The Conversion to ICD-10, the "Y2K Bug" and an Apocalypse: A Case for Human Hysteria
For the past few weeks, my inbox has been flooded with a wave of literature focused on the upcoming conversion to the ICD-10 coding system. In almost every instance, the subject line has an extremely serious message such as “don’t be left behind” or “avoid delays in claims processing.” While I am typically an advocate for preparation and being a “go to” person, I do not see the benefit in a health care practice’s extremely early study and implementation of the ICD-10 coding system. The CMS mandated conversion date is three years away (currently set for October 1, 2013) and the entire health care industry currently uses ICD-9.
To date claims processors, insurance carriers, billing and coding programs, electronic health records systems - not to mention Medicare and Medicaid - have not yet converted to ICD-10 and are not prepared to support, receive and/or process medical bills coded to ICD-10. Furthermore, a health care practice will be hard-pressed to find a billing and coding program or an EHR system that fully supports ICD-10.
The alarm surrounding the conversion to ICD-10 is reminiscent of the alarm surrounding the health care industry’s conversion to electronic claims processing a few years back. The similarity exists in that whether or not a practice is ready to implement a new system, namely, electronic claims processing or ICD-10 coding, the practice’s unilateral implementation is useless until processors, carriers and payors are ready to interface with the new system. The lesson learned is that the health care industry, as a whole, needs to jump on board with this type of massive system overhaul. Once the industry is ready for conversion, there will be a plethora of information, training, demonstrations and hassle for the taking.
For more information on the implementation date, logistics and so forth, see the dedicated ICD-10 page on the CMS website.
