Is the ICD-10 delay justified? Maybe – maybe not.
How many of these terms have you heard recently to describe the ICD-10 delay?
Stay the course
Provide more education—Congress, physicians, the American public
Communicate the value of ICD-10
Get the word out
More opportunities to “get it right”
And so on …
At this point in time – four years for the early ICD-10 adopters – there are few in the healthcare industry “unaware” of the value and benefits of ICD-10. AHIMA, WEDI, AAPC, ICD-10 Coalition as well as many private and public organizations, have been communicating the value of a new code set for the healthcare industry, individual beneficiaries as well as the entire nation.
The media may laugh at certain codes (V93.40, struck by falling object on merchant ship) and ponder why the US is spending billions of dollars on something this trivial. But those in healthcare recognize the code set as a classification system and the opportunity it brings for clinical application and reporting. The “bulk of the codes” define chronic and acute diseases, complications, and injuries, that is, real-life situations that physicians and clinicians experience every day.
So what is the dilemma? The AMA’s letter to HHS dated Feb 12, 2014 as well as, the AMA’s position on ICD-10, has clearly identified and outlined their concerns regarding the ICD-10 code set and the transition itself. These documents do not show that the AMA is asking for help with any of the industries concerns—education, CDI, ICD-10 value, data commitment, etc. Instead, one major identified concern the AMA has expressed is “competing priorities.” Another area of concern is “cost without reward.”
None of the AMA’s concerns address the responses (noted above) from the industry leaders. The AMA is not writing “we need more education,” nor are they writing “we need help with clinical documentation.” The number one concern the AMA has identified is “competing priorities” and “we need money to transition to the new code set.” In addition, the longer we wait to transition to ICD-10 the greater the cost, especially for smaller entities.
Until we – the healthcare industry, yes, all of us – are actually communicating on the same topics, we fail to see the AMA’s concerns and lack understanding of critical needs, while remaining frustrated, losing talents and skills to other projects and initiatives.
In addition, it is our fiduciary responsibility as a global leader to participate and cooperate with the World Health Organization to implement and utilize the ICD-10 code set.
The next healthcare conference/forum/summit must invite and dialogue with the AMA to successfully transition to ICD-10 for our industry and our country.
AMA letter to HHS on ICD-10 delay, February 12, 2014.
AMA, NCVHS Subcommittee on Standards ICD-10; June 10, 2014.