Intelligence Unit Special Reports Special Events Subscribe Sponsored Departments Follow Us

Twitter Facebook LinkedIn RSS

10 Ways ICD-10 Will Improve Quality of Care



Providers are bracing for a costly and difficult transition to ICD-10. But there is an upside. By vastly increasing the number of procedure codes, ICD-10 will improve our understanding of why we get sick and how we give care.



8 comments on "10 Ways ICD-10 Will Improve Quality of Care"
Jennifer Hamilton (1/12/2014 at 8:02 AM)

At the same time the public is demanding the US government "back off" on collecting information, medicine is about to introduce a dramatic increase in "data" for our government. And, please note, it will be tied to your electronic medical record. It is hard to argue with the need for updating the codes, but the dramatic increase in numbers, details and specifics is of concern. The cost will be real in time and money. To argue that one benefit is that it preserves and even grows the number of coders is shocking- increasing people who push paper and provide no care at the same time we are trying to cut cost?! This is a fantasy article by someone who has no clue what providing health care is about.
ralph (2/17/2012 at 12:48 PM)

I'm trying to understand how going from 14,000 CPT billing codes to 140,000 ICD-10 billing codes improves quality of medicine? It might improve the quality of live of bean counters who have to sort through this mess, but thats it. Thats why at www.medibid.com there are no billing codes, and patients save about 80% off of the billed rates
patient advocate (12/2/2011 at 2:30 PM)

Physician practices are provided with a substantial amount of money to ease the burden of modernizing their practice to use EHRs, and transitioning to ICD10 is certainly part of that. A $40,000+ investment by American tax payers that is available to all physicians that adopt new HIT technologies is a far cry from "and do it all at my own costs".
Dr. Nathan (12/2/2011 at 11:01 AM)

The transition to ICD-10 in other countries will not parallel the experience of the U.S. The main difference is that other countries adopted versions of ICD-10 that had much fewer codes. Physicians in the U.S. are required to fund a transition that will be far more complex and difficult than in any other country due to our multipayer health care system. In addition, other countries offered government funding to offset implementation costs. Other countries also eased their health care systems through the transition by implementing ICD-10 in phases or in specific settings. It seems the only ones who are optimistic about ICD-10 are the hospitals and their consultants who are dreaming up expanded billing schemes. Physicians shouldn't be expected to carry a disproportionate burden of the ICD-10 investment costs when others will be the primary financial beneficiaries.
O T R (12/1/2011 at 7:41 PM)

Absolutely wonderful: I provide extensive epidemiological data, hire additional staff to code & increase the liihood of claims denials, all at my own expense. What more could I wish for?
David Hahn, FACHE retired (12/1/2011 at 5:04 PM)

More is not always better. It will continue to tip the balance of dollars required to run system and yes maybe give better information. We are still working on the old premise of more is better/bigger is better. We need to simplify and look at actual care not keep making the charts bigger and bigger with no one able to look over everything without more administrative time. Costs need to be reduced and I fear this is not the way to do this and give quality.
Dorinda M. Sattler, BS, RHIA, CHPS (12/1/2011 at 3:14 PM)

I continue to be amazed that in what is supposed to be the greatest country in the world, we are behind the rest of the world in implementing ICD-10. Hopefully the information you've provided in this article will reduce some of the resistance by providers to ICD-10.
Gus Geraci, MD (12/1/2011 at 1:24 PM)

Speaking for myself, and not representing the Pa Medical Society, you nicely outline the conundrum regarding ICD-10. 9 is vastly outdated, and I hear complaints that valid quality measurements cannot be derived from claims-based data. Certainly ICD-10 does not solve that completely, but it helps a great deal. It would be nice to just derive data from the clinical info, but that is even farther off.