CHIME, AHIMA Clash on ICD-10 Compliance Delay

Since the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) officially proposed a one-year push-back of the compliance date of the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10), various stakeholders have filed their comments at the invitation of the HHS. Among the most significant opinions lodged had come from the College of Healthcare Information Management Executives (CHIME) and the American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA).

CHIME, in a letter sent to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) secretary Kathleen Sebelius, reiterated its support of HHS’s proposed one-year delay of the ICD-10 compliance date, calling it an appropriate “middle ground” for all stakeholders.

In the letter, CHIME president and CEO Richard Correll and board chairman Drex DeFord also advocated a "consistent compliance date across the provider community," explaining that separating the two would be a "serious mistake" and that "all segments of the provider community need to be in lockstep."

For many medical facilities and practices, as well as for providers of medical coding online training and medical coding online courses like Meditec.com, the proposed one-year delay in the implementation of ICD-10 gives additional time to transition to the new code set. Correll and DeFord advised that any call for skipping ICD-10 in favor of ICD-11 should be dismissed. "While the maturity of ICD-11 may hold great benefits in the future, we believe such claims are speculative, at best, because so much is yet to be developed."  AHIMA, which is against the proposed one-year delay, in its own letter to Sebelius said that the delay should not be extended, arguing that the healthcare industry has been aware for 15 years that ICD-10 needed to replace ICD-9 eventually. Delaying any longer, it said, would only result in deterioration of health data.

"The industry has had three years to prepare for the transition since the publication of the final rule ... yet significant numbers of healthcare entities have not made adequate progress," the AHINA letter contended. "Therefore, it does not seem as though provision of more time, by itself, is likely to be sufficient to ensure those lagging in ... preparation are ready by a new compliance date."

AHIMA, meanwhile, is urging the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and HHS to avoid further delaying the ICD-10 compliance because of the possible damage it would have on health-information integrity.

AHIMA contended in its letter to HHS that U.S. health data will continue to deteriorate in the midst of an increasing number of data-dependent healthcare initiatives. AHIMA said the value of these initiatives will be degraded if the data is coded in an “antiquated code set” like ICD-9, the current system in use.

AHIMA also said “the success of meaningful use will not be achieved until ICD-10-CM/PCS is an integral part of the advancement in EHRs and exchange.”

Supporters of AHIMA’s position maintain that the American healthcare industry will come into difficulties helping patients efficiently if they are not on the same page as far as ICD-10 implementation is concerned.  Said AHIMA: “HHS has the leadership position to assist the industry in this full conversion, and must take the lead, along with the healthcare industry, in ensuring a coordinated transformation that recognizes the cost of conversion if all segments of the industry are not moving forward in a coordinated fashion.”