AHIMA weighs in against skipping ICD-10 for ICD-11

When asked by an attendee about the possibility that, given the delay HHS is now investigating, U.S. healthcare entities might hold out to adopt ICD-11 rather than implementing ICD-10, AHIMA’s Sue Bowman was glad to be asked.

“I’m involved in ICD-11 and that’s not as easy as it seems,” Bowman, AHIMA’s director of coding policy and compliance said here at HIMSS12 in Las Vegas. The U.S. is not going to adopt ICD-11 any sooner than its moved on ICD-10 because there would have to be an assessment of this country’s particular needs.

“In the case of ICD-10, that took eight years,” she added. “It’s not like ICD-10 is coming out in 2015 and we can have it in 2016.”

After last week’s article ‘If HHS delays ICD-10 just long enough, could the U.S. instead opt ICD-11?’ I’m just presenting the opposing side here, folks.

I asked HIMSS12 attendees the question of the day – For how long should ICD-10 delay ICD-10? Surprising, to me, most were against pushing back the compliance deadline at all, collectively saying that the longer the duration, the more disruption, and the higher the overall cost.

Skipping ICD-10 would be a political tangle, it’s true. But the discussion raises some more questions: Why would assessing ICD-11, for instance, have to consume eight years or anything close to that? Why couldn’t we push toward a faster assessment – especially since the WHO is currently developing the beta for 2014 – in the interest of not repeating our own ICD errant history, winding up on an older version when the newer one is close?

And, most important, if that assessment were fast-tracked, would that make ICD-11 a viable option, considering the billions of dollars ICD-10 will demand?