Initially, when ICD-10 was introduced and pending for universal implementation, there were a number of concerns about the implementation of the 10th revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD). Despite the mass delay of implementation, the transition from the ICD-9 coding system to the more complex ICD-10 system has gone more smoothly than many professionals have expected.
Originally, the ICD-10 coding system was planned to be implemented in 2009 but several delays and issues had pushed the implementation to October 2015 last year. This delay, however, has given sufficient time to organizations to prepare for the transition from ICD-9 to ICD-10 in order to comply with the standards set by the World Health Organization.
Despite the delays and its extended time for preparations, the transition to the ICD-10 coding system has had its issues from debates and acceptance by other regulatory health organizations in its worldwide accreditation.
Hospitals have started preparing for the coding transition by dual coding under both the ICD-9 and ICD-10 conventions. Ever since the implementation of ICD-10, the healthcare centers have been an approximate 20% decrease in coder productivity.
This is however, one of the rare cases where the new ICD-10 coding system has actually been at a loss. Overall, the reviews about the new coding system and its implementation have been positive. According to one member of the CMS, the ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance Committee held its first meeting in March, 2016 after the implementation of the ICD-10. In the meeting, the coding system was deemed as an overall success.
Conclusively, the ICD-10 coding system has had its positives and negatives ever since its implementation. It has cost extensive amounts of money and time for healthcare providers but it has also benefitted them in numerous ways. In the future, it is expected that the ICD-10 coding system will prove to be an efficient, reliable solution for healthcare worldwide.