ICD-10: Y2K all over again?
People often see things differently. Two neighbors may call their county government offices, one to ask that weeds be sprayed along the road and another asking for a no-spray ordinance. Health care is not immune to such conflicting priorities.
Some are anxiously counting the days until the Oct. 1, 2013, deadline for adoption of the ICD-10-CM codes and the "granularity" they promise. I doubt many practicing physicians are among that group. A letter to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services from Jim King, MD, chairman of the AAFP Board of Directors, left no doubt the AAFP did not support this change. That said, I hope you are not losing sleep, hoarding canned goods or preparing to duck for cover. The transition from ICD-9 to ICD-10 will create some challenges but will not likely result in widespread calamity.
Don't get me wrong. This is not your average annual code update. As reported by the American Academy of Professional Coders, when the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association converted the 164 ICD-9 codes included in FPM's model superbill to ICD-10, the resulting mess was seven pages longer than the original list. (The FPM Superbill has been updated for 2009; you can download it from the FPM Toolbox.) Clearly the ICD-10 code set is cumbersome compared to ICD-9, but it's not as difficult as learning to diagnose and manage the 68,105 conditions that may be reported with ICD-10. You can handle this.
Here are some things to consider as the Oct. 1, 2013, implementation deadline approaches:
1. You will no doubt soon receive ads for ICD-10 products and educational resources. Please don't waste your money. Learning a complex coding system that you will not use for nearly five years isn't productive, and changes could be made to the code set before 2013. Keep reading FPM and plan to learn more when implementation is closer.
2. Don't let ICD-10 overshadow another change with the potential for significant financial impact, especially for solo and small practices -- the conversion to the HIPAA 5010 electronic transaction standards, which must be completed by Jan. 1, 2012. Version 5010 is an extensive revision and paves the way for submission of ICD-10-CM codes. If your software vendor charges for upgrades or floundered during prior changes, now is the time to start asking questions about implementation plans and considering your options (e.g., upgrade or change vendors).
3. If you think you might need to change your software, consider a combined EHR/practice management system. A combined system may relieve some of the ongoing burdens and costs of transitioning to ICD-10. Imagine having an ICD-10 look-up tool similar to the FPM ICD-9 Look-Up Tool built into your EHR and integrated with your billing system, or a system that automatically converts standardized nomenclature to codes.
Most of you have endured the Medicare enrollment process, so you are combat-tested. And you are not alone. The AAFP and FPM will continue to provide you with the best resources that we can find or create to help you make the transition to ICD-10.
The future of diagnosis coding
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced the future of diagnosis coding for physicians last week. Specifically, on Jan. 16, CMS published a final rule specifying that by
The good news is that you have almost five years to get ready, which is two years longer than CMS originally proposed. The bad news is that you will still have to make systems changes and train yourself and your staff to use the new codes.
In the meantime, you and your practice will also have to comply with an updated X12 standard, Version 5010, for certain electronic health care transactions, including claims, remittance advice, eligibility inquiries, referral authorization, and other administrative transactions. Version 5010 accommodates the use of the ICD-10 code sets, which are not supported by Version 4010/4010A1, the current X12 standard. The compliance deadline is
They say that “forewarned is forearmed.” Please consider yourself “forewarned” and anticipate that Family Practice Management, the
It’s annoying. You’ve submitted your claims for subcutaneous injections with code 90772 for a couple years now and all of a sudden, rejections! The code has been changed to 96372. Who's responsible for this disruption to your cash flow? It was the insurance companies, wasn’t it?
No. Insurance companies do have some influence on CPT code changes but really not that much. CPT code changes can be proposed by anyone who identifies a problem or gap in existing codes. Many originate from physician complaints made to specialty societies about payment policies that don’t align with CPT or current practices. All proposed changes are vetted and recommended for approval, modification or rejection by physician volunteers from each of the medical specialty societies that participates in the AMA's CPT process. Proposals are then approved, postponed or rejected by the AMA's 17-member CPT Editorial Panel. Most of the panel members are physicians nominated by their specialty organization and appointed by the AMA Board of Trustees. David Ellington, MD, of Lexington, Va., and the AAFP Board of Directors is a member of the panel. A handful of the panel members represent payers.
So what else has changed in CPT 2009 and how are you, a busy physician, supposed to care for your patients and your practice and keep up with all of this? You can look to Appendix M of your 2009 CPT book for a summary of the deleted codes and their replacements. Also, watch for an article in the January/February issue of FPM on the code changes most affecting family medicine. And finally, don’t hesitate to contact me (firstname.lastname@example.org) or join the AAFP e-mail discussion list for coding issues to find help with coding questions and keep up-to-date. (The discussion list is also open to non-members so that your coding and billing staff can take advantage of this free resource.)
The future of physician payment?
The start of a new year is often a time to look ahead and try to foresee the future. As I do that this January with respect to physician payment, I see “value-based purchasing” on the horizon.
What is “value-based purchasing?” Good question. I do not have a definitive answer, but I can tell you that the folks in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) view it as something that “aligns payment more directly to the quality and efficiency of care provided by rewarding providers for their measured performance across the dimensions of quality.”
And this is not just idle musing, either. By law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is to develop a plan to transition to a value-based purchasing program for Medicare payment for covered professional services (including physician services) and submit a report to the Congress no later than May 1, 2010. To that end, CMS held a public listening session on this topic on Dec. 9, 2008, and has released an issues paper for review and comment.
What this all means for physician payment is not yet clear. However, I can imagine a day in the not-too-distant future when Medicare and other payers rely less on “fee-for-service” and more on what we have heretofore called “pay-for-performance.” In the meantime, it may be wise to keep an eye on CMS’s plans for transitioning to “value-based purchasing” as an indicator of things to come.
Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions
Current Issue of FPM
Search This Blog
& aafp affordable_care_act american_academy_of_family_physicians billing centers centers_for_medicare_&_medicaid_services centers_for_medicare_and_medicaid_services claims cms coding congress conversion_factor cpt e/m ehr electronic_health_record evaluation_and_management for icd-10 icd-9 medicaid medicare medicare_fee_schedule payment physician_quality_reporting_system pqrs services sgr sustainable_growth_rate
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012