Issue link: https://viewer.e-digitaledition.com/i/96304
ig, heavy not an easy thing. It's a b "Change management is e road I 'ICD-10 is so far down th piece of stone. Some say, in 12 out it—I'll worr y about it g ab don't need to be worr yin right now." d to be worrying about itHEALTHCARE ALLIANCE months.' No, you nee DICKE Y, CIO, GLOBAL — DAVID ICD-10 exists in tandem with more overarching regulatory changes that do highlight compliance. But, as was the case for Y2K, security issues may appear in second- or third-order effects. New software packages that accommodate ICD-10 code may have new vulnerabilities, which would take time to isolate and patch. Confusion in transitioning between code sets may result in increased opportunities for fraud and abuse from inside healthcare organizations, according to the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society ICD-10 PlayBook. The gap between ICD-9 to ICD-10 code sets could be easily exploited to misrepresent a diagnosis or procedure and create fraudulent claims. The same problem could occur when mistakes in coding lead to erroneous data records. specificity Also, the specificity of information available under ICD-10 could make outside data breaches more troubling, says Merrill, citing the potential for new code sets to reveal more information about a patient's medical situation than previous records. Cost Comparison Y2K cost estimates for the United States hover around $134 billion in preparation, with another $13 billion spent in correcting post-Jan. 1 issues. While the total healthcare IT outlay for the U.S. in 2012–2013 is not expected to reach that figure, ICD-10 expenses figure, are going to be sizeable—the RAND Science and Technology Policy Institute predicts $425 million to $1.15 billion in IT and training expenses nationwide. A Blue Cross and Blue Shieldcommissioned study by the Robert E. Nolan Company estimates that between $5.5 and $13.5 billion will be spent during implementation. Self-Fulfilling Prophecy or Catastrophe Averted? The knee-jerk reaction to ICD-10 is the clearest parallel to Y2K. Patt Peterson, director of education and workforce with the American Health Information Management Association, characterizes provider response as "Oh, my gosh, this is going to be much more difficult than we thought." But as with Y2K, Peterson suggests the change won't look all that bad from the other side. "[ICD-10] is like a dictionary. Yes, there are a lot of words in there, but you don't use them all," she says. "Yes, there's a lot more specificity, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's that much harder to code. It's just a different way to code." If the transition to ICD-10 goes smoothly, it could mean overdue praise to healthcare IT and expert professional coders. Or it could find hospital CFOs asking their vendors and tech support staff, "Why did we spend all this money? It was no big deal." ICD-10 vs. Y2K at a Glance The Same: Application layer More data fields needed for fields more characters. Process change Emotion gets in the way of readiness. IT collegiality The field comes together to field solve problems. Interoperability Common concerns drive common solutions…everyone hopes. Security No direct impact; concerns in second- and third-order effects. effects. Yet Different: Different: Cost estimates ICD-10 is high; Y2K was higher. Overhyped YOUR CALL. Comment at HITExchangeMedia.com MDNEWS.COM I MD NEWS Twin Cities | 29