The ICD-10 watch game is over: Providers just can't afford to remain in the backseat.
Even realizing the overhauling ICD-10 impacts in the fabric of the provider business processes, when the time is to establish and execute the strategic transition plans, i think majority of the providers are still grappling with how to integrate the new codes throughout their business spectrum. Also the significant challenge confronting many of them is probably a lack of definitive information about where to start? How to start? It is noteworthy to mention that a considerable chunk of providers are vouching on some form of external help to prepare for ICD-10 implementation- either through package vendors upgrades or outsourcing the most vulnerable HIM piece. "Buy vs. Build" is also a viable option for many. Some are even prioritizing to stabilize on the 5010 platform before they kick start for ICD-10.
Still with all such complacence, I feel it will be wrong to say that Providers are completely silent or sluggish about their ICD-10 concerns. Even keeping all the external options open, some has already started evaluating their remaining in-house functions, reimbursement processes and disparate vendor, system data. A few early movers have already completed their assessment and are now deciding on the remediation strategies, determining the necessary additional manpower, training need, vendor readiness and budget plans. But, settling on the remediation approach: code-swap, neutralization, hybridization or crosswalk- what suits them best, in my opinion is still a daunting task.
It's a realized fact that ICD-10 implementation may not have a one-size-fits-all solution neither can it be achieved through a big-bang approach. It is a "mission critical project" that might compel one to downgrade from being strategic to pragmatic. Yet one thing is clear: there are still opportunities that afford proactive providers the chance to become industry leaders & be the market differentiators, while less forward-thinking ones may wait themselves out of business. Time is exactly to gravitate towards ICD-10, and stop speculating on its do-ability. The dilemma should end. Timeline is stringent, providers need to gear up for the impending new code compliance.
Comments
Hello:
With so much emphasis placed on ICD-10, I wonder if people are actually focusing on the much more important v5010 implementation date. See for ICD-10 data to function correctly as part of an EDI system, the base transmission must be ale to support it. The current v4010 is INCAPABLE of supporting ICD-10 codesets in their entirety, and v5010 has a finalized data of 01/01/2010, over a full year before ICD-10 mandates. While ICD-10 is clearly important, it is meely unuseable information if v5010 EDI transmission sets are not in place to handle to data flows.
r/Martin Ethridgehill, BS, CHCQM
Posted by: Martin Ethridgehill | November 20, 2010 3:44 AM