Why is the AMA evaluating ICD-11?

It's official. ICD-11 is the greatest thing since sliced bread. The American Medical Association (AMA) says so.

OK, maybe I'm jumping the gun. But now that the AMA plans to evaluate the ICD-11 code set as an alternative to ICD-9 coding, I'm confident they're going to like it.

What's not to like? It's built upon SNOMED. Which means it's going to work much better with electronic health records (EHRs) and clinical language. It's supposed to fix all the shortcomings of ICD-10 coding.

So when the AMA evaluates ICD-11 coding, I'm sure they're going to find it "will make for a less cumbersome transition for physicians and allow physicians to focus on their primary priority - patient care."

Actually, how are they going to figure that out? There is an alpha version of ICD-11 coding. But the full code set isn't scheduled to be released until 2015.

There's the rub. Everything that is wonderful about ICD-11 coding is just a promise. The World Health Organization is planning for it to do wonderful things. How do we know if it will deliver on its promise?

And I really can't believe that an ICD-9 to ICD-11 conversion will create fewer "unnecessary and significant financial and administrative burdens for physicians" than an ICD-9 to ICD-10 conversion will.

I don't think the AMA believes it either.