In their own words:
The implementation of ICD-10 will create significant burdens on the
practice of medicine with no direct benefit to individual patients'
care," said Peter W. Carmel, M.D., AMA president. At a time when we are
working to get the best value possible for our health care dollar, this
massive and expensive undertaking will add administrative expense and
create unnecessary workflow disruptions. The timing could not be worse
as many physicians are working to implement electronic health records
into their practices. We will continue working to help physicians keep
their focus where it should be – on their patients.
Naturally, the next question is what will the AMA will do to derail the ICD-10 train? Well, apparently it is still too soon to tell, but it is up to the AMA Board of Trustees to implement House of Delegates resolutions, in general. Per the chair of the Board, Dr. Robert Wah, limited resources also constrain what the AMA will be able to do to fight the switch.
The AMA is certain to endure harsh criticism for its stance. Already, some are already reacting to the AMA's decision by repeating the myths that (1) ICD-10 is advanced, (2) it will improve care for patients, (3) it will improve information management in support of #2, and (4) the U.S. is backwards because other nations have implemented ICD-10. We have shown on this blog that all these assertions are untrue.
On the contrary, the AMA is to be applauded for its courageous stance against ICD-10.
On the contrary, the AMA is to be applauded for its courageous stance against ICD-10.
Thus, we offer to the AMA, as a modest resource, the documentation on this blog, over a multiple-year period, of the many reasons and truths about the switch, and why it will certainly not afford the benefits its proponents claim.
No comments:
Post a Comment