Category Archives: ICD-10-CM compliance

DSM-5 and ICD-10-CM Round up: February #3

Posted on by

DSM-5 and ICD-10-CM Round up: February #3

Post #227 Shortlink:
http://wp.me/pKrrB-2FY

Updates:

American Psychiatric Association News release:

Release No. 13-11: February 28, 2013

APA Annual Meeting in San Francisco, May 18-22; DSM-5 to be Released

ARLINGTON, Va. (Feb. 28, 2013) – The American Psychiatric Association’s 166th Annual Meeting, the world’s largest psychiatric meeting, will run Saturday, May 18 to Wednesday, May 22, 2013 in San Francisco at the Moscone Convention Center. The much anticipated DSM-5, the latest revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, will be released at the meeting…

Clinical Psychiatry News Digital Network

DSM-5 expected to be more ‘user-friendly’

Doug Brunk | March 3, 2013

ABC News Radio

An edited version of the ABC News coverage of concerns for new DSM-5 disorder ‘Somatic Symptom Disorder’ that replaces four DSM-IV Somatoform Disorder categories has been published on ABC News Radio:

Guidelines for Diagnosing Psychiatric Disorder May Overlook Physical Illnesses

CMS pledges commitment to October 1, 2014 ICD-10-CM compliance:

Click link for PDF document   CMS letter

CMS: No Further Delays in ICD-10-CM/PCS Implementation

Chris Dimick | AHIMA & ICD-10 | February 27, 2013

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will maintain their commitment to the current ICD-10-CM/PCS compliance date of October 1, 2014, according to a letter sent to AHIMA President Kathleen A. Frawley.

The letter was sent in response to AHIMA’s call for CMS to stand firm on its ICD-10 implementation date after more than 80 physician groups represented by the American Medical Association called on CMS in January to delay or abandon the ICD-10 conversion…

Susan Donaldson James reports for ABC News on DSM-5‘s ‘Somatic Symptom Disorder’:

Contributions from Allen Frances, MD, Joel E Dimsdale, MD (Chair, DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorder Work Group), Lori Chapo-Kroger (P.A.N.D.O.R.A), Suzy Chapman (Dx Revision Watch), Bridget Mildon (FND Hope) and Marianne Russo (The Coffee Klatch)

ABC News

New Psych Disorder Could Mislabel Sick as Mentally Ill

Susan Donaldson James | February 27, 2013

Critics worry that patients will be misdiagnosed as mentally ill and won’t get treatment, affecting mostly those with chronic and difficult to diagnose neurological disorders and multi-system diseases like ME/CFS, ones that are poorly understood and can take years to get medical answers.

“A lot of people will be written off as crocks — it’s just in their head,” said Dr. Allen Frances, who was chair of the task force that created the DSM-4 and professor emeritus of psychiatry at Duke University. “They won’t get the medical work-up they need.”

…But [SSD work group chair] Dimsdale defends the updated DSM…”If it doesn’t work, we’ll fix it in the DSM-5.1 or DSM-6.”

Robert Sibley, senior writer for Ottawa Citizen, comments on DSM-5‘s ”Somatic Symptom Disorder’:

Ottowa Citizen (and  a number of syndications)

Column: Is life itself a sickness in need of a cure?

Robert Sibley | February 20, 2013

…In a recent article, Postmedia’s Sharon Kirkey quotes a statement from the American Psychiatric Association, which will publish a new edition of the DSM in May: “Some patients with illnesses like heart disease or cancer will indeed experience thoughts, feelings or behaviours related to their illness that will be extreme or overwhelming.” These individuals “may qualify for an SSD diagnosis…”

Results of recent American Psychiatric Association Trustee elections:

Helio

APA releases election results

February 25, 2013

DSM-5 (published by American Psychiatric Publishing Inc.) is planned for release at the APA’s 166th Annual Meeting, in San Francisco (May 18-22).

Psychiatric News | February 15, 2013
Volume 48 Number 4 page 21-21
10.1176/appi.pn.2013.2b24

American Psychiatric Association
Annual Meeting Highlights

Sessions Will Provide In-Depth Look at New DSM

Kuhl Emily, Ph.D.

Sidney Zizook, M.D., who served as an advisor to the DSM-5′s Mood Disorder Work Group, defends the removal of the DSM ‘bereavement exclusion’:

Scientific American

Getting Past the Grief over Grief

Sidney Zisook | February 25, 2013

These days, I get a lot of grief about grief. I am part of the work group that changed some of the ways that grief and clinical depression are described and differentiated in the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, typically referred to as DSM-5. That has led to a lot of conversations with colleagues who are upset about bereavement…

Kupfer DJ, Regier DA, et al in JAMA ONLINE FIRST

JAMA ONLINE FIRST

DSM-5—The Future Arrived FREE ONLINE FIRST

David J. Kupfer, MD; Emily A. Kuhl, PhD; Darrel A. Regier, MD, MPH

Author Affiliations: University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Dr Kupfer); and American Psychiatric Institute for Research and Education, Division of Research, American Psychiatric Association, Arlington, Virginia (Drs Kuhl and Regier).

JAMA. 2013;():1-2. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.2298.
Published online February 25, 2013

Jerome C. Wakefield, PhD, DSW, for Psychiatry Weekly, on the DSM ‘bereavement exclusion’ issue:

Remember the Bereavement Exclusion

Psychiatric Weekly

Jerome C. Wakefield, PhD, DSW | February 18, 2013

School of Social Work, Department of Psychiatry; New York University, NY

First published in Psychiatry Weekly, Volume 8, Issue 4, February 18, 2013

Response to Recommendations from November 2011 CFSAC meeting

Posted on by

Response to Recommendations from November 2011 CFSAC meeting

Post #203 Shortlink:
http://wp.me/pKrrB-2ur

The response from the Assistant Secretary for Health to Recommendations from the November 2011 CFSAC meeting is now available on the CFSAC website at:
http://1.usa.gov/OghDXF


http://www.hhs.gov/advcomcfs/asst-sect-letter2012.pdf

or open here  asst-sect-letter2012

Text:

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health Washington, D.C. 20201
AUG -3 2012
Gailen Marshall Jr., MD, PhD

Chair, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee
Professor and Chair Professor of Medicine and Pediatrics
The University of Mississippi Medical Center 2300
North State Street, N416 Jackson, MS 39216-4505

Dear Dr. Marshall:

I have received the recommendations developed by the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee (CFSAC) during its November 8-9, 2011, meeting. The advice and counsel provided by CFSAC serves as a valuable resource in the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) efforts to properly address the issues and concerns pertaining to chronic fatigue syndrome.

