It would be nice if a couple of us in Mass. could at least say we completed testing and validation and next year we will just regression test.
I am completely supportive of us maintaining momentum to protect the investments to date. I was also thinking through the ICD-10 transition and potential to down coding to ICD-9 until 10/15. This would require a lot of testing to validate that there is no revenue risks related to the coding conversion. I am not sure if the teams would want to invest the time in that exercise but would support the evaluation process if there is support from coding and finance departments.
I agree if we could keep provider/payer testing going that would be good. It would also be great if we could get native coding from providers versus using a tool to get manufactured data. This doesn't give us a very good test. I don't agree with accepting ICD-10s and mapping to ICD-9. This concept introduces too much risk and it's additional work that we've have to take on. I wouldn't be able to get internal buy-in on this approach.
We are still discussing internally but I had assumed we would continue with the current test plan. I am not sure we will continue the same level of testing efforts after 10/1/14.
Technically, Oct. 1st, 2015 is not the new date, it is the earliest date. We could lobby our legislators to rescind the move to ICD-10 altogether and work towards ICD-11 in 2018.
On April 7, the CIOs will have a community-wide planning call. I’m hopeful that we’ll complete our 2014 ICD-10 projects, do end to end testing, and then stand ready to go live fully with ICD10 in the future without significant additional work.
Although I know that many small practices were not ready for ICD10, the majority of hospitals and payers were ready for 2014. A delay in 2013 may have been helpful, but a delay in 2014 is just going to cost hospitals more as timelines and consulting engagements are extended.