HEALTHCON Regional 2022 | Stay Current. Stay Engaged. | Join today!

Fox News: Concerns Over ICD-10

Rhonda BuckholtzICD-10 implementation has been years in the making, and now that we’re finally at the finish line, concerns and misunderstandings are becoming more rampant. AAPC is working hard to clear up misinformation about the ICD-10 code set.
ICD-9-CM has several problems. Most importantly, it is out of room. Because the classification is organized scientifically, each three-digit category can have only 10 subcategories. Most numbers in most categories have already been assigned diagnoses. Medical science keeps making new discoveries, and there are no numbers to assign these diagnoses. Computer science, combined with new, more detailed codes of ICD-10, will allow for better analysis of disease patterns and treatment outcomes that can advance medical care. These same details will streamline claims submissions, since these details will make the initial claim much easier for payers to understand.
Despite these improvements, there are still those who fear that ICD-10 will cause more trouble than it’s worth. A recent segment on Fox News focused on concerns about ICD-10 negatively affecting provider availability and potentially pushing some practices out of business. While providers should absolutely recognize the need for greater specificity after ICD-10 implementation, they should not plan on the increased documentation needs substantially reducing their availability to the patients.
Fox News also interviewed AAPC’s VP of ICD-10 Education and Training, Rhonda Buckholtz, CPC, CPMA, CPC-I, CENTC, CGSC, COBGC, CPEDC, who pointed out how dated the current code set really is.
“ICD-9’s over 30 years old… you wouldn’t continue to use medical equipment that’s 30 years old–it’s outdated,” she says. “The same thing has happened to our code sets.” In fact, the United States is one of the last countries to adopt ICD-10.
See the full video.

Medical coding books

Medical coding books

No Responses to “Fox News: Concerns Over ICD-10”

  1. Chaundra Dickinson says:

    WOW! So much for Fair & Balanced.
    That seemed like a scare tactic story — I watched the full video.
    Several things I noticed:
    1 – The reporters failed to mention that we already use codes. Rhonda did, but she was cut short.
    2 – They failed to mention that the AMA had a large part in pushing off implementation for the last few years.
    3 – While they did touch on US last to use ICD-10, I didn’t hear anything about how the “coding industry” has been preparing for ICD-10 for years.
    4 – Okay, so there’s a code for burn by water skis — why not explain how many codes icd-9 would have to be to explain that same situation?

  2. Alice Reybitz says:

    Increased documentation needs will make physician’s less available to patients? Interesting! I audit charts, files, EHR, and claims….if the documentation would have started out as DETAILED as it should be for each claim we file, they wouldn’t be tripping over themselves now to make sure it was there.
    I have often asked myself what kind of documentation class physicians receive in med school…SOAP and CHEDDAR works IF you are including all the relevant documentation to get it paid. Funny thing is…this also allows the document to stand up in a court of law without a lot of questions too.
    This is not an undue burden, but rather the way it should have been done the first time.

  3. Dr. P. says:

    I can tell you first hand, that this IS a MAJOR concern for all physicians; especially, those in private practice! While I do agree that a more current update of the current ICD is needed — I am NOT IN AGREEMENT that there should be thousands of new codes! The difference between some of these new codes is so small, and honestly, in some cases could be argued subjectively and not empirically — what they have done now is introduce more confusion, more cost, more unnecessary complexity, more administrative time management (both for staff and the physician), additional fees and penalties, (I could continue, but you get the idea). All of this DOES NOT help the patient; in fact, it adds more stress and more cost for the patient. There are also regulations that require a physician to ask the patient a number of questions — most of which have nothing to do with why the patient has visited the office in the first place. It’s insane. The government should NOT be playing doctor — let the job be done by those who are trained and who actually care and have relationships with their patients. This will kill the private practice over time — no doubt about it.

  4. Full article says:

    Genuinely no matter if someone doesn’t be aware of then its up to other viewers that they will assist, so here it takes place.

  5. Monica says:

    As a senior student in an HIM program, it is interesting to watch and listen to the conversations concerning ICD-10 implementation. As usually the news did their normal scare tatics and if anyone did not notice they labeled this OBAMACARE ICD-10! Obamacare was not in existence when ICD-10 was created! As with any changes in healthcare, preparation is the key. Physicians have known that this was coming down the pipeline for some time….why aren’t they prepared? Healthcare in this country is already lagging behind the rest of the industrial world…we need to catch up.