Survey: ICD-10 delay will be costly

Although well-intentioned and in response to pressure from healthcare providers, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ decision to delay the implementation deadline could have negative consequences according to a survey of healthcare professionals involved in their organization’s ICD-10 initiatives.

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.

“While there may be a few entities that can truly use the additional time to improve their readiness, the majority of respondents believe this will not be the case,” the white paper concluded. "Instead, costs are likely to spiral higher, and valuable resources may be lost as the industry waits for the outcome of the CMS’ process to determine whether the deadline will slide.”

The report is available in its entirety here.