The Department of Health and Human Services Proposes One-Year Delay to ICD-10

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has proposed delaying the implementation of ICD-10 by one year to Oct. 1, 2014, through a proposed rule: “Administrative Simplification: Adoption of a Standard for a Unique Health Plan Identifier; Addition to the National Provider Identifier Requirements; and a Change to the Compliance Date for ICD-10-CM and ICD-10-PCS Medical Data Code Sets”. As the delay is being determined through the standard rulemaking/regulatory process, the actual time frame may change once feedback from the open comment period has been considered and the HHS initial proposal is taken into account. The comment period will be for 30 days prior to its official publication in the Federal Register.

Comments:

2 responses to "The Department of Health and Human Services Proposes One-Year Delay to ICD-10"
  • June 21, 2012
    John
    said:

    I’m a solo practitioner general surgeon and have been using an integrated medical records system for the last 10 years. I believe that many physicians do not completely understand why an electronic medical record system is so valuable. They are lost in the fact that it seems cumbersome to enter the patient’s information. I strongly believe that there is no role for drop-down menus when recording a patient’s history. I continue to use a dictated note as has been done for years, but in my case I use voice recognition to directly import my note into my record system. A computer generated note from drop down menus is really not helpful.The fact that a patient must provide each physician’s office with a medical history at each new patient visit is ridiculous during this age of information technology . A patient transferred from one hospital to another arrives with hand written scribble is ridiculous in 2012.I have worked with a small, user friendly company for 10 years. The system is adaptable and has continued to improve. As a solo practitioner it has been easy to transition my office staff to the current chartless status. I have sought the opportunity to share my thoughts however no one wants to hear from a solo country surgeon. I will continue with my system and continue to enjoy the benefits. I would leave this final note: If a doctor believes that an EMR is there to make things quicker and more economical than he will struggle with the transition. If the doctor realizes that the EMR will make the records transferable and accessible that adoption will be more smooth.

  • September 24, 2015
    Nopal
    said:

    Part of the problem of aggregating claims, clinical, labs and scripts data is that it comes in different forms, from different databases and has different naming standards. Organizations first need to understand who has access to that data (and then think about who SHOULD have access to it) and then they may want to de-identify PHI to keep the data secure. One key here is to consistently de-identify data from each contributor (and no PHI should leave any of the contributors during that process).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *