Although the deadline has been extended, many still question whether it would have been better to have stopped the ICD-10 migration and wait for ICD-11.
With the Department of Health and Human Services announcing a further delay in mandatory ICD-10 adoption dates, some healthcare organizations are still questioning the wisdom of this action. Payers and providers alike had been closely following every piece of information surfacing in the media to decide the fate of their migration strategies – to delay or stop, and for some, whether to start.
However, considering all that has happened, or more importantly not happened over the last 19 years (when the initial steps toward an ICD-10 migration were taken), I feel that it is prudent to continue with your ICD-10 migration strategy and use the additional time to ensure the quality of the transition.
ICD-10: An evolution or a revolution?
Some say that ICD-10 is more of an evolution than a revolution, and I tend to agree. The revolution was when coding schemes were first devised and used for diagnosis and procedures. This was followed by numerous revisions to improve and refine the system, which has evolved to the current ICD-9. The fact that ICD-10 and beyond can be considered a continuation of this evolution make some believe that combining the next two progressions would save effort and cost, which in fact may or may not be true. However, the real issue is that not all advances in an evolution have the same impact in accelerating progress. Some advances spike performance to a much higher level, creating a new plateau for innovation. I strongly believe that ICD-10 holds the promise of bringing healthcare information to a new plateau.