Technology
e-Newsletter
Intelligence Unit Special Reports Special Events Subscribe Sponsored Departments Follow Us

Twitter Facebook LinkedIn RSS

Latest ICD-10 Delay Re-shuffles the Deck, Irritates Players

Scott Mace, for HealthLeaders Media, April 1, 2014

I offered that groups such as the MGMA pretty much supported an ICD-10 delay, but I doubted whether a group like MGMA had sufficient clout to ram through a postponement.

"Most of the physicians now, well over 50 percent, are working within health systems, so you would think the health systems would carry their voice to try to get this where it needs to be. But in the end, if you had to balance payment reform and losing 25 percent of your income versus ICD-10, it sounds like payment is going to take precedence," Branzell says.

During our chat, I mentioned to Branzell that I had had a conversation earlier in the day with an EHR vendor who noted that large, well-capitalized healthcare systems are either continuing on with their ICD-10 plans or have actually gone live with ICD-10 already.

According to this vendor, who asked not to be identified, such large, prepared providers plan to simply "backcode" to ICD-9 for the next year. I wondered, however, if that is an indicator of a widening disparity between those who have the resources to do that and those who do not.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Comments are moderated. Please be patient.

1 comments on "Latest ICD-10 Delay Re-shuffles the Deck, Irritates Players"


Heather Haugen (4/2/2014 at 9:03 PM)
Interesting conversation. We have been hosting focus groups with CHIME CIOs to understand how the delay will impact progress toward ICD-10. The feedback suggests the delay will slow momentum for larger organizations that were on track for Oct. 1, 2014, but does offer additional time for smaller physician practices and hospitals that weren't going to make the deadline – as well as EHR vendors to ensure their applications are ready. My recommendation is that organizations not delay their preparation, but they do have to rethink their plans to accomodate a delay in timing.ICD-10 must remain a top priority. As for the viability of moving straight to ICD-11, I agree ICD-11 is ultimately where we need to be; however, many of us believe ICD-10 is an important stepping stone due to the differences between ICD-9 and ICD-11. – Dr. Heather Haugen, managing director of The Breakaway Group, A Xerox Company