With the upcoming deadline, many providers are feeling the pressure to have staff ready for the coding change. There seems to be two sides of the spectrum in terms of whether ICD-10 is necessary, according to Neurology Advisor.
Here are two opposing views on ICD-10:
Pros:
1. The rest of the world has been using ICD-10 for years and ICD-9 codes prohibit the United States from efficiently sharing data with other countries across the globe.
2. ICD-10 codes' detail enables providers to collect superior data and enhance patient care.
3. ICD-10 is expected to result in better justification in medical necessity and improved implementation of national and local coverage determining, resulting in more accurate payments and enhanced fraud detection.
Cons:
1. A major purpose of ICD in the United States is to file claims and get paid. No other country uses ICD codes to reimburse physicians.
2. The increase in codes is overwhelming with an increase to more than 70,000 codes. Many variations seem to lack a purpose and are confusing for providers and insurers.
3. Many ICD-10 claims will be denied. The cost saving from ICD-10 conversation is based on paying less money to providers and physicians should anticipate spending more time coding and less time earning money.
4. ICD-10 will ultimately lead to cuts in insurance payments and excessive administrative demands including Meaningful Use, Physician Quality Reporting System and increasing insurance authorization. Many physicians will forgo their practices as a result with thousands of patients losing options for physicians.
More on coding & billing:
ICD-10 countdown: 10 things to know before it hits
4 ASCs join price transparency website: 5 key points
NMBS named 'Top Workplace' by St. Louis Post-Dispatch