Since the meeting the Department has carefully considered your recommendations. Dr. Nancy Lee, the Designated Federal Officer for CFSAC, has worked collaboratively with the ex officio representatives to the committee to provide responses to the recommendations developed at the meeting. The enclosed document contains information about activities currently undertaken by HHS to work with public health experts and members of the chronic fatigue syndrome community to increase knowledge and provide a better understanding of this debilitating health condition.

I have shared the committee’s recommendations with Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

The Department is committed to addressing this condition. I commend you and your committee members for the important work you do.

Sincerely yours,
/s/Howard K. Koh
Howard K. Koh, M.D., M.P.H. Assistant Secretary for Health

Enclosure

cc: Dr. Christopher R. Snell
U.S. Public Health Service

RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CFSAC)

REF: November 8-9, 2011 CFSAC Meeting

Recommendation 1: This recommendation addresses the process by which CFSAC transmits recommendations to the Secretary and the Secretary communicates back to CFSAC whether or not a recommendation was acted upon. CFSAC recommends that this process be transparent and clearly articulated to include regular feedback on the status of the Committee’s recommendations. This communication could originate directly from the Office of the Secretary or be transmitted via the relevant agency or agencies.

Procedures are in place to ensure that recommendations made by federal advisory committees are properly handled. The CFSAC charter stipulates that the Committee provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary for Health (ASH). Initially, the CFSAC recommendations are sent to the ASH for review. After reviewing the recommendations, the ASH forwards them to appropriate officials within the Office of the Secretary and the Operating and/or Staff Divisions that may be impacted by the Committee’s recommendations. A letter is sent to acknowledge receipt of the recommendations. A response may be prepared to accompany the letter which describes any actions that the Department may take in response to the recommendations made by the Committee. All pertinent information about the recommendations is provided to the designated Federal officer (DFO). The DFO then provides the information to the Chair and the Committee.

Recommendation 2: CFSAC recommends to the Secretary that the NIH or other appropriate agency issue a Request for Application (RFA) for clinical trials research on chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME/CFS).

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds research on myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS); investigators are encouraged to submit proposals for ME/CFS research, including clinical trials, through two funding announcements that are currently open for submission of applications. The next deadline for receipt of applications is October 24, 2012. In fiscal year 2011, NIH funded two applications for clinical trials on ME/CFS. NIH has received few applications proposing ME/CFS research, and even fewer applications proposing ME/CFS clinical trials. It is unclear whether the paucity of ME/CFS clinical trial applications reflects the current status of the field or an acknowledgement that clinical trials are difficult to design for a complex and multi-faceted illness. Clinical trials are challenging to design and conduct for all diseases, with basic requirements of a well-defined patient population, valid measurement instruments, appropriate safeguards for subjects, and generalizability of the clinical trial outcomes to the larger affected patient population. NIH is taking action to stimulate ME/CFS research across NIH through the regular monthly meetings of the Trans-NIH ME/CFS Working Group (WG). The WG discusses the current status of ongoing research on ME/CFS and proposes methods to increase the number and quality of research applications submitted to NIH ranging from preclinical research to clinical trials. In addition, the WG is focusing on the recommendations from the April 2011 State of the Knowledge Workshop on ME/CFS to develop priorities. The outcome from these planning sessions will suggest a range of activities and research.

Recommendation 3: CFSAC would like to encourage and support the creation of the DHHS Interagency Working Group on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and ask this group to work together to pool resources that would put into place the “Centers of Excellence” concept that has been recommended repeatedly by this advisory committee. Specifically, CFSAC encourages utilizing HHS agency programs and demonstration projects, available through the various agencies, to develop and coordinate an effort supporting innovative platforms that facilitate evaluation and treatment, research, and public and provider education. These could take the form of appropriately staffed physical locations, or be virtual networks comprising groups of qualified individuals who interact through a variety of electronic media. Outreach and availability to underserved populations, including people who do not have access to expert care, should be a priority in this effort.

HHS leadership has identified the need for a Department-wide plan to address ME/CFS. The Department established the HHS Ad Hoc Workgroup on ME/CFS to develop a plan and to identify opportunities for interagency collaboration. The HHS ME/CFS plan will highlight recently initiated programs and future agency-specific and cross-agency activities. In developing the report, the Ad Hoc Workgroup will consider recommendations made by CFSAC. After completion, the ME/CFS plan will be posted on the CFSAC website. The DFO, Nancy C. Lee, M.D. is responsible for providing leadership and coordination for development of the HHS ME/CFS report.

Recommendation 4: This multi-part recommendation pertains to classification of CFS in ICD classification systems:

a) CFSAC considers CFS to be a multi-system disease and rejects any proposal to classify ME/CFS as a psychiatric condition in the U.S. disease classification systems.

b) CFSAC rejects the current classification of ME/CFS in Chapter 18 of ICD-9-CM under R53.82, chronic fatigue unspecified, chronic fatigue syndrome, not otherwise specified.

c) CFSAC continues to recommend that ME/CFS should be classified in ICD-IO-CM in Chapter 6 under Diseases of the Nervous System at G93.3 in line with ICD-IO, the World Health Organization, and ICD-I-CA [sic], the Canadian Clinical Modification and in accordance with CFSAC’s recommendations of August 2005 and May 2011. CFSAC rejects CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) Option 2 and recommends that ME/CFS remain in the same code and the same subcode as myalgic encephalomyelitis because CFS includes both viral and non-viral triggers.

d) CFSAC recommends that an “excludes one”* be added to G93.3 for chronic fatigue, R53.82, and neurasthenia, F48.8. CFSAC recommends that these changes be made in ICD-10-CM prior to its rollout in 2013.**

[*Ed: Should read "Excludes 1". For definitions for “Excludes1″ and “Excludes2″ see Post #118]

[**Ed: On August 3, HHS announced Final Rule to delay compliance date for ICD-10-CM/PCS to October 1, 2014.]

Development and implementation of the guidelines for the lCD-10 fall within HHS under the purview of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Use of the revised codes will provide robust and specific data that will improve patient care and enable the international comparability of health care data. On February 16, 2012, the Department issued a press release announcing that HHS would initiate a process to postpone the date that certain health care entities must comply with the ICD-10.

A proposal to change the classification of ME/CFS in ICD-10-CM was presented at the September 2011 Coordination and Maintenance (C & M) Committee/CDC/NCHS; a subsequent proposal was received on January 12, 2012 and will be presented at the September 19, 2012 C & M meeting for additional discussion.

