What if Starbucks billed like ICD-10?

Ah, yes, ICD-10 is coming!  Yes, the new coding system with 10 times more codes than the previous is slated to go live in 2011.  Much of the world now uses ICD-10 because it has more codes, as apparently, we are running out of codes.  You, my beloved provider, will be shouldering the burden of the cost to implement the system.   A few reasons why this has made my normally smiling face curdle with disgust:

 

1.  There are TEN times more codes– all codes will be 7 digits, and then, yes, oh yes! You can add a modifier.  Simple, huh? 

“We are just now beginning to learn the increased costs on physician practices associated with moving to the ICD-10 code set – and they are staggering,” said William F. Jessee, MD, FACMPE, Medical Group Management Association president and CEO.

2.   It ain’t cheap.  Implementing the new coding system is estimated to cost $83,290 for a THREE physician office.  (See http://www.aapc.com/news/index.php/2008/10/icd-10-cm-coalition-press-release/).  At an average reimbursement of $50 per patient visit, that’s an extra 555 visits per year, per physician.  If a physician works 5 days/week, 48 weeks per year, this makes an extra 2.3 patient visits PER DAY!  If patients already feel rushed during their visits, think of it now!  And you know what, there’s not a dang thing the physician can do about it!  (Well, I guess concierge medicine might look more attractive…)

 

3.   You will wait even longer to get paid.  CMS (Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services), which is the government agency behind this change, notes: “…putting in the new system could initially boost by 10% the percentage of claims insurers return to doctors because of coding errors.“   (See http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/11/11/look-out-docs-here-comes-icd-10/)

 

4.   It’s another blow to primary care.  Many primary care offices are solo practitioners, or small groups (three or less.)  These are the groups least able to shoulder the cost of another complex government regulation. 

 

5.   You won’t have time to implement it.  You will need to learn the new codes, educate your staff, update your super bills and then change over your billing software to accommodate these new codes.   Most importantly, you will need to do some major cash flow planning.  (Yup, adding in an extra 65,000 codes takes time and money!)  This will be tough to do given the time frame the CMS is proposing.  Even the insurers want more time.  (Who’d a thunk it—me agreeing with medical insurance companies!)

 

6.   Get ready to buy more computers.  If your practice wants to be efficient, you will need computers in each exam room to quickly file the charges.  This is on top of the mandate that medical practies move to an EMR.  (Who’s going to fund THAT?) (See: http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/09/08/gvsa0908.htm).

 

7.   Beef up your documentation.  You want to get paid?  Prepare to be exacting!  The reason for a medical chart has changed—it used to be so that we could develop a working diagnosis and plan, based on history and exam to treat a patient.  You poor dinosaur! A chart is a way to get paid! 

 

8.   It will drive up the cost of health care.  The cost of soft ware, computers, training, IT support and the like will first be passed to physicians, and then eventually to patients.  There is no such thing as a free lunch!

 

9.    Patient care will suffer.  As physicians, we are ever more focused on computers, documentation, crossing Ts and dotting I’s.  Who will focus on patients when we are focused on coding?

 

10.   We will lose more primary care physicians.  Small practices, in rural/underserved areas can not afford the implementation involved in transitioning to ICD-10.  Implementing  ICD-10 will be a nail in the coffin of areas that desperately need primary care physicians the most.

 

I was thinking about opening a coffee shop.  I could code and bill for beverages as follows: a small cappuccino would be a 99212(01), a medium 99213(02), and a large a 99214(03), and jumbo would be a 99215(04).  I could add modifiers to denote skim, 2% or whole milk.  Shots of flavoring would require modifiers as well. So, a medium, skinny cappuccino with a shot of hazelnut would be a 99213(02)-7-13  (taking into account the ‘skinny’ or -7 and the hazelnut -13.)  I would of course charge you, the customer, more for my nifty billing system.   I also could bill based on how LONG it takes to make the beverage.  I don’t know why Starbucks doesn’t do this.  It seems so efficient.