ICD-10 deadline set at Oct. 1, 2014
Friday's announcement that Oct. 1, 2014, is the final deadline for ICD-10 compliance was sort of a surprise.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) seemed pretty decisive when it proposed the new deadline. And ICD-10 critics didn't generate any new arguments that seemed compelling enough to scuttle ICD-10 implementation.
But the politics of healthcare is scary. You never know what's going to come out of Washington in an election year. I'm pretty impressed they made a decision before the election.
In the end, HHS confirmed the need to make ICD-10 implementation a reality while giving healthcare organizations enough time:
"Since that time, some provider groups have expressed strong concern about their ability to meet the October 1, 2013 compliance date and the serious claims payment issues that might ensue if they do not meet the date. Some providers’ concerns about being able to meet the ICD-10 compliance date are based, in part, on difficulties they had meeting the compliance deadline for the adopted Associated Standard Committee’s (ASC) X12 Version 5010 standards (Version 5010) for electronic health care transactions. Compliance with Version 5010 and ICD-10 by all covered entities is essential to a smooth transition to the updated medical data code sets, as the failure of any one industry segment to achieve compliance would negatively affect all other industry segments and result in returned claims and provider payment delays. We believe the change in the compliance date for ICD-10 gives covered health care providers and other covered entities more time to prepare and fully test their systems to ensure a smooth and coordinated transition by all covered entities."
that is due to be published Sept. 5 in the Federal Register.
This sticks to the argument that it's going to take too long to develop the ICD-11 code sets for the United States to leapfrog ICD-10 implementation. I think it's important to remember that no one who is involved in developing ICD-11 codes advocates leapfrogging. (SuperCoder Bolt)
Steve Sisko looks at seven things your vendors should be willing to discuss in order to make you comfortable about their ICD-10 compliance plans. (ICD-10 Impact to Health Care Payers & Providers)
Steve Sisko offers a quick look at why GEMs aren't a quick fix to your ICD-10 transition challenges. (ICD-10 Impact to Health Care Payers & Provider)
It's about using data to make decisions not so much about medical codes. But it's all related. (Healthcare IT News)
The owner of a medical billing company suggests that medical practices outsource their medical coding and billing services to save money on the ICD-10 transition. (Diagnosis Codes)
Carina Edwards, vice president of healthcare solutions at Nuance, writes that "speech-powered EHRs" will be vital to small medical practices and mid-sized healthcare providers trying to maintain regulatory compliance. Which includes ICD-10 implementation. (Government Health IT)
You're going to need more than a grain of salt to go with this one. It's a marketing post that lists some stats about how ready someone is for ICD-10 implementation. Who has taken the survey isn't explained, and there is no additional information. Don't get excited when you see this headline retweeted. There is nothing useful to learn. (MedicalBillersandCoders.com)