While providers are well aware that the consequences of failing to be ready for ICD-10 in time can be dire, that hasn’t kept them on track. In fact, according to a new report, providers have fallen further behind with ICD-10 milestones that they did back in February, reports Healthcare IT News.
But as you will see, it’s not necessarily the providers’ fault. In fact, if I were a provider, and my vendor was as behind as some apparently are right now, I would be beside myself.
Research from the Workgroup for Electronic Data Interchange found that some 50 percent of providers have completed the ICD-10 impact assessments. And about 50 percent of providers expect to begin external testing in the first half of 2014, Healthcare IT News notes.
But the study concludes that about 80 percent of healthcare providers will fail to complete their business changes and testing ICD-10 before 2014.
This may not be their fault. According to WEDI, 20 percent of vendors surveyed said they were halfway there or less developing products to support ICD-10. Even worse, 40 percent indicated they wouldn’t even have a finished product available until sometime in mid-2014, a situation which could create enormous problems for providers. (Wondering vendors are addressing the changeover? Here’s how one vendor has been handling the problem.)
According to WEDI, the top three barriers to vendors completing their ICD-10 upgrades were customer readiness, competing priorities and other regulatory mandates. Personally, I’d argue that vendors have had plenty of time to get the ICD-10 act together. And I wouldn’t find any of those excuses compelling given the impact these delays are likely to have on my operations – - specifically, that special part of operations known as getting paid. (But hey, maybe you’re a more forgiving type than me.)
With vendors falling behind on ICD-10 software updates and patches, providers are left having to wait — way too long — to begin tests of the downstream functions to come after testing, Judy Comitto, CIO at Trinitas Regional Medical Center in New Jersey, told Healthcare IT News: “I’m a bit disappointed, having reached out to these vendors that they are certainly not there yet.” Sadly, I think more disappointment is yet to come.