I found this from an AP article and I started to smile like the dude in the picture. The title of the piece is More precise medical codes aim to track quality of care. Really? Is that what it is going to do? My issue is that the layman will read this and think that the ICD-10 codes were created to improve care. There is no proof of that. Sure, it states “the government says the long-awaited change should help health officials better track quality of care, spot early warning signs of a brewing outbreak or look for illness or injury trends” but who believes the government. Once again, this is just conjecture and this conjecture is costing a lot of money and time.
Luckily, however, we have the AAFP to protect its members who have been screaming about this ICD-10 conversion:
Might patients see an uptick in insurance denials for coding errors that require the doctor’s office to refile the claims? Dr. Robert Wergin, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, is optimistic that providers are ready enough that patients shouldn’t feel an impact.
“Sitting in the room with a patient, I don’t think you’ll notice anything,” Wergin said.
His 10-doctor practice in rural Milford, Nebraska, has updated the electronic medical records of patients with chronic diseases, so the next time the diabetic with early kidney disease comes in, that new code is one less thing to check.
Most doctors’ offices only use several dozen codes anyway, to match each specialty’s typical diagnoses, Wergin noted. “Really, I probably live in a world of 140 codes.”
Wow, the prez of the AAFP just threw his peeps under the bus. It’s hilarious. And this is the dude signing the letters to me to get me to rejoin. Ha!