ICD-10 summit attendees mull impacts of coding delay

RESTON, Va. — The morning session at the Workgroup for Electronic Data Interchange summit on the ICD-10 delay focused on the impacts of the delay and the implications for steps moving forward.

About 100 industry leaders representing large and small insurers, physician’s groups and information technology providers collaboratively discussed ICD-10 issues relevant to their field, and how the actions of one group could affect another. During the lunch period, attendees were instructed to engage with colleagues at their tables to identify the best strategy for implementation and define the elements of planning and milestones necessary for the process. The information will be used to develop a roadmap for implementation during the afternoon.

Much of the discussion centered on potential problems if the new coding system is not tested well, especially by large providers, as well as issues that may arise if not all providers and vendors are using the codes at the same time.

Kathryn Eiler of the Professional Association of Health Care Office Management (PAHCOM) said attendees she surveyed made it clear that any steps moving forward must be planned. She said milestones are necessary, as well as workarounds if milestones are not met. Further, she said that pre-determined test points and workflow documents are important to keep providers and vendors working well with each other. When polled, all but one of the attendees favored an implementation approach that did not involve a single transition date.

On the development of a roadmap, several individuals said there is a need for more than one, as not all involved are at the same level of readiness for implementation: one roadmap for those who are ready or have already begun the transition to ICD-10, and a separate roadmap for those who have not yet started.

Other problems were aired during the summit: Eiler said that Medicare lists which vendors are certified by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), but some of those same vendors are not yet ready for ICD-10.

Concerns were also shared that the Oct. 1, 2015 date may be changed again. The question of the date’s “credibility” was discussed at length because any additional delay could result in more money spent without results.

One attendee expressed concern that there may be a need for another emergency summit this time next year if there is a continued lack of action, despite the emergence of good ideas. He asked for a show of hands from anyone who did not share that concern; no hands were raised. - by Shirley Pulawski