The WSJ details the upcoming coding “upgrade” to ICD-10, with exponentially more codes for doctors to learn. It’s going to be a huge problem, since many physicians can barely grasp the current system.
To understand the complexity, the number of codes for an angioplasty rises from 1 to 1,170. There are 45 codes for a sprained ankle alone.
The process is expensive, and will likely lead to more initial billing errors:
Some medical-industry officials also are concerned that consumers could see, at least initially, an increase in billing errors. That can lead, for example, to overcharging of patients, or an insurer denying payment for a claim because it was submitted with an incorrect code. Some officials also expect an increase in billing fraud and more delays in payments to doctors and consumers.
Dr. Wes doesn’t expect the transition to be pretty, saying “this coding extravaganza will cost time, money and resources as physicians and their patients scramble to unlock the intricacies of the scheme to assure their patients receive health care.”
topics: coding, icd-10
Related posts:
- Don’t blame physicians for coding
- How doctors are at the mercy of ICD coding
- Why American health care is so expensive
- Why personal health records may be unreliable
- New E&M codes
- Waiting for the doctor
- How to drive a doctor out of primary care
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 4 comments }
Perhaps the bright lights in Washington should enact a ‘windfall profits’ tax on the insurance companies. The spread between their rising premiums and decreasing payments to Doctors can only increase with so many new ways to deny claims.
Chuck Brooks
FutureWare SCG
Did anyone do a cost-benefit analysis before proposing ICD-10? Clearly not!
One question: why?
What in the world does this have to do with taking care of patients?
It is just away to harrass doctors, done with the complete collusion of the AMA. It disproportionately impacts primary care, because we need to be familiar with more codes. Yet one more way to squeeze blood from a stone.
Deron: Sure they did. The benefits are theirs, the costs are ours. End of analysis.
Comments on this entry are closed.