HHS Releases a Proposed Rule for ICD-10 Go-Live October 2014

Today HHS announced a proposed rule (complete rule here – 175 page pdf) that would delay the go live for ICD-10 from October 1, 2013 to October 1, 2014. What follows are excerpts from the proposed rule.

Why Has HHS Proposed a Change to the Live Date for ICD-10-CM and ICD-10-PCS?

The final rule adopting ICD-10-CM and ICD-10-PCS (collectively, “ICD-10”) as HIPAA standard medical data code sets was published in the Federal Register on January 16, 2009. The ICD-10 final rule requires covered entities to use ICD-10 beginning October 1, 2013.

In late 2011 and early 2012, three issues emerged that led Secretary of HHS Kathleen Sebelius to reconsider the compliance date for ICD-10:

1. The industry transition to Version 5010 did not proceed as effectively as expected;
2. Providers expressed concern that other statutory initiatives are stretching their resources; and
3. Surveys and polls indicated a lack of readiness for the ICD-10 transition.

The Transition to Version 5010

As the industry approached the January 1, 2012 Version 5010 compliance date, a number of implementation problems emerged, some of which were unexpected. These included–

• Trading partners were not ready to test the Version 5010 standards due to vendor delays in delivering and installing Version 5010-compliant software to their provider clients;
• Version 5010 errata were issued to correct typographical mistakes and other maintenance issues that were discovered as the industry began its internal testing of the standards, which delayed vendor delivery of compliant products and external testing;
• Differences between address requirements in the “provider billing address” and “pay to” address fields adversely affected crossover claims processing;
• Inconsistent payer interpretation of standard requirements at the front ends of systems resulted in rejection of claims, as well as other technical and standard misinterpretation issues;
• Edits made in test mode that were later changed when claims went into production without adequate notice of the change to claim submitters; and
• Insufficient end to end testing with the full scope of edits and business rules in place to ensure a smooth transition to full production.

Given concerns that industry would not be compliant with the Version 5010 standards by the January 1, 2012 compliance date, the HHS announced on November 17, 2011 that they would not initiate any enforcement action against any covered entity that was not in compliance with Version 5010 until March 31, 2012, to enable industry adequate time to complete its testing and software installation activities. On March 15, 2012, this date was extended an additional 3 months, until June 30, 2012.

The ICD-10 final rule set October 1, 2013 as the compliance date, citing industry testimony presented to NCVHS (National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics) and many of the over 3,000 industry comments received on the ICD-10 proposed rule.

The analysis in the ICD-10 final rule with regard to setting a compliance date emphasized the interdependency between implementation of ICD-10 and Version 5010, and the need to balance the benefits of ICD-10 with the need to ensure adequate time for preparation and testing before implementation.

As noted in the ICD-10 final rule, “[w]e cannot consider a compliance date for ICD-10 without considering the dependencies between implementing Version 5010 and ICD-10. We recognize that any delay in attaining compliance with Version 5010 would negatively impact ICD-10 implementation and compliance.” (74 FR 3334) Based on NCVHS recommendations and industry feedback received on the proposed rule, we determined that “24 months (2 years) is the minimum amount of time that the industry needs to achieve compliance with ICD-10 once Version 5010 has moved into external (Level 2) testing.” (74 FR 3334) In the ICD-10 final rule, we concluded that the October 2013 date provided the industry adequate time to change and test systems given the 5010 compliance date of January 1, 2012.

As implementation of ICD-10 is predicated on the successful transition of industry to Version 5010, we are concerned that the delays encountered in Version 5010 have affected ICD-10 planning and transition timelines.