+++
Related posts

Notice of Meeting of the ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee

Coding CFS in ICD-10-CM: CFSAC and the Coalition4ME/CFS initiative

Extracts: ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee Meeting Summary document (CFS coding)

Extracts: ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee Meeting September 14, 2011 (Coding of CFS in ICD-10-CM)

HHS announces Final Rule on ICD-10-CM compliance date

Posted on by

HHS announces Final Rule on ICD-10-CM compliance date

Post #202 Shortlink:
http://wp.me/pKrrB-2uk

Update at August 26:

HHS Announces: ICD-10 Delayed One Year

The American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA) | August 24, 2012

Press release

 

…and finally…

Yesterday, August 24, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced a final rule to delay compliance for adopting ICD-10-CM and ICD-10-PCS (ICD-10) code sets to October 1, 2014.

“The rule also makes final a one-year proposed delay – from Oct. 1, 2013, to Oct. 1, 2014– in the compliance date for use of new codes that classify diseases and health problems.”


http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/08/20120824e.html

News Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 24, 2012 Contact: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
202-690-6343

New health care standards to save up to $6 billion

Today, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced a final rule that will save time and money for physicians and other health care providers by establishing a unique health plan identifier (HPID). The rule is one of a series of changes required by the Affordable Care Act to cut red tape in the health care system and will save up to $6 billion over ten years.

“These new standards are a part of our efforts to help providers and health plans spend less time filling out paperwork and more time seeing their patients,” Secretary Sebelius said.

Currently, when a health care provider bills a health plan, that plan may use a wide range of different identifiers that do not have a standard format. As a result, health care providers run into a number of time-consuming problems, such as misrouting of transactions, rejection of transactions due to insurance identification errors, and difficulty determining patient eligibility. The change announced today will greatly simplify these processes.

The rule also makes final a one-year proposed delay – from Oct. 1, 2013, to Oct. 1, 2014– in the compliance date for use of new codes that classify diseases and health problems. These code sets, known as the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition diagnosis and procedure codes, or ICD-10, will include codes for new procedures and diagnoses that improve the quality of information available for quality improvement and payment purposes.

The rule announced today is the fourth administrative simplification regulation issued by HHS under the health reform law:

On July 8, 2011, HHS adopted operating rules for two electronic health care transactions to make it easier for health care providers to determine whether a patient is eligible for coverage and the status of a health care claim submitted to a health insurer. The rules will save up to $12 billion over ten years.

On Jan. 10, 2012, HHS adopted standards for the health care electronic funds transfers (EFT) and remittance advice transaction between health plans and health care providers. The standards will save up to $4.6 billion over ten years.

On Aug. 10, 2012, HHS published an IFC that adopted operating rules for the health care EFT and electronic remittance advice transaction. The operating rules will save up to $4.5 billion over ten years.

More information on the final rule is available in a fact sheet at
http://www.cms.gov/apps/media/fact_sheets.asp
  

The final rule may be viewed at www.ofr.gov/inspection.aspx  

###

Note: All HHS press releases, fact sheets and other press materials are available at
http://www.hhs.gov/news
  
You can follow HHS on Twitter @HHSgov and sign up for HHS Email Updates.
Last revised: August 24, 2012

CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES

RULES

Administrative Simplification:

Adoption of Standard for Unique Health Plan Identifier; Addition to National Provider Identifier Requirements, etc.

2012-21238
[CMS 0040 F; Filed: 08/24/12 at 12:00pm; Publication Date: 9/5/2012]


http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2012-21238_PI.pdf

or download here:     2012-21238_PI

Extract:

(3) ICD-10-CM and ICD-10-PCS Code Sets

In the January 16, 2009 Federal Register (74 FR 3328), HHS published a final rule in which the Secretary of HHS (the Secretary) adopted the ICD-10-CM and ICD-10-PCS (ICD-10) code sets as the HIPAA standards to replace the previously adopted International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification, Volumes 1 and 2 (diagnoses), and 3 (procedures) including the Official ICD–9–CM Guidelines for Coding and Reporting. The compliance date set by the final rule was October 1, 2013.

Since that time, some provider groups have expressed strong concern about their ability to meet the October 1, 2013 compliance date and the serious claims payment issues that might ensue if they do not meet the date. Some providers’ concerns about being able to meet the ICD-10 compliance date are based, in part, on difficulties they had meeting the compliance deadline for the adopted Associated Standard Committee’s (ASC) X12 Version 5010 standards (Version 5010) for electronic health care transactions. Compliance with Version 5010 and ICD-10 by all covered entities is essential to a smooth transition to the updated medical data code sets, as the failure of any one industry segment to achieve compliance would negatively affect all other industry segments and result in returned claims and provider payment delays. We believe the change in the compliance date for ICD-10 gives covered health care providers and other covered entities more time to prepare and fully test their systems to ensure a smooth and coordinated transition by all covered entities.

Trouble with timelines (1) DSM-5, ICD-10-CM, ICD-11 and ICD-11-CM

Posted on by

Trouble with timelines (1): DSM-5, ICD-10-CM, ICD-11 and ICD-11-CM

Post #198 Shortlink:
http://wp.me/pKrrB-2qr

Update at August 15, 2012: On Page 3, I stated that Steven Hyman, MD, is a DSM-5 Task Force Member and that Dr Hyman chairs the meetings of the  International Advisory Group for the Revision of ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders. According to the DSM-5 Development site, Dr Hyman is no longer a member of the DSM-5 Task Force, having served from 2007-2012. I cannot confirm whether Dr Hyman continues involvement with the International Advisory Group for the Revision of ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders though his name remains listed on the WHO site page, or on what date or for what reason Dr Hyman stood down from the DSM-5 Task Force.

+++

While the US health care industry, professional bodies and clinical practices sweat on the announcement of a final rule for ICD-10-CM compliance and speculation continues over the feasibility of leapfrogging from ICD-9-CM to ICD-11, I thought I’d run through the timelines.

+++

DSM-5: ETA: May 18-22, 2013

Originally slated for publication in May 2012.

In December 2009, the American Psychiatric Association shifted release of DSM-5 to May 2013, in response to slipping targets. With no changes to the published Timeline and no intimation of further delays, I’m assuming DSM-5 remains on target.

The final manual is scheduled for submission to American Psychiatric Publishing by December 31, 2012, for official release, next May, during APA’s 2013 Annual Meeting in San Francisco.

Following closure of the third and final public review on June 15, 2012, draft proposals for disorder descriptions and criteria sets as published on the DSM-5 Development website were frozen. The DSM-5 website will not be updated with any further revisions made by the work groups between June 15 and going to print. Final criteria sets and manual content are under strict embargo until publication [1].

+++

ICD-10-CM: ETA: Compliance mandatory by October 1, 2013; Final Rule to be announced on CMS’s proposal to delay compliance date to October 1, 2014

The development process for ICD-10-CM is as old as God’s dog.

WHO published ICD-10 in 1992. Twenty years on, while the rest of the world has long since migrated to ICD-10, the US is still waiting to transition from ICD-9-CM to a US specific clinical modification of ICD-10. The US is still using a modification based on WHO’s long since retired, ICD-9, and a code set that is now over 35 years old.

The Tabular List and preliminary crosswalk between ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM were posted on the NCHS website for public comment in December 1997. Field testing took place nearly ten years ago, in the summer of 2003.

The proposed rule for the adoption of ICD-10-CM/PCS was published in August 2008 with a proposed compliance date of October 1, 2011. In January 2009, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a final rule adopting ICD-10-CM/PCS to replace ICD-9-CM in HIPAA transactions, with an effective compliance date of October 1, 2013.

On February 16, 2012, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius announced intent to postpone the compliance date for adoption of ICD-10-CM/PCS codes sets for a further year, to October 1, 2014 to allow more time for providers, payers and vendors to prepare for transition.

Public comment on the proposed rule closed in June. An imminent decision on a final compliance rule is anticipated but no date by which a decision would be announced has been issued.

Annual updated releases of ICD-10-CM and associated documentation have been posted on the CDC website for public viewing since January 2009.

CMS has issued the 2013 release of ICD-10-CM and General Equivalence Mappings (GEMs) which replace the December 2011 release. Until an implementation date is reached, codes in the 2013 release of ICD-10-CM are not currently valid for any purpose or use but are available for public viewing on the CDC website.

+++
Partial Code freeze for ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM

At the September 15, 2010 public ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee Meeting it was announced that the committee had finalized its recommendation to impose a partial code freeze for ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM/PCS codes prior to implementation of ICD-10-CM. Partial Code Freeze Announcement [PDF]

October 1, 2011 was the last major update of ICD-10-CM/PCS until October 1, 2014. Between October 1, 2011 and October 1, 2014 proposals for revisions to ICD-10-CM/PCS will be considered only for new diseases/new technology procedures and minor revisions to correct reported errors. Regular (at least annual) updates to ICD-10-CM/PCS will resume on October 1, 2014.

These Partial Code Freeze dates are based on the original compliance date of October 1, 2013. It’s reported that postponement of the requirement for compliance until October 1, 2014 would also push back scheduled ICD-10-CM coding updates.

If the proposed compliance date of October 1, 2014 is instituted, adoption of ICD-10-CM would become mandatory around 18 months after publication of DSM-5. The first regular updates to ICD-10-CM would resume one year post compliance date, that is, from October 1, 2015.

Continued on Page 2

Pages: 1 2 3

NAPPP launches Petition to Endorse ICD-10-CM for Diagnosis of Mental Disorders

Posted on by

National Alliance of Professional Psychology Providers (NAPPP) launches Petition to Endorse ICD-10-CM for Diagnosis of Mental Disorders

Post #188 Shortlink:
http://wp.me/pKrrB-2jf

The National Alliance of Professional Psychology Providers (NAPPP) has launched a petition for psychologists to endorse the forthcoming ICD-10-CM for Diagnosis of Mental Disorders.

The NAPPP mission is “to promote and advocate for the clinical practice of psychology. NAPPP welcomes licensed, doctoral level psychologists who provide healthcare related services. Retired psychologists, and students also are eligible for membership.”

Professionals can sign the Petition here:


http://www.nappp.org/ICD.html

Petition to Endorse ICD-10-CM for Diagnosis of Mental Disorders

The purpose of this petition is to establish a national policy for psychological practitioners to use the standards of the World Health Organization (WHO) for the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders. The International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision (ICD-10) Version 10 presents worldwide standards for the diagnosis and treatment of mental and physical disorders as adopted by WHO. The advantages for psychology of using ICD-10 include ensuring that psychologists and all other doctoral healthcare providers will use the same diagnostic system. Consistent use of ICD-10 will simplify both establishment of consistent diagnosis and reimbursement for services. Workload counting of practitioners will also be better standardized for organization use.

Use of ICD-10 will also eliminate the political controversies that encumber frequent revisions to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). Finally, psychologists, using the ICD-10-CM to diagnose and treat mental conditions, will advance collaboration and integration of psychological and medical practices. Use of the same ICD-10 system by all health professions could also facilitate a comprehensive understanding of patients and their needs. Failure to use ICD-10-CM by psychologists would marginalize their services in the health care reform movement. All the advantages listed above will aid in implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Cooperative integration of the various health care professions is a prime goal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The US Department of Health and Human Services adopted a Rule April 17, 2012 that postponed compliance with ICD-10 codes until October 1, 2014.* This prime goal had originally been set for January 1, 2012. This delay will allow the Center for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) to amend its 5010-CM coding system to comply with the ICD-10 Edition of diagnostic and procedure codes. This delay allows psychological practitioners to integrate their coding for reimbursement during the transitions of health care reform. This delay also provides psychology an opportunity to point out deficiencies in the present reimbursement system and to recommend corrective modifications to CMS as it amends its 5010-CM diagnostic and procedure coding system.

To read a comprensive statement on the rationale for the advantages to psychologists to support this petition, go HERE    (
http://www.nappp.org/pdf/ICD.pdf
  )

Petitioners strongly urge American Psychological Association Practice Organization and the APA Practice Directorate to expend all possible efforts to implement use of ICD-10 by all practicing psychologists. This action is petitioned and asked to receive priority attention because the clear advantages listed above. Expediting this request needs to be done to achieve these advantages and to circumvent unacceptable developments in the proposed edition of DSM-V**.

*Ed: This is a proposed postponement. No final rule to postpone compliance to October 1, 2014 has yet been issued by CMS.

**Ed: The forthcoming revision of the DSM will be known as “DSM-5″ not “DSM-V.”

DSM; DSM-IV; DSM-IV-TR; DSM-IV-PC; DSM-V; DSM V; DSM-5; DSM 5 are registered trademarks of the American Psychiatric Association.

