Opinion
Government should do some more thinking on soundness of ICD-10 shift
LETTER — Posted Oct. 27, 2008
Regarding "CMS calls for transition to ICD-10 codes in 3 years" (Article, Sept. 8): One has to wonder how much thought the coming change to the new coding system has caused to be generated among the people responsible for such decisions.
There are numerous questions the proposed changes have brought forth. Do we really need to increase the diagnosis codes by a factor of five? Whose benefit are these changes really for? Can one justify the time and expense these changes will necessarily involve versus the benefit received? Is it actually necessary to have the same level of coding required for all types of hospitals and practices? Given the history of governmental forethought and insight in proceeding with changes in medicine, I am less than impressed that "due diligence" has been exercised.
The above considered, let me add one more question to the pot. With the impending shortage of primary care providers and the age of those providers still practicing, has anyone considered the impact on the "planning-to-retire-soon" physicians? I, for one, am in that rather substantial group. Has anyone considered that requiring use of the ICD-10 codes may be just the push we need to call it quits? If past experience is any example, I think not, or at least, those concerns have been disregarded. Come October 2011, we may all find out.
John E. Glancy III, MD, Silver Spring, Md.
Note: This item originally appeared at http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/10/27/edlt1027.htm.