AMA Plans to Fight ICD-10

The American Medical Association during its semi-annual policy making session has adopted a policy of fighting to stop implementation of the ICD-10 diagnosis and procedure code sets.

Get access to this article and thousands more...

All Health Data Management articles are archived after 7 days. REGISTER NOW for unlimited access to all recently archived articles, as well as thousands of searchable stories. Registered Members also gain access to exclusive industry white paper downloads, web seminars, podcasts, e-books, and conference discounts. Qualified members may also choose to receive our free monthly magazine and any of our e-newsletters covering the latest breaking news, opinions from industry leaders, developing trends and specialized topics like EHR's, revenue cycle management, health insurance exchanges, analytics, and more!

Already Registered?

Forgot Password/Need Help?
Comments (7)
Interesting that the shift to the new ICD 10 coding scheme is facing opposition from the AMA.The new system of coding offers increased specificity and granularity,thereby providing better diagnostics and targeted treatment of illnesses.Just read an informative whitepaper, ICD 9 to ICD 10 transition on strategies for successful transition to the new coding format @http://bit.ly/rUq4Jz
Posted by Aditya J | Wednesday, November 16 2011 at 8:49AM ET
Sure it may be better with ICD-10, however it is going cause a great deal of problems. The cost is going to be extreme to the medical profession. We coders will have to be retrained and that is going to cost. Are coders going to be ready for the change? I do not think so. Not for the amount of records that have to be completed. There are not enough coders and adding ICD-10 is going only going to increase the amount of coders needed. Professionals need to be well trained years before this ICD-10 implemented. What is the cost going to be to the patient. It is going to take more time away from staff and less patient care. I am talking in regards to physicians offices. Also, billing will slow and organizations will not get paid in a timely manner. I just do not think it is the best time and professionals need to be better prepared. I have only read about when ICD-10 will take place, but rarely see what training is going to take place for all medical professionals.
Posted by Susan G | Wednesday, November 16 2011 at 1:35PM ET
I agree that this AMA decision is misguided and misinformed. First of all there are GEM files on the CMS.GOV web site that offer conversions from ICD9 TO ICD10 and ICD10 to ICD9. So implementation should be automatic if they have well designed software. So there should be no immediate cost at all. If the doctor/coder has a good ICD10 lookup, they will be able to pick the best diagnosis and eventually will be very efficient. The idea that magically, on Oct 1, 2013, everything changes is a sign of ignorance. What the AMA should 'fight' is the EHR which has no direct benefit to patients, is very expensive and does not improve physician efficiency at all, in fact it is a detriment to patient care. Lab tests and x-rays should be accessible by all providers who treat a certain patient, but having volumes of data available is a waste of storage and labor. No doctor is going to read through a patient's history entered somewhere by another doctor. Especially when it is completely disorganized as the EHR is now. None of the systems have a similar GUI/user interface. The information is disorganized. The database has no common organization. The EHR law was poorly thought out and so it poorly implemented.
Posted by Ken M | Wednesday, November 16 2011 at 1:51PM ET
I would add that the ICD10 codes are free to everyone (unlike the AMA copyrighted CPT codes which continue to be mandated and the EDI specs for claims which cost thousands of dollars.)
Posted by Ken M | Wednesday, November 16 2011 at 2:07PM ET
The ICD10 codes are free to everyone (unlike the AMA copyrighted CPT codes which continue to be mandated and the EDI specs for claims which cost thousands of dollars.)

Regarding the EHR: If a patient sees 4 doctors and only 2 have an EHR, you have partial history information which could be worse than no history information. 2 could say the patient exam is normal while the other 2 had abnormal exams. The EHR law will cause many lawsuits and will be a great benefit to lawyers. See how many lawsuits there are now for privacy violations because of the new law.
Posted by Ken M | Wednesday, November 16 2011 at 2:25PM ET
Add Your Comments:
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment. Click here to register.
Already registered? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.

Videos

Slide Shows

Already a subscriber? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.