Reminder: Comment period on ICD-10-CM proposed delay ends May 17

Posted on by

Reminder: Comment period on ICD-10-CM proposed delay ends May 17

Post #159 Shortlink:
http://wp.me/pKrrB-23H

On April 9, the US Department of Health and Human Services issued a proposed rule calling for a one year delay in the ICD-10-CM/PCS compliance deadline.

The proposed rule would postpone the compliance date by which providers and industry have to adopt ICD-10-CM by one year, from October 1, 2013 to October 1, 2014. 

The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on April 17, followed by a 30 day period during which CMS will take comments.

Comments should be submitted to HHS no later than 5:00 pm ET on May 17, 2012.

 

Proposed Rule

The Proposed Rule documentation can be found on this page in PDF and HTML formats:


http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=CMS-2012-0043-0001

Administrative Simplification: Adoption of a Standard for a Unique Health Plan Identifier; Addition to the National Provider Identifier Requirements; and a Change to the Compliance Date for ICD-10-CM and ICD-10-PCS Medical Data Code Sets

Document ID: CMS-2012-0043-0001 Document Type: Proposed Rule
Docket ID: CMS-2012-0043 RIN:

More information on the proposed rule is available from this CMS fact sheet

HHS PROPOSES ONE-YEAR DELAY OF ICD-10 COMPLIANCE DATE (CMS-0040-P)

Submitting comment

Submitting comment by post:

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Department of Health and Human Services
Attention: CMS–0040–P
P.O. Box 8013
Baltimore, MD 21244–8013

Submitting comment online:

Go to the Federal Regulations website, here:


http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=CMS-2012-0043-0001

Hit the Submit a Comment button, top right of web page


http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=CMS-2012-0043-0001

For delivery by hand see the Alternate Ways to Comment pop up, top right of Submit a Comment page.

Related material

Press release: April 9, 2012

Summary Proposal Rule

This proposed rule would implement section 1104 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (hereinafter referred to as the Affordable Care Act) by establishing new requirements for administrative transactions that would improve the utility of the existing Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) transactions and reduce administrative burden and costs. It proposes the adoption of the standard for a national unique health plan identifier (HPID) and requirements or provisions for the implementation of the HPID. This rule also proposes the adoption of a data element that will serve as an other entity identifier (OEID), an identifier for entities that are not health plans, health care providers, or “individuals,” that need to be identified in standard transactions. This proposed rule would also specify the circumstances under which an organization covered health care provider must require certain noncovered individual health care providers who are prescribers to obtain and disclose an NPI. Finally, this rule proposes to change the compliance date for the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) for diagnosis coding, including the Official ICD-10-CM Guidelines for Coding and Reporting, and the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Procedure Coding System (ICD-10-PCS) for inpatient hospital procedure coding, including the Official ICD-10-PCS Guidelines for Coding and Reporting, from October 1, 2013 to October 1, 2014. 

HHS proposes one year delay for ICD-10-CM compliance

Posted on by

HHS proposes one year delay for ICD-10-CM compliance

Post #156 Shortlink:
http://wp.me/pKrrB-22q

Yesterday, April 9, the US Department of Health and Human Services issued a proposed rule calling for a one year delay in the ICD-10-CM/PCS compliance deadline.

According to a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) press release, the proposed rule would postpone the compliance date by which providers and industry have to adopt ICD-10-CM by one year, from October 1, 2013 to October 1, 2014. 

Official publication of the proposed rule is expected to be published in the Federal Register on April 17, followed by a 30 day period during which CMS will take comments.

Full proposal document (pre-publication PDF version)

     
http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2012-08718_PI.pdf

or at:


https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2012-08718.pdf

This document is scheduled to be published in the
Federal Register on 04/17/2012 and available online at

http://federalregister.gov/a/2012-08718
 , and on FDsys.gov

Press release issued April 9, 2012:


http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/04/20120409a.html

Details for: NEW HEALTH CARE LAW PROVISIONS CUT RED TAPE, SAVE UP TO $4.6 BILLION

For Immediate Release: Monday, April 09, 2012
Contact: CMS Office of Public Affairs
202-690-6145

NEW HEALTH CARE LAW PROVISIONS CUT RED TAPE, SAVE UP TO $4.6 BILLION

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius today announced a proposed rule that would establish a unique health plan identifier under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). The proposed rule would implement several administrative simplification provisions of the Affordable Care Act.

The proposed changes would save health care providers and health plans up to $4.6 billion over the next ten years, according to estimates released by the HHS today. The estimates were included in a proposed rule that cuts red tape and simplifies administrative processes for doctors, hospitals and health insurance plans.

“The new health care law is cutting red tape, making our health care system more efficient and saving money,” Secretary Sebelius said. “These important simplifications will mean doctors can spend less time filling out forms and more time seeing patients.”

Currently, when health plans and entities like third party administrators bill providers, they are identified using a wide range of different identifiers that do not have a standard length or format. As a result, health care providers run into a number of time-consuming problems, such as misrouting of transactions, rejection of transactions due to insurance identification errors, and difficulty determining patient eligibility.

The rule simplifies the administrative process for providers by proposing that health plans have a unique identifier of a standard length and format to facilitate routine use in computer systems. This will allow provider offices to automate and simplify their processes, particularly when processing bills and other transactions.

The proposed rule also delays required compliance by one year– from Oct. 1, 2013, to Oct. 1, 2014– for new codes used to classify diseases and health problems. These codes, known as the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition diagnosis and procedure codes, or ICD-10, will include new procedures and diagnoses and improve the quality of information available for quality improvement and payment purposes.

Many provider groups have expressed serious concerns about their ability to meet the Oct. 1, 2013, compliance date. The proposed change in the compliance date for ICD-10 would give providers and other covered entities more time to prepare and fully test their systems to ensure a smooth and coordinated transition to these new code sets.

The proposed rule announced today is the third in a series of administrative simplification rules in the new health care law. HHS released the first in July of 2011 and the second in January of 2012, and plans to announce more in the coming months.

More information on the proposed rule is available on fact sheets at


http://www.cms.gov/apps/media/fact_sheets.asp

The proposed rule may be viewed at www.ofr.gov/inspection.aspx . Comments are due 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Media coverage:

MedPage Today

HHS Announces ICD-10 Delay

Joyce Frieden, News Editor, MedPage Today | April 09, 2012

 

ICD10 Watch

Breaking News: HHS proposes 1-year delay in ICD-10 implementation deadline

Carl Natale | April 09, 2012

 

Healthcare Finance News

HHS proposes one-year ICD-10 delay

Tom Sullivan, Government Health IT | April 10, 2012

Update on timelines: DSM-5, ICD-11, ICD-10-CM

Posted on by

Update on timelines: DSM-5, ICD-11, ICD-10-CM

Post #155 Shortlink:
http://wp.me/pKrrB-21N

Update @ April 10, 2012: CMS issues press release – proposes one year delay for ICD-10-CM compliance

See:
http://wp.me/pKrrB-22q
 for press release and full Proposal document

I will update as more information becomes available.

