Carl Natale

Opponents of the transition to ICD-10 coding were successful in attaching a delay to "must-pass" Congressional legislation earlier this year. If ICD-10 proponents are not vigilant, such tactics could work again.

Healthcare providers can expect an increase in medical claim denials after Oct. 1, 2015. But that doesn't have to mean that revenue will be lost.

The offical transition to the ICD-10 coding set takes place next October (or so we hope). Many providers have already spent a good deal of money preparing for the inevitable, but even so, you need to make certain that select ICD-10 costs are included in your 2015 budget.

One of the major arguments against the ICD-10 transition are the financial costs to medical practices. Sure, there are accusations of bureaucratic overreach, but the anti-ICD-10 argument is primarily financial. So why not offer providers an incentive?

On Oct. 1, 2013, I marked the 12-month countdown to ICD-10 implementation by attempting to answer some basic questions. Now that more than six months have passed, and we have another deadline delay, many healthcare providers still can't get satisfactory answers.

It's not particularly helpful, but the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has finally addressed the impending ICD-10 delay.

Conventional wisdom says that too many ICD-10 codes will make it harder for clinicians and medical coders to do their jobs. Some studies suggest a 50 percent or more drop in productivity. But is this an underestimation of the problem?

A disconnect occurring in the fraud identification process used by CMS could mean that legitimate claims may be flagged as possible fraud.

If you haven't figured out an ICD-10 transition budget yet, it may be too late. But it's a good idea to get a handle on what it will cost you. Better late then never.

While the past year was relatively tame regarding ICD-10, at least in regard to the mad scramble some expect leading up to October 1, 2014, there were some significant developments.