The American Medical Association has been a staunch critic of the healthcare industry's current ICD-10 timeline, and according to a report from AMA's board of trustees, moving directly from ICD-9 to ICD-11 is also "fraught with its own pitfalls."
In November 2011, the AMA put ICD-10 in its crosshairs, saying it would "work vigorously to stop implementation of ICD-10." The AMA has argued ICD-10 will burden physicians with "no direct benefit to individual patients' care," and it will be too costly as physicians also grapple with electronic health records.
ICD-10 is currently set to go live Oct. 1, 2014. However, ICD-10 has already been used worldwide since the early 1990s, and the World Health Organization is getting ready to finalize a beta version of ICD-11 by May 2015, which has led many in the industry to advocate for a direct jump to ICD-11 so the U.S. coding procedures are up to snuff with the rest of the world.
In addition to advocating for further delays of ICD-10, the AMA board of trustees did not recommend skipping ICD-10 and moving directly to ICD-11, saying there are "even greater complexities and uncertainties."
The physician advocacy group said there are some advantages to moving from ICD-9 to ICD-11, such as the need for physicians to undergo one implementation period instead of two. However, the AMA said there were too many disadvantages, such as lost knowledge and a potential 20-year timeframe to implement ICD-11.
In November 2011, the AMA put ICD-10 in its crosshairs, saying it would "work vigorously to stop implementation of ICD-10." The AMA has argued ICD-10 will burden physicians with "no direct benefit to individual patients' care," and it will be too costly as physicians also grapple with electronic health records.
ICD-10 is currently set to go live Oct. 1, 2014. However, ICD-10 has already been used worldwide since the early 1990s, and the World Health Organization is getting ready to finalize a beta version of ICD-11 by May 2015, which has led many in the industry to advocate for a direct jump to ICD-11 so the U.S. coding procedures are up to snuff with the rest of the world.
In addition to advocating for further delays of ICD-10, the AMA board of trustees did not recommend skipping ICD-10 and moving directly to ICD-11, saying there are "even greater complexities and uncertainties."
The physician advocacy group said there are some advantages to moving from ICD-9 to ICD-11, such as the need for physicians to undergo one implementation period instead of two. However, the AMA said there were too many disadvantages, such as lost knowledge and a potential 20-year timeframe to implement ICD-11.
More Articles on ICD-10:
What are the Financial and Operational Impacts of ICD-10?
What the ICD-10 Transition Means for Healthcare Organizations
ICD-10 Transition Tips for Success