The fallout from the announcement continues…look at the results from this survey!
“Bellevue, Wash.-based health IT vendor Edifecs surveyed 50 healthcare professionals representing payors, providers, government and other stakeholders at its February ICD-10 summit and published the results in a Feb. 27 white paper.
There was less consensus regarding the effects of a one-year delay compared with a two-year delay, indicating a majority believe that the longer the delay, the more negative its consequences.
The vast majority (90 percent) of respondents believed that the deadline should not be moved more than a year. Questioned about a one-year delay, 58 percent of respondents said it would be “costly, but manageable” compared to 37 percent who said it would be “beneficial.” Questioned about a two-year delay, 56 percent said it would be “potentially catastrophic,” 22 percent said it would be “costly, but manageable” and only 4 percent said it would be “beneficial.”
While moving the deadline provides organizations with more time to comply, researchers indicated that the major concern with a delay is cost. Many organizations have contracted with consultants or hired employees specifically for the transition to ICD-10 and will now have to decide whether they will continue setting aside funds for those positions or if they will be cut, researchers wrote. More than 70 percent of respondents said they believed that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) should reimburse organizations for the delay, 49 percent predicted an 11 percent to 25 percent increase in total ICD-10 transition budgets for each year of delay and 37 percent predicted a 26 percent to 50 percent increase in total ICD-10 budgets for each year of delay.
The uncertainty surrounding a new timeline for implementation is currently most stressful for healthcare organizations, according to researchers, who suggested that quickly completing an evaluation should be the top priority for the CMS.