Written by: John Lynn
UPDATE: It looks like this bill has passed the house with a voice vote. I believe it still needs to be passed by Congress and not be vetoed by the President.
UPDATE 2: Late on 3/31/14, the Senate passed the bill which delays ICD-10 by a vote of 64 – 35. Barring a veto from the President, the bill will go forth and the ICD-10 implementation date will be moved to October 1, 2015. All of the discussion for the bill was around the SGR fix with no conversation around the ICD-10 delay. It’s unlikely that the President would even consider a veto of this bill.
We’d already stoked the ICD-10 delay fires in Kyle Samani’s post on “Why ICD-10?” before the news came out yesterday that a one year ICD-10 delay was put in an SGR bill. Word on the street was that the bill would be put up for a vote today. However, I hear now that the vote on the bill is going to be delayed at least until tomorrow.
The reports are saying that this bill was developed by John Boehner and Harry Reid which likely means they have enough votes to make it a reality. I read that Nancy Pelosi said on CSPAN that the bill wasn’t perfect, but needed to be passed. My only question is whether the delay in voting is because they’re still trying to cull votes for the bill or something else.
As I suggested in my post linked above, my guess is that congress is hearing from both those for delaying ICD-10 and those who oppose delaying ICD-10. I bet they consider the response a wash and so it won’t sway them either way. Plus, I bet that most in Congress are only talking about the SGR portion of the bill without much discussion on the ICD-10 delay.
This decision is going to cut many people. Let me share a few of the comments I’ve read.
First, from the LinkedIn AHIMA group, here’s a coder perspective on the delay:
I think of the coder who is a single mom struggling from pay check to pay check who had to spent $500 (or more) to take a course and another $60 on the proficiency exam, spent time away from caring for her family to prepare for the implementation only to have the rug pulled right from under her. The $560 is likely her discretionary income for the month. Who is thinking or her?
Don’t tell us there will absolutely be NO delays, allow us to spend our hard earned money to prepare, and then say “just kidding– we are going to tease you with another year — make you spend more money — promise no delays — then change our mind again!” “Oh, and the check is in the mail.” Yes ladies and gentleman, this is our government working “for the people.” And I ask, why does Congress even care about ICD-10? Do they even have a clue what they are voting for or against? They are trying to quietly slip it into a bill so that no one notices. I could be wrong, but it sounds like the work of a single lobbyist and Senator/Congressman. I would like to know the name of the person who put that language into the bill. Democracy at its finest!
Now a perspective that is likely shared by the thousands of ill-prepared practices and hospitals (although, my guess is that it was their larger organizations that lobbied for it, not the individual practices and hospitals that aren’t prepared):
As bad an idea as it is, a majority of practices, and a significant number of hospitals, health systems and other providers are, or feel, very un-prepared for the transition, and so have lobbied for delay. D.C. insiders say it’s a done deal.
On the other side is the prepared health IT vendors that think that a delay is letting the ill prepared off the hook. One EHR vendor sent me an email with this message:
This really is a pain to a vendor like us that is all ready to launch and take good care of our clients with ICD-10. Everything we programmed came out great and we are ready to go.
This feeling doesn’t just apply to health IT vendors that have procrastinated, but to all the procrastinators:
Why prolong the inevitable, again? The procrastinators should be penalized, not the rest of us who’ve been preparing for it.
What we all want most is certainty. HHS came out with certainty during HIMSS when they said that there would be no more delays with ICD-10. Unfortunately, HHS doesn’t control congress.
I’ve been reading a lot of reports that a delay in ICD-10 would cost billions of dollars. I’m not sure I trust those numbers, but it’s no surprise that those numbers don’t take into account the impact and cost of ICD-10 being implemented. Personally, I see costs in ICD-10 going forward and costs in ICD-10 being delayed. I’m not sure we can quantify either number accurately.
Obviously, this is a fast moving story, so I’ll update this post with any updates as I get them. Feel free to leave comments with updates as well.