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

Twitter Facebook LinkedIn RSS

As ICD-10 Deadline Looms, Healthcare Providers Fret

John Commins, for HealthLeaders Media, February 7, 2014

"We share MGMA's concerns, especially for the provider side of this," he says. "We think most of the hospitals have a good grasp on ICD-10. They don't have all the training and work they are supposed to have had done but generally the hospitals have a good grasp on this. But even on the hospital side we think they need to focus and have the flexibility."

"It doesn't mean that they should delay anything, but they should have some flexibility so if anyone needs to move back Meaningful Use Stage 2 they are not suffering penalties so they can focus on this. If we allow everyone the flexibility they need, maybe six or 12 months, we can get all of these initiatives accomplished in an appropriate sequence and timing."

Why not rollback the ICD-10 deadline and allow providers to focus on Meaningful Use Stage 2?

"For ICD-10, the ship has already sailed," Branzell says. "Most hospitals have already upgraded their systems. Many are already running dual accounting systems to check on this. At this point so many have geared up and there is an expense that has been laid out for most organizations that if they were to delay this date there would be lost effort and they would have to turn around and do it all over again."

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Comments are moderated. Please be patient.

1 comments on "As ICD-10 Deadline Looms, Providers Fret"


Harry Goldsmith, DPM (2/7/2014 at 11:10 AM)
2014 has been set up as a "perfect storm" with demands for change and increased regulation above and beyond, in my opinion, what providers - whether in solo practice, small groups, or large groups - will be able to efficiently handle. ICD-10, indeed, will be implemented on October 1, 2014. The question that should be asked is, why does the United State feel it is critical to require the 6 and 7 character for many of the coding? I would suggest - and I know several medical organizations have also commented to this point - that CMS/CDC suspend the use of the 6 and 7 characters for x years allowing providers to transition smoothly from ICD-9 to ICD-10. The 6 and 7 characters represent redundant information already available in CPT coding and the medical record. The burdens associated with applying the 6 and 7 characters (when required) are many including documentation (charge ticket/superbill development and use), the bogging down of workflow efficiencies from provider to coder/biller, as well as adding to the complexity of the business-side of medicine. No other country added additional characters for the primary purpose of 3rd party datamining. CMS/CDC should "toggle off" the need for these extra characters that have nothing to do with altering immediate and practical treatment outcomes.