- Insurers with high-paid execs face big tax under ACA
- FCC designates broadband frequency for Medical Body Area Networks
- Commentary: Don't confuse consumerization with patient empowerment
- ACA's 'no wrong door' policy: The road to horizontal integration
- Unintended benefit of ICD-10 delay: Faster innovations?
- Case Study: Blood Systems Expands Remote Access Connectivity to Prepare for Disaster
- New World Order: Effectively Securing Healthcare Data Through Secure Information Exchanges
- Beyond the EHR: Seamlessly Connecting Nurses and Physicians Using an EHR-Extender (EHR-e)
- The Power of User Virtualization: Meeting Meaningful Use, Optimizing IT and Clinical Productivity
- Event Log Management & Compliance Best Practices: For Government & Healthcare Industry Sectors
The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) wants the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to do more than delay ICD-10 implementation.
In a March 1 letter to HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius, MGMA president and CEO Susan Turney outlines some steps that should be added to the ICD-10 timeline that would inject some due diligence to the process.
[Download: MGMA letter to HHS with ICD-10 recommendations]
Those steps would be:
- "Complete a comprehensive cost benefit analysis."
- "Pilot test ICD-10."
- "Analyze the administrative and financial impact of overlapping initiatives."
- "Evaluate additional code set approaches."
- "Stagger implementation dates."
- "Develop appropriate crosswalks."
- "Require Certification."
Note nowhere in this letter does the MGMA express any opposition to ICD-10 implementation. Apparently they think it may be a perfectly fine code set. But let's make sure first with cost benefit analysis, evaluations and tests. And maybe we should look at other options.
It pretty much sounds like a plan to delay ICD-10-CM/PCS until dies of old age.
Carl Natale blogs regularly at ICD10Watch.com.