# Legislation Proposed to Delay ICD10 until 2017



## Ellacott (Nov 26, 2014)

HR1701

S.972







 NOVEMBER 25, 2014

ACTION NEEDED?OPPOSE EFFORTS TO DELAY ICD-10 TO 2017

Recently, physician groups have asked Congress to delay ICD-10 until 2017. The 113th Congress will be considering health legislation for two more weeks before recessing for the year on Friday, December 12. Please contact your US Senators and Representatives today. Ask them to support the October 1, 2015 compliance date and vote "no" on any additional delays.

We cannot afford another delay. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimated that the last delay has already cost the healthcare industry approximately $6.8 billion in lost investments, not including the cost associated with missed opportunities for better health data to improve quality of care and patient safety.

AHIMA's Advocacy Assistant provides advocacy tools you can use contact your legislators. You can also learn more about what physician groups are asking Congress at the Journal of AHIMA website

http://capwiz.com/ahima/callalert/index.tt?alertid=63889341


----------



## birchpoint5 (Nov 26, 2014)

I can't say that I'm surprised. By next fall the presidential election cycle will be in full swing. They won't want to upset the AMA. 

It's a shame, especially for those who are just now in school. I really hope they are still being taught ICD-9 along with 10.


----------



## mitchellde (Nov 26, 2014)

birchpoint5 said:


> I can't say that I'm surprised. By next fall the presidential election cycle will be in full swing. They won't want to upset the AMA.
> 
> It's a shame, especially for those who are just now in school. I really hope they are still being taught ICD-9 along with 10.


There really are so few wanting another delay, that I do not think this can get a foothold this time around but you should contact your congress man to be sure.  Medical coding is something hardly any of your congressmen know anything about and they just go with the flow on it.  However since ICD-9 has not been updated since 2011 and the guidelines have not been updated either, it will be a huge undertaking to update it at this time.  The committee that meets to discuss new codes and such has not even discussed ICD-9 CM updates since that time.  It really just needs to be kicked off the table this time.  Also the HIPAA was finalized this last summer for implementation, in previous years it was not finalized just proposed.  It is things like this that make me lose faith in our government!


----------



## mitchellde (Dec 16, 2014)

I looked both the senate and the house bill up in the above reference.  These were introduced in 2013 and the last action taken was in May and June 2013 and they were referred to the health committee.   I have found nothing recently that is proposing this delay.  I find plenty that is stating implementation will be October 2015.


----------



## MnTwins29 (Dec 16, 2014)

I agree Debra - considering this statement from Congressman Sessions, who was one of the key legislators the Texas physicians contacted to propose the delay to 2017, the opponents would have a long uphill battle to win another delay.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/press-release/house-chairmen-upton-sessions-statement-icd-10


----------



## clr6381@yahoo.com (Jan 2, 2015)

I just finished my training in Medical Coding and Billing. I did not learn ICD 10.


----------



## winkin (Mar 27, 2015)

*Repeal or delay ICD10*

I'm a working coder trained in ICD 9 with some training in ICD 10 a couple of years ago. I've been coding in ICD 9 for 11 years. I work in a revenue department so I see the end to end cycle every day from patient registration, to coding, right through to reimbursement and denials follow-up.  For the last several months I've spent 2 or 3 hours most days of the week reading and studying everything I can get my hands on regarding the impact of ICD 10 on physicians, patients, and the coding and reimbursement community.  I like to hear all sides of an issue and I try to avoid forming an opinion based on my own vested interests.  I watched the entire 3 hour long hearing held on ICD 10 hosted by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.  Of the 7 person panel interviewed there was only one dissenting voice. I stand with that one dissenting voice and all the other dissenting voices getting drowned out now by ICD 10 proponents whose arguments in my opinion are a bit more self-centered than they want to admit. Many arguments for ICD 10 don't accurately weigh the impact that will be felt on all sides by the healthcare industry as a whole.  They vigorously argue their side, and easily dismiss the opposition.  Whether or not ICD 10 will deliver on all its promises remains to be seen.  I don't have a crystal ball so I won't I make that prediction.  Besides, biased pro or con statements only lead to more arguing and don't provide a solution or compromise that looks anything like a win-win end game.  I am opposed to ICD 10 implementation primarily because the timing of the ICD 10 mandate couldn't be worse.  CMS has mandated the adoption of electronic health records. That undertaking alone requires lots of time and money. The goal is that all EHRs will interact with each other. Those bugs or being worked out now.  It's proving to be a monumental task and doing it right will take time.  Other mandates, Meaningful Use (of EHRs), Physician Quality Reporting System, the adoption of Value Based Modifiers, and other regulatory demands are more balls in the air being juggled by physicians.  Lobbing the ICD 10 ball into the mix at this point doesn't give any of the players a chance at giving it the attention it requires.  When I was hired I first learned the mail and filing system, then patient registration, then scheduling, then customer service for billing, then coding, and now I work in Quality Assurance in the Revenue Department.  Trying to teach me all those things at once and expecting me to do any of them well would have resulted in disappointment.  Timing is everything.  Here is an excerpt from AMA testimony to the Energy and Commerce Committee hearing:  Conclusion: By itself, the implementation of ICD-10 is a massive undertaking. The AMA remains gravely concerned that many aspects of this undertaking have not been fully assessed, and that contingency plans may be inadequate if serious disruptions occur on or after October 1. Furthermore, physicians are being asked to assume this significant change at the same time that they are being required to adopt new technology, reengineer workflow, and reform the way they deliver care, all of which are challenging their ability to care for patients and make investments to improve quality. We urge that the Subcommittee recognize the challenges related to ICD-10, not in isolation, but as part of
this broader health care environment. It is vitally important that CMS and other payers are prepared with extensive contingency plans in the event that these feared disruptions occur. Such contingency plans include further delaying the implementation timeline, allowing claims to be submitted using ICD-9 codes until all systems are properly functioning, and providing advance payments to providers to compensate for claims processing delays.
The AMA appreciates the opportunity to provide our comments on implementing ICD-10, and we look forward to working with the Subcommittee and Congress on this important health care issue.


----------



## mitchellde (Mar 27, 2015)

ICD-10 CM is a much better code set that is created for electronic submission.  ICD-9 CM is very out dated having been birthed in 1978.  It has little to no room for expansion.  Those who are opposed to this implementation simple are failing to understands the code set and it structure.  It is actually very easy to use and is quite elegant.  It almost will drive itself so to speak.  You cannot stick with the tried and true when it no longer works.  Physicians are not required to code claims, the physician is required yo document the encounter in their own words.  The coding clinics 1 quarter 2012 have stated that the numeric code cannot be used as a substitute for the providers DX rendered in their own words, and the numeric code is not required to be in the medical record.  They go on to state that the coding should be performed by professionally trained coding staff.  ICD-10CM is so easy to use and understand that it actually takes less time to code a record not more time.  
Perhaps those that are still opposed to this need yo sit with someone that knows this code set and allow them to show you how it works and how the use is better.  I see fewer claim denials with using these codes.


----------

