A few weeks ago we asked industry members of the Healthcare Finance group on LinkedIN whether or not they thought ICD-10 was going to be delayed and how well prepared they think the industry is for the code change. Most agreed that a delay is a long-shot, despite a bill that hopes to do just that, but when it come to readiness, the results were mixed. Here's what they had to say:
Carolyn Britton
President, Medical Practice Specialists
Most practices have not done testing for ICD 10 because there still seems to be doubt about if it is going forward. I did not put a lot of resources preparing last year because I saw all of the lobbying going on and didn't believe the October date was going to be met. Turns out I was right. If practices think they had problems with the 5010 conversion and many practices did even with testing, it didn't involve providers. ICD-10 is even more complicated due to it being provider driven and getting them to focus on this change is really difficult in the context of seeing patients. I'm not convinced that the payers are fully ready and that has the potential to be financially devastating.
David Kelly, MHSA
Director Hospital Revenue Cycle, Mary Rutan Hospital
I believe that we are, or certainly will be, ready on 10/1/15. I have significant doubts as to payer readiness, and particularly the government payers. Organizations haven't tested with CMS because they aren't ready, not because we aren't. The prudent thing to me would be to move away from the "big bang" approach to a phased implementation model. Yes, this adds complexity, but it allows for the normal "early adopter-middle of the pack-lagging practice" model that most new processes have.
Neil Martinez, PMP MCTS
Management Consultant
The only correct response to this is to "Keep On Truckin'." ICD 10 will happen. The only question is when. If you haven't begun planning for end-to-end testing, then now is the time to begin. Coordinate with your partners in this change initiative and align your plans, so you don't get caught off-guard.
Bill Koslosky, MD
Healthcare IT consultant and researcher
While HR 2126 looks like a non-starter, we now have H.R. 2247, the Increasing Clarity for Doctors by Transitioning Effectively Now Act (ICD-TEN Act), which would “require the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to provide for transparent testing to assess the transition under the Medicare fee-for-service claims processing system from the ICD-9 to the ICD-10 standard, and for other purposes.” This would provide an 18-month transition period during which reimbursement wouldn't be denied for coding errors. I think we can safely say that ICD-9 will expire on Oct. 1, and the dual coding proposal is just as moribund.
Jason Gottlieb
Director of ICD-10 Implementation, New York Presbyterian Hospital
While those of us close to the ground of ICD-10 see its importance, I would think it highly unlikely for a stand-alone bill on ICD-10 to get much traction at the legislative level. It's just not that important in that context. I would however keep an eye on the 21st century cures act, a highly visible, bi-partisan legislative initiative that has been re-drafted last week and is up for discussion and comment this week. This wide-reaching legilsation that includes sections on everything from changes to FDA regulations, to EMR adoption, and pharmaceutical provisions. Though there are no clauses in the current draft, it would be much easier to slip in ICD-10 provisions into something this large if negotiations ensue on its scope.
Twitter: @HenryPowderly