CMA Survey Indicates Majority of Physicians Not Ready for ICD-10

According to a May 2015 survey of physician practices just released by the California Medical Association (CMA), 51% of respondents claimed to be only minimally prepared for ICD-10, while 21% stated that they were not at all prepared. With only 107 days to go, this is troubling news to say the least. HCIM offers comprehensive ICD-10 training services and software tools for physicians, mid-level staff, coders and billers, in addition to ICD-10 assessment services for healthcare payer organizations.

About HCIM

Since 2000, HealthCare Information Management, Inc. (HCIM) has delivered expert consulting services and robotic automation tools for small to mid-sized healthcare payer and managed care organizations. Our concierge consulting services include everything from core claims system procurement to go live, including configuration, migration, upgrades, reporting, benefits and fee schedules, user training, and project resourcing. We also offer strategic consulting in the areas of value based payments, population health, medical management, medical loss analysis and recovery, care management, provider contract modeling, data analytics, and business process reengineering/analysis.

3 comments on “CMA Survey Indicates Majority of Physicians Not Ready for ICD-10

  1. Sadly physicians don’t understand they don’t need to know ICD-10, or ICD-9 for that matter. Computer programs can translate clinical outcomes to whatever coding structure required. Claims attachments coded in HL7 straight from clinical notes can accompany the 837 claims and be used for billing. The ICD-10 or ICD-11 furor is all about money and nothing about technology. The AMA has a vested interest in CPT and is the major roadblock to any solution being implemented.

  2. Tom, I agree that the AMA has other reasons for opposing ICD-10. The AMA and Texas Medical Association have made it clear that they object to this as an unfunded government mandate and insist that doctors should be paid to adopt the ICD-10 code set, as was the case with the Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Records (EHR) Incentive Programs. But who will be responsible for picking up the tab?

  3. My point is why even worry about ICD-10? The payers (insurance companies, Medicaid, Medicare, Champus, etc.) adopt the code set necessary to pay the claims and use a routine to convert the clinical findings submitted with the claim to a billable code (ICD, DRG, CPT, whatever). It is true the claim has to be submitted with codified diagnosis and procedure information but that is being done now. Somewhere along the line, clinical information has to be transformed (coded). Who picked up the tab for having ICD-9 entered? CPT? Same concept for codifying clinical data for invoicing. Translator programs are readily available for entering clinical information and producing a ready to bill 837 transaction. The medical community should embrace these solutions especially if it guarantees accurate and timely payments. ICD-10 is a good choice because it expands and enhances the universe of billable conditions and allows for growth and more opportunities for accurate analysis of medical outcomes.

Comments are closed.