Led by the American Medical Association, 82 doctors' organizations have written a letter (PDF) to the Secretary of Health and Human Services opposing the switch to ICD-10-CM. The letter was signed by 42 state medical societies and 40 specialty-specific medical societies, including the largest states (California, Texas, Florida) and most prestigious specialty societies (American College of Cardiology, American Academy of Ophthalmology, and the American Academy of Family Physicians).
The reason physicians oppose the switch is that it provides no direct benefit to patient care and the switch is only one of many regulatory burdens recently imposed by the federal government and physicians are having trouble managing them all at once. ICD-10 is an administrative code set that supports payment for health care: it is on the "back end" and thus does not impact patient care at all, let alone favorably. The burden of the switch is thus a net negative in doctors caring for patients, because it is costly and distracting. The other regulatory burdens the letter calls out are (1) implementation of electronic health records to meet "meaningful use" criteria, (2) electronic prescribing, and (3) mandatory participation in the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) and value-based modifier programs.
Physicians are correct. The cost of the switch outweighs its benefits and it ought to be halted.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
The world is moving or has moved towards ICD-10. ICD-10 brings the benefit of specificity and data capture can can be utilized to improve the long term care/cost model of our country. Yes, in the short term it is a burden, but how long should we stay shot-sighted? It is time we swallow the pill for long term health. We owe it to our posterity.
Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. Just because the world has moved to ICD-10 does not at all mean the United States should. So this argument of yours is not at all conclusive or convincing.
I address the so-called "specificity" argument here, here, and here. Note that 'diagnostic precision' is a better term, because the word 'specificity' is ambiguous in medicine, more commonly referring to the probability of a negative test when the patient does not have the disease.
Finally, we should only undertake the "burden" (as you put it), if the benefits outweigh the costs. Our posterity will be most grateful to us if we are careful in this regard. I address the issues of cost vs. benefit here, here, here, here, and here.
Post a Comment