Although the deadline has been extended, many still question whether it would have been better to have stopped the ICD-10 migration and wait for ICD-11.
With the Department of Health and Human Services announcing a further delay in mandatory ICD-10 adoption dates, some healthcare organizations are still questioning the wisdom of this action. Payers and providers alike had been closely following every piece of information surfacing in the media to decide the fate of their migration strategies – to delay or stop, and for some, whether to start. However, considering all that has happened, or more importantly not happened over the last 19 years (when the initial steps toward an ICD-10 migration were taken), I feel that it is prudent to continue with your ICD-10 migration strategy and use the additional time to ensure the quality of the transition.
Here are four reasons why you should continue with ICD-10 implementation:
• Continual rapid expansion of medical innovation: Medical innovations are increasing at never before experienced rates because of technological advancements and investments in medical research and development (R&D). The existing ICD-9 coding system does not have the capability to capture these rapidly evolving medical breakthroughs, thereby impacting the ability to accurately record, share, reimburse and analyze medical care.
• Getting it right: An ICD-10 implementation does not happen overnight. It requires a lot of effort, risk and investment; therefore getting it right is a non-negotiable deliverable for healthcare organizations. A delay of the ICD-10 adoption date gives you additional time to plan effectively, educate respective stakeholders, identify pain points, mitigate risks with ample testing, as well as spread your migration costs over a longer period of time- helping you ensure immediate post migration operational readiness.
• Enabling quality and accountable care: There is an unprecedented focus on providing quality and accountable care to patients given the demands and expectations of society. A key to improvement is data that is granularly accurate and accessible. ICD-10 coding systems will ensure more accurate diagnoses, payments and better quality data reporting. Ultimately, this will help to improve quality of care.
• The need is now: The transition period from ICD-9 to ICD-10 is now 19 years and counting. Given the amount of effort required to establish and get approvals for a new coding system, ICD-11 may very well take another 10-15 years. Waiting for such an indefinitely long period to adopt ICD-11 will not adequately support all aspects of the healthcare system that are needed now.
ICD-10: An evolution or a revolution?
Some say that ICD-10 is more of an evolution than a revolution, and I tend to agree. The revolution was when coding schemes were first devised and used for diagnosis and procedures. This was followed by numerous revisions to improve and refine the system, which has evolved to the current ICD-9. The fact that ICD-10 and beyond can be considered a continuation of this evolution make some believe that combining the next two progressions would save effort and cost, which in fact may or may not be true. However, the real issue is that not all advances in an evolution have the same impact in accelerating progress. Some advances spike performance to a much higher level, creating a new plateau for innovation. I strongly believe that ICD-10 holds the promise of bringing healthcare information to a new plateau.
I’ll give you an example to put it in perspective. Think of air flight. The invention of man traveling through the air in a safe and sustained manner was revolutionary. It was followed by evolutionary improvements in all aspects – exterior and interior design, propulsion and navigation to name a few. But some improvements were much more impactful than others. As an example, propellers were continuously refined but it was the jet engine that created a new plateau that spurned new boundaries for domestic and military flight. Other technologies have had similar revolution and quantum evolution spikes. Telephones and wireless communications, computers and chip technology and graphical user interfaces are some good examples of technological evolution that completely changed the way we communicate, collaborate and work.
If ICD-10 is in fact an evolutionary spike as I believe it is, waiting for ICD-11 would not be the right move.
Though it makes sense to plan for ICD-11 now, our focus should be on successfully migrating to ICD-10 despite the delay. This is simply because of the higher platform for progress it promises to deliver.
Companies can then leverage this experience with ICD-10 to roll out a successful ICD-11 migration plan when the need arises (which may not be for quite some time). By embracing the “ICD-10 evolution” and continuing with implementation, companies will help push the healthcare information industry forward and be well-positioned themselves to achieve success.
Carl Ascenzo is vice president global healthcare solutions at IT consulting and software development firm Virtusa.