Readers Comment on AMA Studying ICD-11

Some Health Data Management readers are not impressed with the American Medical Association’s decision to evaluate preliminary versions of ICD-11 as a possible alternative to replace ICD-9.

Such a move, skipping ICD-10 and waiting for ICD-11, would add several years to the deadline for an updated coding set beyond a new Oct. 1, 2014, compliance date that federal officials recently proposed for ICD-10--a year past the current date. Here’s a sampling of reader sentiment:

Linda R: “Congress and CMS need to treat this as any other change management issue and help the AMA see the best way to move forward instead of constantly delaying. Electronic notes will actually help with ICD-10 if the docs will just move forward instead of sticking their heads in the sand hoping ‘this too shall pass.’ Kill two birds with one stone and map ICD-10 in your electronic documentation system, then teach the docs how to use it (or have the nurses help them).”

Roland D: “The AMA does not seem to realize that they are not the ONLY stakeholders in today's healthcare delivery system. Everyone else has begun preparing for the implementation of ICD-10, and thousands of dollars have been spent training allied health staff in the use of ICD-10. ICD-10 has already been delayed to 2013....what rationale supports the AMA's contention that its members would be ready in 2014? There will never be a ‘good time’ for the AMA to implement ICD-10, and the United State is over 10 years behind as it is!”

Ms. V: “AMA seems to hold all the cards. What about all of the other entities who have been preparing and spending capital dollars on this initiative Congress needs to take that into consideration, as well.”