NOV 17, 2011 12:10pm ET

Related Links

Hospital Group Concerned with Expanding NPI
May 22, 2012
MGMA: Plan Identifier Not as Easy as Envisioned
May 18, 2012
3M Health Data Dictionary Going Open Source
May 16, 2012
AMA: Postpone ICD-10 At Least Two Years
May 14, 2012
Association for HIT Leaders Comments on ICD-10
May 14, 2012
AHIMA Comments on Rule to Delay ICD-10
May 9, 2012
KLAS: Computer-Assisted Coding Poised for Growth
April 23, 2012

Web Seminars

Positive Patient ID: Bar Coding Success at the Bedside
Available On Demand

HDM Readers React to AMA's Fight with ICD-10

Print
Reprints
Email

Health Data Management readers are commenting on the American Medical Association's decision to "vigorously work" to stop implementation of the ICD-10 code sets, and their reactions are mixed. Here's a sampling:

* "This story represents an example of why the AMA is ineffectual. Instead of spending time and money on something that will happen and needs to happen I would prefer they work on getting primary care physicians increased reimbursement for patient-centered medical home initiatives to improve patient care."

* "The ICD-10 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."

* “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 ICD-9 to ICD-10, and ICD-10 to ICD-9. 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 ICD-10 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, and in fact is a detriment to patient care."

* "It is 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."

* "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 ICD-10 is implemented. What is the cost going to be to the patient? It is going to take more time away from staff and bring less patient care. 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."

 

Comments (7)
I think that the listed reactions to the AMA's efforts are very biased. I for one am glad that the AMA is taking a stand and I definitely feel that the magnitude of the ICD-10 implementation is being severely understated. This is a massive change for all entities. There are a lot of expenses involved that apparently many of your readers aren't considering or are just unaware of. This is not a matter of just taking the GEM's and matching codes. All of the codes in the GEM's cannot be mapped in a direct one to one relationship. So, this transition is MUCH bigger than you think. With this transition coinciding with Meaningful Use, it's virtually impossible to meet the stringent deadlines for both at the same time.
Posted by Tiffany G | Thursday, November 17 2011 at 2:07PM ET
It is correct that there is no one to one match since there are many times more ICD10 codes than ICD9 codes. However, there is a best match that Medicare will obviously accept for some time since they publish the conversion (GEM) files. ICD10 codes are organized differently. Change is difficult for most people. Start planning now. Write down your most common ICD9 codes. Good billing software will have a conversion utility now since we have known about the change since draft specs for v5010 were available in January 2007. See what the ICD10 'equivalents' are. You can see how much is missing in the ICD9 code set. ICD10 is obviously a better system. Most developed countries use ICD10 now. Good billing software will allow you to begin using ICD10 mixed with ICD9 now if you want and do the ICD10 to ICD9 conversion automatically for transmitted claims until your payer accepts ICD10. Do some research, begin planning now and the change will not be so painful or costly. You have almost 2 years.
Posted by Ken M | Thursday, November 17 2011 at 3:24PM ET
Add Your Comments:
You must be registered to post a comment.
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.
Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn

Looking to build better care coordination, health systems are buying physician groups in droves. Making the deal work, however, requires careful management on the I.T. front.

Login  |  My Account  |  White Papers  |  Web Seminars  |  Events |  Newsletters |  eBooks
FOLLOW US
Already a subscriber? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.