FAH members “have invested significant resources in training their staff to meet Oct. 1, 2013 readiness” Kahn’s statement said, in reflecting arguments for only a one-year delay.
Those pushing for a two-year delay "are concerned about significant, system-wide complications."
According to Kahn, FAH members have concerns about ICD-10 implementation based on their experience with the implementation of the Version 5010 electronic claims-transaction standards—a process that got off to a rocky start at the Jan. 1 compliance deadline this year. FAH hospitals were ready for 5010, Kahn said, but "other segments of the industry" were not. That track record makes FAH members "extremely cautious" about ICD-10, he said.
The federation called on the CMS to establish a series of milestones to gauge industry ICD-10 readiness, beginning at least one year in advance of the proposed compliance deadline and then "hold a final review and discussion with the industry" on coding guidelines "to ensure clarity and consistency in coding."
Even so, Kahn encouraged the CMS to have "contingency plans" at the ready to ensure that interim payments to hospitals keep flowing whenever ICD-10 is implemented "in the event there are claims processing disruptions."
In an 11-page letter (PDF) Tuesday, the American Hospital Association reiterated its support for a one-year delay—a position it took in April when CMS released its proposed rule.
"The AHA supports the proposed one-year delay and urges CMS to finalize its proposal soon," the AMA comments said. "We strongly recommend that CMS move forward with both coding systems (CM and PCS) at the same time, and that the extra time be used to conduct extensive testing."