DSM-5

The DSM-5 clinical settings field trials, scheduled to complete by December, last year, but extended in order that more participants might be recruited, were expected to conclude this March. (Source: DSM-5 Disorganization, Disarray, and Delays, Dr Dayle Jones, American Counseling Association, January 3, 2012)

In November, DSM-5 Task Force Vice-chair, Darrel Regier, MD, predicted the pushing back of the final public review and comment period for revised draft diagnostic criteria from January-February to “no later than May 2012,” in response to DSM-5 timeline slippage and delays in completion of the field trials. (Source: APA Answers DSM-5 Critics, Deborah Brauser, November 9, 2011)

The timeline on the DSM-5 Development site was updated to reflect a “Spring” posting of draft diagnostic criteria but thus far, APA has released no firm date for a final public review and feedback exercise in May.

The second release of draft proposals was posted on May 4, last year, with no prior announcement or news release by APA and caught professional bodies, patient organizations and advocates unprepared.

It is hoped that APA will give reasonable notice before releasing their third and final draft – though how much influence professional and public feedback might have at this late stage in the DSM-5 development process is moot.

DSM-5 is slated for publication in May 2013.

Extract from revised Timeline

Spring 2012: Revised draft diagnostic criteria will be posted on http://www.dsm5.org and open to a third public feedback period for 2 months. Feedback will be shared directly with work group members, and further edits to proposals will be made as needed.

The full DSM-5 Timeline (as it stands at April 8, 2012) can be found here.

 

ICD-11

The current timeline schedules presentation of the ICD-11 to the World Health Assembly in May 2015 – a year later than the 2009 timeline.

According to a paper published by Christopher Chute, MD, (Chair, ICD-11 Revision Steering Group) et al, implementation of ICD-11 is now expected around 2016. (Source: Chute CG, Huff SM, Ferguson JA, Walker JM, Halamka JD. There Are Important Reasons For Delaying Implementation Of The New ICD-10 Coding System. Health Aff March 2012 DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.1258) 

The ICD-11 Beta drafting platform is scheduled to be launched and open to the public this May for comment and interaction. It will be a work in progress – not a final Beta draft. The final Beta draft isn’t scheduled until 2014.

No announcement that the Beta platform remains on target for a May release has been issued by WHO or ICD-11 Revision Steering Group and no date is given on the ICD Revision website for the launch.

The publicly viewable version of the Alpha drafting platform (the ICD-11 Alpha Browser) can be accessed here. The various ICD-11 Revision Topic Advisory Groups work on a separate, more layered multi-author drafting platform.

NB: The Alpha drafting platform is a work in progress. It is incomplete, in a state of flux, updated daily and subject to WHO Caveats.

ICD-11 Alpha Browser User Guide here.

Foundation view here.

Linearization view here.

PDFs of Draft Print versions of the Linearization are available from the Linearization tab to logged in users.

The ICD-11 timeline (as it stands at April 8, 2012) can be found on the WHO website here.

 

ICD-10-CM

Note: ICD-10-CM is the forthcoming US specific “Clinical Modification” of the WHO’s ICD-10. Following implementation of ICD-10-CM, the US is not anticipated to move on to ICD-11, or a Clinical Modification of ICD-11, for a number of years after global transition to ICD-11.

On February 16, Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen G. Sebelius, announced HHS’s intent to initiate a process to postpone the date by which certain health care entities have to comply with ICD-10-CM diagnosis and procedure codes. (Source: CMS Public Affairs/HHS Press Release, February 16, 2012)

The final rule adopting ICD-10-CM as a standard was published in January 2009, when a compliance date of October 1, 2013 had been set – a delay of two years from the compliance date initially specified in the 2008 proposed rule.

CMS plans to announce a new ICD-10 implementation date sometime this April, according to CMS Regional Office, Boston. (Source: Healthcare News: CMS targets April for release of new ICD-10-CM/PCS implementation date, March 20, 2012)

It is anticipated that CMS will make an announcement in the Federal Register, take public comment for 60 days, consider feedback on its proposed ruling, then issue a final rule.

For developments on the new ICD-10-CM compliance date, watch the CMS site or sign up for CMS email alerts:
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/Medicare/Coding/ICD10/Latest_News.html

 

Related information:

DSM-5 Development

ICD-11 Revision

ICD10 Watch

Federal Register

CMS Latest News

DHHS Newsroom

ICD-10-CM CDC Site

CMS expected to announce proposal for new ICD-10 implementation date sometime in April

Posted on by

CMS expected to announce proposal for new ICD-10 implementation date sometime in April

Post #153 Shortlink:
http://wp.me/pKrrB-218

In a press release on February 16, Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen G. Sebelius, announced HHS’s intent to initiate a process to postpone the date by which certain health care entities have to comply with ICD-10-CM diagnosis and procedure codes.

The final rule adopting ICD-10-CM as a standard was published in January 2009, when a compliance date of October 1, 2013 had been set – a delay of two years from the compliance date initially specified in the 2008 proposed rule.

Several sites covering CMS’s intention to delay implementation are citing April as the month in which a new timeline for ICD-10-CM is expected to be announced:

HC Pro

New ICD-10 implementation date expected in April

ICD-10 Trainer | March 21, 2012

CMS plans to announce a new ICD-10 implementation date sometime in April, according to representatives of CMS and MassHealth, a public health insurance program for low and medium-income residents in Massachusetts.

Renee Washington, director of customer system integration at MassHealth, revealed the time frame for the much anticipated announcement during the Massachusetts Health Data Consortium’s March 9 conference call. Renee Richard from the CMS Regional Office in Boston confirmed this information during the call…

HC Pro Just Coding

Healthcare News: CMS targets April for release of new ICD-10-CM/PCS implementation date

March 20, 2012

CMS expects to release a new ICD-10-CM/PCS implementation date sometime in April. That date will be the same for payers and providers. (Excerpt from a member only article.)

ICD-10 Watch (no connection with this site which was formerly known as “DSM-5 and ICD-11 Watch”)

It’s about time for an ICD-10 delay announcement

Carl Natale | March 30, 2012

It looks like next week is when the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) will announce their proposals for a new ICD-10 timeline.

