The ICD-10 Saga continues, or stalls that is…
This past week, I came across two articles that Health and Data Management published this week regarding ICD-10 compliance. The articles were CMS Clarification on ICD-10 Stance Coming Soon and HHS Intends to Delay ICD-10 for ‘Certain Health Care Entities’.
Last week the Department of Health and Human Services announced that they will begin to postpone the ICD-10 compliance for certain healthcare entities. The announcement neither defines who the entities would be nor clarifies the exact length of the delay. HHS mentioned that more information would be provided in the future.
While I know the whole idea of ICD-10 compliance has been a hot topic since 2008; it simply amazes me to see the politics drag out. It is fascinating to see how, quite possibly, the AMA’s pressure on Speaker John Boehner and the government has yielded a shift in policy.
I noticed an excellent point from a statement from Chantal Worzala, Director of Policy at the American Hospital Association. The Director indicated that the AHA is supportive of the ICD-10 transition but said, “However, changes in the environment that have occurred since ICD-10 was mandated for October 2013, including Meaningful Use, are putting significant pressures on hospitals.”
I agree that her statement raises a valid concern. Between comments from the AMA and AHA, I think there’s generally a consensus that the transition to ICD-10 is beneficial. I haven’t seen a great deal of correspondence negating that point. Yes, the AMA requested that House Speaker John Boehner throw out the ICD10 transition, but later remarks show that the AMA is willing to work towards ICD-10.
The biggest issue I see parties discussing is the timeline and concerns regarding successful implementation. CMS has provided a great deal of tools to assist in the transition, as I’ve shared before, guiding entities through the process. In my opinion, while those do offer great assistance and timelines, they do not necessarily address the concerns on the receiving end. Did CMS intend to work hand-in-hand and listen to feedback while the process unfolded as we drew closer to October 2013? Apparently now, the feedback is being heard. While other countries have indeed been utilizing ICD-10, we have not. Entities in the US need to have a success story, something to feed off of. We need to see how this transition succeeds through some validation. Just as in any other implementation, we need to test and view the results. Are there any parties that are implementing early and share their results?
I still believe, just as the consensus, that ICD-10 will immensely benefit the healthcare community, even when we joke about the humorous codes. However, the more I see this saga unfold, I do believe the government needs to work closely and carefully with the healthcare community to ensure that they are not imposing failure upon them, rather they ensure success. A delay to some entities may not be enough. How will they determine who receives the delay, if not all? How long of a delay will they receive? Will we see transition “trials” to examine the tangible issues in depth past the current issues being mentioned in regards to the timeline with concurrent initiatives?
I hate to end this article on some open-ended questions. However, we will have to await further news from HHS or CMS on how this saga will unfold and play out.
