• Revenue Cycle Management
  • COVID-19
  • Reimbursement
  • Diabetes Awareness Month
  • Risk Management
  • Patient Retention
  • Staffing
  • Medical Economics® 100th Anniversary
  • Coding and documentation
  • Business of Endocrinology
  • Telehealth
  • Physicians Financial News
  • Cybersecurity
  • Cardiovascular Clinical Consult
  • Locum Tenens, brought to you by LocumLife®
  • Weight Management
  • Business of Women's Health
  • Practice Efficiency
  • Finance and Wealth
  • EHRs
  • Remote Patient Monitoring
  • Sponsored Webinars
  • Medical Technology
  • Billing and collections
  • Acute Pain Management
  • Exclusive Content
  • Value-based Care
  • Business of Pediatrics
  • Concierge Medicine 2.0 by Castle Connolly Private Health Partners
  • Practice Growth
  • Concierge Medicine
  • Business of Cardiology
  • Implementing the Topcon Ocular Telehealth Platform
  • Malpractice
  • Influenza
  • Sexual Health
  • Chronic Conditions
  • Technology
  • Legal and Policy
  • Money
  • Opinion
  • Vaccines
  • Practice Management
  • Patient Relations
  • Careers

ICD-10 supporters debunk skip to ICD-11

Article

Healthcare organizations advocating for ICD-10 continue to defend any argument against the coding system that could again delay its October 2015 implementation. The latest battle pits The Coalition for ICD-10 against those that want the United States to skip over ICD-10 and to wait to implement ICD-11.

The Coalition for ICD-10, which includes 22 coding societies, hospitals, health plans and health IT vendors, is on the defense as rumors swirl that another ICD-10 delay could be included in upcoming sustainable growth rate legislation this spring. As the rest of the world readies to implement ICD-11, which will be completed by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2017, the coalition explains why the coding system is not a good leap for the U.S.

The U.S. version of ICD-10 was created after years of modifications, comment periods, and revisions that added policies and procedures used by the healthcare system in this country. A blog post on the coalition’s website explains how it could take more than four decades to implement ICD-11.

“The modification of the WHO version of ICD-10 for use in the U.S. took eight years. It was another eleven years before the regulatory process of proposed rules and comment periods was completed and the issuance of a final rule establishing ICD-10 as the HIPAA standard code set. The ICD-10 final rule gave the industry three years to get ready for ICD-10 implementation. Two one-year delays have now pushed the time allotted for preparation to five years. Based on the ICD-10 timeline, ICD-11 would not be implemented until 2041,” the blogpost said.

Referencing a 2013 report from the American Medical Association (AMA), one of ICD-10’s biggest detractors, the coalition agrees that implementing ICD-10 will help the move to ICD-11 go smoother.

“Learning the medical concepts, training efforts, and overall implementation efforts for ICD-11 will be more challenging if ICD-10 is not implemented first,” the AMA report said. “Focusing solely on moving from ICD-9 to ICD-11 risks missing the opportunity to educate physicians and leaving them unprepared for the anticipated transition to ICD-10, which could result in significant cash flow disruptions which could result in significant cash flow disruptions.”

The AMA has been working with regional societies since November of 2014 on a letter writing campaign to Congress asking members to delay the coding system for a third time. AMA President Robert Wah, MD, spoke to delegates in November of 2014 referencing Star Wars, calling the coding system a droid that would serve Darth Vader.

“For more than a decade, the AMA kept ICD-10 at bay – and we want to freeze it in carbonite,” Wah said.

Not to be outdone, the Coalition for ICD-10 references Samuel Beckett’s play Waiting for Godot saying that the battle to stop another ICD-10 delay hinders all of healthcare: “Nothing happens. Nobody comes, nobody goes. It’s awful.”

Related Videos
© National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
© National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health