From the Editor: Y2K and Oct. 1, 2013
ICD-10 and Y2K have been paired in catchy headlines and conversations for some time now. But is this an accurate comparison?
Prior to the turn of the last century, there were about three years of recommendations, with escalating urgency, that IT staff check all of their computer systems, lest they be brought to a standstill by the "Y2K bug" when 1999 slipped into 2000. The worry was that systems that were programmed to change only two digits in a date—and there were plenty of those in 1999—would interpret the progression of "99" to "00" as "1900," which would cause cascading errors and bring these systems and all those that touched them to a halt.
Companies went through their entire application stacks looking for the bug and fixing it by resetting the clock, as it were, to four changeable digits from two. And so we waited on Dec. 31, 1999. And we waited. And eventually … nothing happened. The lights stayed on, phones and traffic signals worked. Planes took off and landed as scheduled. The ball dropped in Times Square, the fireworks exploded as planned. For many organizations, the biggest headache was reminding staff to write "2000" on forms that still had "19__" as the printed date option, but this wasn't an IT issue.
The conversion to ICD-10 does have similarities to the Y2K event: As with Y2K, there has been plenty of advance warning about the impending transition to ICD-10. The potential for widespread disruption of service could affect payors and system vendors as well as providers and patients in this country.
However, there are key differences as well. Many countries have already made the switch to ICD-10, so the potential for a worldwide ICD-10 crisis isn't as great as the Y2K trouble could have been. In addition, the October 2013 deadline is a CMS-imposed one, and could be subject to change, however unlikely that seems today. Finally, the conversion to ICD-10 involves a lot more system changes than the Y2K bug did. Having the new codes in place is critical; getting clinicians to enter them correctly at the point of care might be a bigger chore for some.
It's also very important to remember why Y2K was no big deal—it took a cadre of IT staffers working very hard well before New Year's Eve to make sure nothing happened when 2000 arrived. It will take a bigger army of IT pros and healthcare stakeholders to make the ICD-10 transition happen, and it will no doubt be a smoother process for some organizations than for others. But if nothing happens on Oct. 2, 2013, that will be just as big a story as the Y2K non-event.
Prior to the turn of the last century, there were about three years of recommendations, with escalating urgency, that IT staff check all of their computer systems, lest they be brought to a standstill by the "Y2K bug" when 1999 slipped into 2000. The worry was that systems that were programmed to change only two digits in a date—and there were plenty of those in 1999—would interpret the progression of "99" to "00" as "1900," which would cause cascading errors and bring these systems and all those that touched them to a halt.
Companies went through their entire application stacks looking for the bug and fixing it by resetting the clock, as it were, to four changeable digits from two. And so we waited on Dec. 31, 1999. And we waited. And eventually … nothing happened. The lights stayed on, phones and traffic signals worked. Planes took off and landed as scheduled. The ball dropped in Times Square, the fireworks exploded as planned. For many organizations, the biggest headache was reminding staff to write "2000" on forms that still had "19__" as the printed date option, but this wasn't an IT issue.
The conversion to ICD-10 does have similarities to the Y2K event: As with Y2K, there has been plenty of advance warning about the impending transition to ICD-10. The potential for widespread disruption of service could affect payors and system vendors as well as providers and patients in this country.
However, there are key differences as well. Many countries have already made the switch to ICD-10, so the potential for a worldwide ICD-10 crisis isn't as great as the Y2K trouble could have been. In addition, the October 2013 deadline is a CMS-imposed one, and could be subject to change, however unlikely that seems today. Finally, the conversion to ICD-10 involves a lot more system changes than the Y2K bug did. Having the new codes in place is critical; getting clinicians to enter them correctly at the point of care might be a bigger chore for some.
It's also very important to remember why Y2K was no big deal—it took a cadre of IT staffers working very hard well before New Year's Eve to make sure nothing happened when 2000 arrived. It will take a bigger army of IT pros and healthcare stakeholders to make the ICD-10 transition happen, and it will no doubt be a smoother process for some organizations than for others. But if nothing happens on Oct. 2, 2013, that will be just as big a story as the Y2K non-event.