement ICD-10.
Get implementation back on track
Therefore, healthcare organizations that may have stopped or slowed their ICD-10 preparations after HHS first announced its intent to consider a delay need to get back on track with renewed vigor. Those organizations that did not suffer a loss of momentum need to forge ahead.
Organizations will need to adjust their ICD-10 timelines and budgets to account for the change in compliance date. It’s important to ensure the organization’s implementation timeline includes time for adequate internal and external testing. Also, organizations will need to reevaluate ICD-10 planning and determine how preparation affects the organization’s other projects and priorities. They will also need to adjust timelines and budgets to make the best use of available time and resources.
Working on ICD-10 in tandem with other related initiatives can potentially minimize duplication of work and reduce costs.
Your organization should have completed initial ICD-10 implementation plans and impact assessments by now. Organizations should now begin to implement systems and business process changes identified during the impact assessment.
Organizations should also be implementing systems and business process changes, and modifying policies/procedures, reports, and forms.
- CMS Mulls Income-Adjusting MA Stars
- Providers Prep for New Payment Models as Population Health Grows
- As Retail Clinics Surge, Quality Metrics MIA
- Providers' Push to Consolidate Roils Payers
- 3 Ways to Rev Employee Development Programs
- Transforming Decision Support and Reporting
- Aligning Executive Compensation with Provider Mission
- Nurse Ethics Comes to a Head at Guantanamo Bay
- 6 Not-So-Good Reasons for Avoiding Population Health
- Former NQF Co-Chair Linked to Conflicts of Interest in Journal Probe