Home Forums Discussions Coding and Billing ICD 10 Big deal or just hype?

Just got an invitation to ICD10 training. The purpose is to help me among other things to "prepare your ICD-10 implementation budget." Is this really that big a deal? It sounds like a lot of hype. Perhaps I don't understand but it's just a change in the codes, right? Apparently there will be more codes, including 3 codes related to walking into a lamppost (no, I'm not making that up).

I know AC is preparing an upgrade to include ICD10. But is there really anything we need to do to get ready for this? What are the rest of you doing?

Our hospital is hosting an "ICD-10" morning session for providers. It' free, so I'll go.
As far as I can determine, the answer will depend a lot on the environment in which you practice. ICD-10 is said to be quite complex. The hospital is eager for us to go, since its reimbursement under DRG's will depend a lot on exact coding, and I guess it can make a lot of difference. Some respondents on this board indicate that programs to which they are contracted act similarly, and there my well be meaningful use reporting requirements that will matter.. For us, with no contracts and no involvement in MU, the exact coding is really only of academic interest. I pretty much pick a diabetes code or two, or fairly general code for, example, coronary artery disease, and just go with those. I intend to do the same with ICD-10. Whether crohn's disease is limited to the left side of the colon, transverse, TI, or some combination thereof makes no difference as to what I propose to do for the patient, and I have the luxury that it makes no difference as to how I am paid. You may well not be so fortunate.

Indeed, I have to agree with David.

Probably 95% of my needs are covered by about 20 codes in ICD9. The key is to replace them with the equivalent codes in ICD10.

I too, do not care whether it is L or R, and will try to find something equivalent to NOS. Does it really matter whether an ear infection is L or R? I do know there are different codes for each.

Yes, ICD10 has more specificity. TO WHAT PURPOSE? Does it really make a difference in population management? Does it affect medical management? My answer would be NO.

The change is coding is because we always feel new is better and there are a lot of complaints about ICD9. There are plenty of codes for radiation enteritis but none specific for common Viral Gastroenteritis. Does this mean you have to triple to number of codes just to include both the common and esoteric?

ICD were originally designed as mortality codes, it was later that morbidity was considered. It has only been in the last 30 years that they have become entrenched in medical reimbursement. While there is value in associating disease with reimbursement, often this has been extended beyond it's logical conclusion to the point that we go for a code not because it has relation to the disease process. Why have 3 or 4 digit codes when only 5 digit will be considered?

Why? Because you can confuse and avoid payment. This is true at all levels. Ultimately the payors benefit from confusion. They set the rules and it will thus be to their advantage.

ICD10 is the latest iterneration. It's not the codes, its how the billing rules will set around them. That will be a lot of fun to decipher. Guess who will suffer?

Lots of question marks in this diatribe.