In response to Jennifer Lubells Critics: Most docs arent ready for ICD-10 changes":
The Medical Group Management Associations Robert Tennants potential ICD-10 example is misguided. First, the level of explicitness he hypothesizes (i.e., ice hockey stick) is not present in ICD-10 codesalthough there is often more explicitness than with ICD-9.
Second, current ICD-9 coding already allows for an e-code, which specifies the place and/or manner of an open wound (the actual diagnosis code description) resulting from a laceration. You can bet if the use of an e-code will improve their reimbursement, they will include it. These codes are invaluable for injury epidemiology.
Finally, ICD-9 codes are already being constantly updated with new codes being added and codes being deactivated, most commonly at the beginning of the fourth quarter. So if submitting practitioners do not already have the latest version of the practice-management system software in place, they are already submitting incorrectly coded claim forms.
If this is the best argument MGMA has to make, they had better shut up and start getting ready. They only have four and a half years left.
Michael MundorffData project managerPrimary Childrens Medical CenterSalt Lake City
What do you think? Submit a letter to Your Views. Please include your name, title, company and hometown. Health IT Strategist reserves the right to edit all submissions.
Also, please share your thoughts by taking our latest HITS reader poll.