Posted in ICD-10 & Coding

ICD-10 Transition: What was the big deal?

Carl Natale
by Carl Natale
ICD-10 Transition: What was the big deal?

Last week we overheard Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Acting Administrator Andy Slavitt refer to the ICD-10 transition as, "the biggest event no one heard about."

Physicians Practice  conducted  an online poll of 110 readers on the ICD-10 transition and found:

  • 47.3 percent of practices had no problems at all
  • 25.5 percent of respondents said the transition had gone “so-so”
  • 14.5 percent said it had gone “miserable”
  • 12.5 percent said it was "too early to tell"

ICD-10 Watch went at this question with a slightly different tack and asked "How much productivity loss are you attributing to ICD-10 implementation?" Here's our results:

  • 10 percent chose "More than 40 percent"
  • 24 percent chose "30 percent to to 40 percent"
  • 12 percent chose "20 percent to 29 percent"
  • 9 percent chose "10 percent to 19 percent"
  • 19 percent chose "Less than 10 percent"
  • 25 percent chose "I don't know"

That's 46 percent who say they have lost from 10 percent to 40 percent in productivity. Only 10 percent believe they have lost more than 40 percent productivity.

What makes this really interesting is the 25 percent who took the time to say they didn't know how much productivity they lost since Oct. 1. Which tells me they are not bothering to count anything. Which makes promises of better data with ICD-10 codes a silly promise.

If medical practices don't track performance analytics, how are they going to track population health data?

Maybe we should spend less time trying to classify the ICD-10 transition as thumbs up or thumbs down and more time explaining how to make data useful.