Which should mean they will publish it in the Federal Register and take public comment for 60 days. Then they will consider the feedback and issue a final rule. Who knows when that will be…

Read full round up by Carl Natale

 

Christopher Chute, MD, (Chair, ICD-11 Revision Steering Group) et al set out the case for delaying implementation, in this paper published at Health Affairs:

Health Affairs

At the Intersection of Health, Health Care, and Policy

There Are Important Reasons For Delaying Implementation Of The New ICD-10 Coding System

Abstract:
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/early/2012/03/21/hlthaff.2011.1258.abstract

Full free text:
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/early/2012/03/21/hlthaff.2011.1258.full

PDF:
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/early/2012/03/21/hlthaff.2011.1258.full.pdf+html

Published online before print March 2012, doi: Health Aff March 2012 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.1258

There Are Important Reasons For Delaying Implementation Of The New ICD-10 Coding System

Christopher G. Chute 1,*, Stanley M. Huff 2, James A. Ferguson 3, James M. Walker 4 and John D. Halamka 5

Author Affiliations

1 Christopher G. Chute (chute@mayo.edu) is a professor of biomedical informatics at Mayo Clinic, in Rochester, Minnesota.
2 Stanley M. Huff is a professor of biomedical informatics at the University of Utah, in [please provide city], and chief medical informatics officer at Intermountain Healthcare, in Murray, Utah.
3 James A. Ferguson is a fellow at the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy and vice president of health information technology strategy and policy for Kaiser Permanente, in Oakland, California.
4 James M. Walker is chief health information officer of Geisinger Health System, in Danville, Pennsylvania.
5 John D. Halamka is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, chief information officer at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and chief information officer at Harvard Medical School, in Boston, Massachusetts.
*Corresponding author

Abstract

Federal authorities have recently signaled that they would consider delaying some aspects of implementation of the newest version of the International Classification of Diseases, known as ICD-10-CM, a coding system used to define health care charges and diagnoses. Some industry groups have reacted with dismay, and many providers with relief. We are concerned that adopting this new classification system for reimbursement will be disruptive and costly and will offer no material improvement over the current system. Because the health care community is also working to integrate health information technology and federal meaningful-use specifications that require the adoption of other complex coding standardization systems (such as the system called SNOMED CT), we recommend that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services consider delaying the adoption of ICD-10-CM. Policy makers should also begin planning now for ways to make the coming transition to ICD-11 as tolerable as possible for the health care and payment community.

Full free text

Tom Sullivan, for Health Care IT News, asks Chute, “Why not just skip right to ICD-11?”

Why not just skip right to ICD-11?

Tom Sullivan, Government Health IT| March 13, 2012

…While industry associations battle over the code set’s future, and HHS figures out when the new compliance deadline will be, the World Health Organization (WHO) is already moving toward ICD-11, promising a beta in 2014 to be followed by the final version in 2015. Should that slip until 2016, U.S. health entities will still be settling into ICD-10 when ICD-11 arrives – meaning that shortly thereafter, we will be right back where we are now: Behind the times, on the previous ICD incarnation.

Are we repeating our own faulty history?

“That almost assuredly will be the case,” said Chris Chute, MD, DrPH, who spearheads the Mayo Clinic’s bioinformatics division and chairs the WHO’s ICD-11 Revision Steering Group…

Read full article by Tom Sullivan

Rhonda Butler argues why US health care providers and industry can’t just ditch ICD-10-CM and wait for ICD-11 in 2015/16:

3M Health Information

We Can’t Skip ICD-10 and Go Straight to ICD-11

Rhonda Butler | March 26, 2012

Since the recent announcement by CMS that ICD-10 implementation will be delayed for certain healthcare entities, some industry pundits have argued, “Let’s just skip ICD-10 and go straight to ICD-11.”

Skipping ICD-10 assumes that we haven’t started implementing ICD-10. Well, the U.S. did start—19 years ago.

What have we been doing for the last 19 years…

Read full article

Letter from Justine M. Carr, MD, Chairperson, National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics to The Honorable Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, March 2, 2012

Contains ICD-10-CM timeline

    Re: Possible Delay of Deadline for Implementation of ICD-10 Code Sets

James Phillips asks Michael First (Editor of DSM-IV-TR, Consultant to WHO ICD-11 Revision) how DSM-5 relates to ICD:

Psychiatric Times

DSM-5 In the Homestretch—1. Integrating the Coding Systems

James Phillips, MD | 07 March 2012

With DSM-5 scheduled for publication a little more than a year from now, we may safely assume that, barring unannounced surprises from, say, the APA Scientific Review Committee, what we will see on the DSM-5 Web site is what we will get. With that in mind it’s time to review what we will indeed get. But before moving to significant changes in the major disorder categories, we should remind ourselves where DSM-5 fits into the larger picture of coding mental illnesses.

There are, in case you have forgotten, two classificatory systems of mental disorders—the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), produced by the World Health Organization (WHO), and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), produced by the American Psychiatric Association. How are they related? It is a question that has confused me, and I assume, some of my psychiatric colleagues as well as others—other mental health professionals, and still others. For an answer to this question I asked Michael First, MD, Editor of DSM-IV-TR, Consultant on the WHO ICD-11 revision…

Read full commentary

 

Related posts:

HHS Secretary Sebelius announces intent to delay ICD-10-CM compliance date  February 16, 2012

AHIMA: Ten Reasons to Not Delay ICD-10 (ICD-10-CM)  February 23, 2012

AHIMA: Ten Reasons to Not Delay ICD-10 (ICD-10-CM)

Posted on by

AHIMA: Ten Reasons to Not Delay ICD-10 (ICD-10-CM)

Post #147 Shortlink:
http://wp.me/pKrrB-1Xw

This material relates to the forthcoming US specific “clinical modification” of the WHO ICD-10, known as “ICD-10-CM.” It does not relate to other country specific clinical modifications of ICD-10.

Update @ February 27: There has been considerable coverage of HHS’s announcement to delay the compliance date for ICD-10-CM.

Further coverage:

Press release

HCPro

Industry Experts Respond to Announcement of ICD-10 Deadline Delay

February 27, 2012

Industry experts respond as HHS has confirmed its intent to delay the ICD-10 compliance deadline, according to its latest press release. HCPro contacted numerous industry experts for their thoughts on the recent announcement by CMS. Although reactions are mixed, experts agree that forward progress on ICD-10 readiness for providers is essential…

ICD-10 may not be postponed for everyone

Ken Kerry | February 20, 2012

One school of thought is that it will be delayed for a year or two; but CMS’ announcement mentioned that only “certain healthcare entities” would be granted a reprieve. Which entities? We don’t know yet.

