ICD-10 transition pops up as a cause for concern
While U.S. healthcare seems to be dealing with ICD-10 coding and its updates, there still are a few signs it has caused some issues.
The first is in a list of cautionary statements that Humana used to describe risks it faces. One of the many it listed was, "Humana’s business may be materially adversely impacted by the adoption of a new coding set for diagnoses (commonly known as ICD-10), the implementation of which became effective on October 1, 2015."
That's not really news because it's been repeating that line for at least six months. There's no explanation why ICD-10 could have so much impact. But it's just trying to warn investors about everything that could be a factor.
The second comes from Scott T. Anderson, M.D., Ph.D., a clinical professor at University of California, Davis Medical School, in a newspaper column. He explains why he believes physicians are abandoning their private practices for medical groups and hospital systems.
The reasons are complex, and he does a decent job describing the factors. Two of which are "Medicare introduced a new billing system called ICD-10, and is transitioning to something called 'value-based payments.'”
It's a fair point.
Take both of these together, it wouldn't be fair to conclude ICD-10 coding is destroying U.S. healthcare. There are many challenges. Not much is making it easy for physicians.