ICD 10 - reimbursement opportunities
That's a sigh of relief for most organizations that are viewing ICD-10 as another regulatory burden. Immediate significant changes to reimbursement schemes are not needed - it helps both providers and payers push out the most complex of the ICD-10 related changes by at least a couple years.
Let me take a step back and reiterate one of the most significant advantages of moving to ICD-10. ICD-10 is going to help the healthcare industry, by ensuring that claim reimbursement reflects the resource usage more accurately. And does this need to wait till the new DRG's are published? - I'd say no and here's why:
The combination of current DRG's and ICD-10 codes can provide the same level of detail that the new DRG's will potentially provide. For example, even if a v26 DRG doesn't differentiate Open or Laparoscopy approach, payers can make that determination using the associated ICD-10 code and negotiate different rates for open and laparoscopic procedures. ICD-10 codes can start playing a more important role in reimbursement contracts, even in straightforward MS-DRG "relative weight" based reimbursement schemes.
I realize that it's not going to be that easy to implement and that's why most organizations probably won't - but then innovative organizations will differentiate themselves from the rest of the pack by starting to take advantage of ICD-10 right away, rather than wait for years for CMS to come up with new version of the MS-DRG's.