On January 16, 2009, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a Final Rule in the Federal Register mandating adoption of ICD-10-CM and ICD-10-PCS to replace ICD-9-CM in HIPAA transactions, with a compliance date of October 1, 2013.

Until implementation, codes in ICD-10-CM are not valid for any purpose or use. ICD-10-CM has been subject to partial code freeze since October 1, 2011.

The 2012 release of ICD-10-CM is now available from the CDC site and replaces the December 2011 release:

International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM)

 

HHS announces delay for compliance

On February 16, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued a press release announcing that HHS will initiate a process to postpone the date by which certain health care entities are required to comply with International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition diagnosis and procedure codes.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said, “We have heard from many in the provider community who have concerns about the administrative burdens they face in the years ahead.  We are committing to work with the provider community to reexamine the pace at which HHS and the nation implement these important improvements to our health care system.”

HHS has yet to announce a new compliance date but it is speculated that the delay would be for at least one year, rather than for a few months.

Related content:

Post #142 | February 16, 2012

HHS Secretary Sebelius announces intent to delay ICD-10-CM compliance date

For background see: 

Could the U.S skip ICD-10 and leapfrog directly to ICD-11?

February 16, 2012 | Tom Sullivan, Government Health IT

HIMSS statement, February 17, 2012

HIMSS Calls for Maintaining October 1, 2013 ICD-10 Implementation Deadline for Most Healthcare Entities

Information Week report

ICD-10 Delay Worries Health IT Leaders

The train’s already left the station for organizations that have been prepping for an October 2013 ICD-10 deadline, say health IT organizations and CIOs.

Nicole Lewis | InformationWeek |February 22, 2012

Practice Fusion

HHS Asks for a Delay to the Start of ICD-10

Robert Rowley, MD | February 21, 2012

AHIMA issues statement and press release

Yesterday, American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA) issued a statement and press release in response to HHS Sebelius’ February 16 announcement to delay the ICD-10-CM compliance date.

AHIMA represents more than 64,000 Health Information Management professionals in the United States and around the world. www.ahima.org

American Health Information Management Association statement and press release


http://journal.ahima.org/2012/02/22/ten-reasons-to-not-delay-icd-10/

     AHIMA statement IDC-10 Delay 02.17.12

Ten Reasons to Not Delay ICD-10

Feb 22, 2012 01:12 pm | posted by Kevin Heubusch | ICD-10

This week AHIMA announced it will reach out to leaders at the Department of Health and Human Services and urge there be no delay in the implementation of ICD-10-CM and ICD-10-PCS.

“We recommend that HHS reach out to the full healthcare community and gather more information about the great strides many have achieved— in good faith—since the ICD-10 deadline was set in January 2009,” said AHIMA CEO Lynne Thomas Gordon, quoted in a statement.

Further, AHIMA encouraged the healthcare community to continue its implementation planning and not let up its efforts.

In a statement released today, AHIMA offered 10 reasons not to delay ICD-10 implementation.

Ten Reasons We Need ICD-10 Now

  1. It Enhances Quality Measures. Without ICD-10 data, serious gaps will remain in the healthcare community’s ability to extract important patient health information needed for physicians and others to measure quality care.
  2. Research Capabilities Will Improve Patient Care. Data could be used in a more meaningful way to enable better understanding of complications, better design of clinically robust algorithms, and better tracking of the outcomes of care. Greater detail offers the ability to discover previously-unrecognized relationships or uncover phenomenon such as incipient epidemics early.
  3. Significant Progress Has Already Been Made. For several years, hospitals and healthcare systems, health plans, vendors and academic institutions have been preparing in good faith to put systems in place to transition to ICD-10. A delay would cause an unnecessary setback.
  4. Education Programs Are Underway. To ready the next generation of HIM professionals, academic institutions have set their curriculum for two-year, four-year, and graduate programs to include ICD-10.
  5. Other Healthcare Initiatives Need ICD-10. ICD-10 is the foundation needed to support other national healthcare initiatives such as meaningful use, value-based purchasing, payment reform, quality reporting and accountable care organizations. Electronic health record systems being adopted today are ICD-10 compatible. Without ICD-10, the value of these other efforts is greatly diminished.
  6. It Reduces Fraud. With ICD-10, the detail of health procedures will be easier to track, reducing opportunities for unscrupulous practitioners to cheat the system.
  7. It Promotes Cost Effectiveness. More accurate information will reduce waste, lead to more accurate reimbursement and help ensure that healthcare dollars are used efficiently.

If ICD-10 Is Delayed:

  1. Resources Will Be Lost. For the last three years, the healthcare community has invested millions of dollars analyzing their systems, aligning resources and training staff for the ICD-10 transition.
  2. Costs Will Increase. A delay will cause increased implementation costs, as many healthcare providers and health plans will need to maintain two systems (ICD-9 and ICD-10). Delaying ICD-10 increases the cost of keeping personnel trained and prepared for the transition. Other systems, business processes, and operational elements also will need upgrading. More resources will be needed to repeat some implementation activities if ICD-10 is delayed.
  3. Jobs Will Be Lost.To prepare for the transition, many hospitals and healthcare providers have hired additional staff whose jobs will be affected if ICD-10 is delayed.

And Finally…

We Can’t Wait for ICD-11. The foundations of ICD-11 rest on ICD-10 and the foundation must be laid before a solid structure can be built. ICD-11 will require the development and integration of a new clinical modification system. Even under ideal circumstances, ICD-11 is still several years away from being ready for implementation in the United States.*

In the report by Tom Sullivan (Health Care Finance News, February 16, 2012), Christopher Chute, MD, who chairs the ICD-11 Revision Steering Group, warned of a possible further delay for completion of ICD-11, from 2015 to 2016.

Implementation of ICD-11 has already been shifted from 2012 to 2014, then last year, to 2015+. These are projections for pilot, then global implementation for ICD-11.

The DHHS Office of the Secretary Final Rule document, February 2009, stated:

“We estimated that the earliest projected date to begin rulemaking for implementation of a U.S. clinical modification of ICD–11 would be the year 2020.”

Canada uses a clinical modification of ICD-10 called ICD-10-CA. WHO-FIC meeting materials suggest that Canada might not move onto ICD-11 (or a modification of ICD-11) until 2018+.  Australia, which uses a clinical modification of ICD-10 called ICD-10-AM, is discussing potentially earlier adoption of ICD-11.