ICD-10’s Costly Delay

Survey Says ICD-10 Delay Will Be Costly

A recent survey by Washington-based IT vendor Edifecs Inc., a known advocate of ICD-10 (International Classification of Diseases 10th Edition), the new medical code set that was supposed to replace ICD-9 on Oct. 1, 2013 but whose implementation date was pushed back indefinitely, has indicated that a delay could prove financially costly to hospitals, other healthcare facilities, and practices.

On the other hand, providers of online medical billing training and medical coding online courses—which had to quickly update enrollees on ICD-10’s 69,000 codes before the delay—now have more time to phase in their students into the thousands of new codes.

The survey, as reported by healthimaging.com, found that of the 50 healthcare professionals who responded a majority believed the longer the delay, the more dire the consequences. Ninety percent indicated that the delay should not last more than a year. The survey also reported that 58 percent of the respondents believed that a one-year delay would be "costly, but manageable," while 37 percent said it would be "beneficial."

On the other hand, only 22 percent thought that a two-year delay would be "costly, but manageable," while 56 percent stated that it would be "potentially catastrophic." Significantly, just 4 percent believed that a two-year delay would be beneficial.

Over 70 percent of the respondents believed that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) should reimburse organizations for the change in compliance date. Meanwhile, 49 percent of those surveyed anticipated an 11 percent to 25 percent hike in ICD-10 transition budget for every year of delay, and 37 percent predicted a 26 percent to 50 percent increase in ICD-10 budget for each year of delay.

Edifecs also released a report summarizing the important conclusions arrived at by participants at the 2012 ICD-10 Summit. The conference, hosted by Edifecs, gathered under one roof industry analysts, payers, providers, and other stakeholders (including providers of medical coding online training and medical coding online courses) to find out how best to implement the controversial and now-delayed ICD-10.

Discussions among attendees at the Summit tended to show appreciation of the wide-ranging benefits of ICD-10 despite its complexity and the many potential problems of the migration to the new code set. Some 100 senior healthcare professionals, many from major payers, providers and healthcare consumers from across the country, attended the two-day summit.

Among the crucial takeaways from the event were:
•    Financial neutrality across the transition date is a primary objective and a key issue for payers and providers.
•    Unprecedented collaboration among trading partners is critical to achieving a successful and smooth ICD-10 migration.
•    Given the unprecedented level of testing required for each claim scenario, business process, and technology solution involved during the transition, healthcare organizations need to employ a risk-based approach to both internal and external testing.