Intelligence Unit Special Reports Special Events Subscribe Sponsored Departments Follow Us

Twitter Facebook LinkedIn RSS

AMA Seeks to Stop ICD-10, Cites Soaring Costs



In a letter to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the American Medical Association asks her to "strongly" reconsider the ICD-10 medical coding set mandate, which the AMA says will place a "crushing burden" on physicians.



9 comments on "AMA Seeks to Stop ICD-10, Cites Soaring Costs"
terry dodson (3/27/2014 at 5:12 PM)

I have worked for physicians for years. most of the older ones are considering retiring. people who are only coders may have 1 opinion but those of us who wear multiple hats are very unhappy. despite the rah,rah cheerleaders , this is still going to be expensive,stressful and chaotic. I don't think people have any idea how horrible this will turn out. thank you
Jan (3/26/2014 at 6:54 PM)

As a coder, I am so beyond ready to move forward with ICD-10. We have done the training and understand the reasoning behind the changes that are made in the ICD-10 code sets. One more year delay will do nothing to improve this in any way. We are ready. Let's get this done! NO DELAY! PLEASE! We've waited long enough. Other nations are already working on ICD-11. We are already behind. Don't delay this any further. There is nothing to be gained from this delay!
Frank T. (3/7/2014 at 11:01 PM)

As a Physician for my small solo practice, I code by myself. Patients are very happy for small wait time. I have memorized most of my Dx codes. Now with this ICD-10 , I can't. I am not seeing any "better care" but waste of time and money. A knee injury if you explain it better, still you can't "perfectly" explain it and you actually can spend the whole day, week, months, years to talk about it( just look at scientific research papers). Even draw Quantum Tensors in Space-Time and explain at what electron orbit the injury has taken place. Even if that it is not enough, we could explain it further by Einstein's formula and Plank's quantum variable or even expand it further to subatomic God particle to avoid "fraud and abuse and waste". In reality with increase number of patients and demand of access this is nothing but a waste of time by itself. Even ICD-9 was too much and for a solo outpatient practice must be weaned down to only 3 to 4 codes to be practical and friendly. Sorry for non physicians for not understanding it because they don't treat patients but papers. Their intelligence is not enough to understand it or jealousy and hatred of lack of success in their lives has hindered their miserable lives so bad that they have to make life miserable for others who care daily for sick people.
RCB (2/20/2014 at 6:34 PM)

It does not seem that any of the commenters are physicians. In other countries that use ICD 10 & 11 they do have government insurance. Included in that are professional coders that do this very specific coding. Some of the ICD 10 codes include V9542XA: Spacecraft crash injuring occupant, initial encounter,V91.07XA – Burn due to water-skis on fire, initial encounter, W5612XA: Struck by a sea lion, initial encounter. I do not see how these codes help me to be a better physician. What will happen is that physician overhead will increase (need to hire more coders), more wait for patients while coding is done, increase cost for patients b/c of overhead and less re-imbursement b/c of mistakes with ICD 10 and physician shortage.
Carl Costa (2/19/2014 at 3:55 PM)

Sorry AMA, but the time has come. We as a Country, as a community, and as a Nation gripping with high medical cost, fraud waste and abuse, need to [INVALID] a system that is over 30 years old. When ICD-9 was implemented, Rotary Phones were Still in use, do you see any now?? When ICD-09 was implemented, we witnessed Three Mile Island incident. When ICD-9 was implemented the USSR invaded Afghanistan. When ICD-9 was implemented, we were still using typewriters and Whiteout. Take for example in ICD-9 we have 305.1 for Tobacco Use and Disorder, well after 30+ years we now realize that people are Dependent on Tobacco, and there are various types of Tobacco that one uses, now we have Vapor Cigarettes and one Vaps. How can we continue to use such an outdated system of reporting Medical Practice when it cannot keep up with change, Medical Practice, and advances in medicine and research? So come on AMA, get out of the 70's, take off that disco outfit, throw out the bell bottoms and get with the current times and fashion. It's TIME to Move on Up to ICD-10!!!!
Frank Falzett (2/18/2014 at 7:10 PM)

You would hope that physicians would embrace a coding convention that would foster a more accurate representation of medical conditions leading their profession to greater understanding, instead of focusing on the cost of its implementation. The world adopted this standard over a decade ago, and the greatest country on earth has not been able to contribute as much as it could because we continue to use an outdated technology! To delay ICD-10 again would be a travesty. The physicians have had enough notice that this coding convention was coming.
Jugna Shah (2/18/2014 at 10:52 AM)

It's crazy to think that we would be satisfied using an outdated code set. The World has moved on and ICD-11 is in the works so the US needs to move forward and finally adopt ICD-10. Millions have already been spent by proactive hospitals, health systems, physicians etc. as implementation is just around the corner.
Carol Parham (2/15/2014 at 3:02 PM)

Requesting that ICD-10 be delayed or halted will give hope to some and delay their progress toward achieving this long awaited code change. We've been using totally inadequate ICD-9 since 1979, whereas we used to update every few years. We need to catch up with the rest of the world!
Tim (2/13/2014 at 10:54 AM)

It is not surprising that Associations are lodging complaints and issues. The problem is that it has already been delayed once. So the likelihood that it is delayed again is slim. I agree that many software vendors are slow and way behind. I disagree that there is not clinical improvement by implementing these codes. There is none in the short-term, but I believe there will be in the future. Better research can be attained from the new codes.