Linda, in the link you gave, there is this statement:*as of 3/28, ICD-10 deadline has been pushed back to sometime in late 2015!Is that just wishful thinking on their part, or do we have confirmation that the delay is official?And, for Michele, just in case she needs to know this - my post about the squirrel was a joke. The ICD-10 Code and definition is correct. But the rest isn't.
The date is October 1, 2015 - the wording of the bill prohibits implementation of ICD-10 prior to that date. And it isn't official yet. The House passed the bill, but the Senate will not vote on it til Monday evening, as you previously posted. It's going to pass because it's still attached to the bill preventing reimbursement rates from falling 24% as of April 1st (the day after the vote). There isn't time to debate it. It's pretty much a foregone conclusion. It was a sneaky move, lol http://www.ihealthbeat.org/articles/2014/3/27/house-passes-doc-fix-that-includes-one-year-icd-10-delay
SNEAKY is the MIDDLE name of the Obama Administration..
Quote from: PMRNC on March 28, 2014, 04:16:33 PMSNEAKY is the MIDDLE name of the Obama Administration.. I'm thinking it was the Republicans in the House who pushed this delay through, not the Democrats.
The House bill was apparently brokered on a bipartisan basis, most likely as a concession to physicians lamenting the failure of Congress to pass a permanent repeal of the SGR formula. In February, the American Medical Association released a report claiming that implementation costs for medical groups would be greater than originally expected.
Is that just wishful thinking on their part, or do we have confirmation that the delay is official?
I'm thinking it was the Republicans in the House who pushed this delay through, not the Democrats.
This delay affects so many hospitals, providers, insurance carriers, health IT workers, HIM professionals, colleges and universities who have invested billions in dollars as well as countless hours preparing. Over 25,000 HIM graduates have only received ICD-10 training for their degree, ICD-9 was mentioned in a historical sense. Imagine their worry about getting a job as a new grad anyway, and now they don't even have a skill for immediate use. IF ICD-10 goes into effect in 2015, they will require additional training to refresh their knowledge along with all the others who are already dual-coding or recently certified (including me!).