ICD-10 Delay Again? Don't Do It - InformationWeek

InformationWeek is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Healthcare // Policy & Regulation
08:36 AM
Deborah Graham
Deborah Graham
Connect Directly

ICD-10 Delay Again? Don't Do It

Congress is once again toying with the notion of pushing back the new diagnostic coding requirement.

Easy-to-Mock ICD-10 Diagnosis Codes...
Easy-to-Mock ICD-10 Diagnosis Codes...
(Click image for larger view and slideshow.)

Having postponed the implementation of ICD-10 from October 2014 until at least October 2015, some in Congress are now pushing for another two-year delay. The proposal is an addition to the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill that is scheduled to be voted on in early December. Even if that bill doesn't contain the delay or isn't passed, there are other healthcare bills coming up where the delay could be added.

I have one thing to say about that: Don't do it.

ICD-10 is a more comprehensive set of diagnostic and insurance billing codes, which the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) wants to make the new standard. But switching to it involves both data system conversions and training for healthcare providers, leading to political pressure for delay.

[Hard lessons: What Healthcare Can Learn From CHS Data Breach.]

Giving providers and payers another two years is NOT going to make compliance any easier. It will set in place a sense that ICD-10 will never come to be, and all progress will come to an abrupt halt. This will not be perceived as getting more time to implement ICD-10. The last delay proved that. WEDI's readiness survey found that the same percentage of payers and providers were ready this year as were ready a year prior. No progress was made, as the delay basically halted conversion and training projects -- to be picked up a year later, maybe. Even knowing that there is a real possibility of another delay has ripples on funding and projects in place. Where I work, we have started testing with payers again, and this possibility has caused us to rethink whether we have the resources to string this out two more years (answer: no).

(Image: jarmoluk/Pixabay)
(Image: jarmoluk/Pixabay)

People are procrastinators. We put off the unpleasant until it affects us personally or financially. Maybe a compromise is needed. Allow dual-coding to be used. Providers could send either ICD-9 or ICD-10. If the payers paid ICD-10 claims at a higher rate, it wouldn't take long for providers to switch over. And those that choose not to switch could save money and just not get reimbursed as well until they switch over to ICD-10.

Maybe a phased approach could be incorporated? After each year, the ICD-9 reimbursement goes down by 10% until it just isn't worth it to send claims with ICD-9 codes. Once it impacts providers' bottom lines, they'll make the switch. Dual coding would require the payers to accept both ICD-9 and ICD-10 claims no matter the date of service, but that shouldn't be as hard to do (just remove the date-of-service restriction) as making all the providers switch over to ICD-10 on the same date. If you tie the switch to reimbursement, I would bet more providers would be getting ready and there would be no need for another delay. And those providers who don't have the resources and are pushing for the delay could continue to send ICD-9 until they feel the reimbursement reduction hurting their bottom line.

So, please, No more delays! Let's work together and get dual-coding with different reimbursements for ICD-10 use versus ICD-9 use. And we'll all be pleased at how quickly providers can switch over when they want to.

I would like to suggest to CMS to put a loophole in the wording that says compliance cannot be mandated. So, don't mandate it. Ask nicely. Allow dual coding and reimburse providers who use ICD-10 with an incentive that increases over time (or penalize those who continue to use ICD-9). And then we can all be surprised at how quickly providers convert over to ICD-10 even though it is not "mandated."

Just 30% of respondents to our new Big Data and Analytics Survey say their companies are very or extremely effective at identifying critical data and analyzing it to make decisions, down from 42% in 2013. What gives? Get the The Trouble With Big Data issue of InformationWeek Tech Digest today. (Free registration required.)

Deborah Graham is a senior programmer/analyst at a large hospital system in Massachusetts working in the IT department on the provider practice side of the organization. She has more than 14 years of healthcare IT experience and over 25 years of programming experience in a ... View Full Bio
We welcome your comments on this topic on our social media channels, or [contact us directly] with questions about the site.
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
User Rank: Apprentice
1/14/2015 | 1:08:48 PM
please delay icd10 for as long as possible
please delay icd10 it will be a huge problem for coders that do billing for the doctors production will go down payments will be late it will create a huge mess for billing purpose.as a coder i been coding for 11 years and i know icd9 codes by heart if we switch to icd10 every code will have to be looked up which means production will be awful and the doctors will not get paid on time. i code 500 charts a day with icd9 when i trained on icd10 my production was 140 charts that was ridiculus so i say again icd10 will cause a huge problem for coders.
User Rank: Apprentice
12/12/2014 | 3:03:18 PM
Petition to Stop the Delays!
I was looking around for information about this (they did NOT include the delay in the budget bill - YEA!) and I found this petition. Please consider adding your signature to the petition:


Together, we can tell the governmetn we don't want any more delays!
User Rank: Apprentice
12/5/2014 | 7:30:56 AM
ICD-10 Delay
I couldn't agree more - no more ICD-10 delays!  I would venture to say the same physician offices that aren't ready now aren't going to be ready in two years, either.  They don't ever want to be ready - they don't want to use ICD-10. However, what about all those other people whose livelihood does rely on the use of ICD-10?  All of those coders, people in IT (hospitals and vendors alike).  So much has been invested in ICD-10 and to see it continually pushed is just plain wrong.  How about all of those places that were ready at the first deadline?  I hope the right thing happens 12/10 and yet another delay is NOT passed.
User Rank: Apprentice
12/4/2014 | 9:09:43 AM
I agree
I agree with what you're saying here. Another delay is just another reason for people to avoid change, training, and implementation. It has almost become acceptable to refuse and just turn and walk away. Yet so many have successfully gone through the training, physicians have accepted their role on documentation, new and old coders understand what they must do, but here we are again. Considering another delay. I am aware that it was attached to an SGR patch last year, but that was just an excuse. I think it was just thrown in there because it was known that it would cause a delay. It all boils down to change. You are either for or against it, but still it is inevitable. It is only a matter of when.
How GIS Data Can Help Fix Vaccine Distribution
Jessica Davis, Senior Editor, Enterprise Apps,  2/17/2021
Graph-Based AI Enters the Enterprise Mainstream
James Kobielus, Tech Analyst, Consultant and Author,  2/16/2021
11 Ways DevOps Is Evolving
Lisa Morgan, Freelance Writer,  2/18/2021
White Papers
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you.
Flash Poll