Providers have Expressed Concern that Other Statutory Initiatives are Stretching Their Resources

Since publication of the ICD-10 and Modifications final rules, a number of other statutory initiatives were enacted, requiring health care provider compliance and reporting. Providers are concerned about their ability to expend limited resources to implement and participate in the following initiatives that all have similar compliance timeframes:

1. The EHR Incentive Program was established under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, a part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-5). Medicare and Medicaid incentive payments are available to eligible professionals and hospitals for adopting electronic health record (EHR) technology and demonstrating meaningful use of such technology. Eligible professionals and hospitals that fail to meaningfully use EHR technology could be subject to Medicare payment adjustments beginning in FY 2015.
2. The Physician Quality Reporting System is a voluntary reporting program that provides incentives payments to eligible professionals and group practices that satisfactorily report data on quality measures for covered Physician Fee Schedule services furnished to Medicare Part B Fee-for-Service beneficiaries.
3. The eRx Incentive Program is a reporting program that uses a combination of incentive payments and payment adjustments to encourage electronic prescribing by eligible professionals. Beginning in 2012 through 2014, eligible professionals who are not successful electronic prescribers are subject to a payment adjustment.
4. Finally, section 1104 of the Affordable Care Act imposes additional HIPAA Administrative Simplification requirements on covered entities.

January 1, 2013
•    Operating rules for eligibility for a health plan and health care claim status transactions

December 31, 2013
•    Health plan compliance certification requirements for health care electronic funds transfers (EFT) and remittance advice, eligibility for a health plan, and health care claim status transactions

January 1, 2014
•    Standards and operating rules for health care electronic funds transfers (EFT) and remittance advice transactions

December 31, 2015
•    Health plan compliance certification requirements for health care claims or equivalent encounter information, enrollment and disenrollment in a health plan, health plan premium payments, health care claims attachments, and referral certification and authorization transactions

January 1, 2016
•    Standard for health care claims attachments •    Operating rules for health care claims or equivalent encounter information, enrollment and disenrollment in a health plan, health plan premium payments, referral certification and authorization transactions

Proposed October 1, 2014
•    Unique health plan identifier

Current State of Industry Readiness for ICD-10

It is crucial that all segments of the health care industry transition to ICD-10 at the same time because the failure of any one industry segment to successfully implement ICD-10 has the potential to affect all other industry segments. Ultimately, such failure could result in returned claims and provider payment delays that disrupt provider operations and negatively impact patient access to care.

In early 2012, it became evident that sectors of the health care industry would not be prepared for the October 1, 2013 ICD-10 compliance date. Providers in particular voiced concerns about their ability to meet the ICD-10 compliance date as a result of a number of factors, including obstacles they experienced in transitioning to Version 5010 HIPAA Requirements from the Affordable Care Act and the other initiatives that stretch their resources. A CMS survey conducted in November and December 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the CMS readiness survey) found that 26 percent of providers surveyed indicated that they are at risk for not meeting the October 1, 2013 compliance date.

Given the evidence that segments of the health care industry will likely not meet the October 1, 2013 compliance date, the reasons for that likelihood, and the likelihood that a compliance date delay would significantly improve the successful and concurrent implementation of ICD-10 across the health care industry, we are proposing to extend the compliance date for ICD-10.

One-Year Delay Justification

The HHS is proposing to extend the compliance date for ICD-10 for 1 year, from October 1, 2013 to October 1, 2014. This change would be reflected in the regulations at 45 CFR 162.1002. While a number of alternatives were considered for the delay, as discussed in the Impact Analysis of this proposed rule, it is believed a 1-year delay would provide sufficient time for small providers and small hospitals to become ICD-10 compliant and would be the least financially burdensome to those who had planned to be compliant on October 1, 2013.

To determine the new compliance date for ICD-10, the need for additional time for small providers and small hospitals to become compliant was balanced with the financial burden of a delay on entities that have developed budgets and planned process and system changes around the October 1, 2013 compliance date. Entities that have started planning and working toward an October 1, 2013 implementation would incur costs by having to reassess and adjust implementation plans and maintain contracts to manage the transition beyond October 1, 2013. We concluded that a 1-year delay would strike a reasonable balance by providing sufficient time for small providers and small hospitals to become compliant and would minimize the financial burden on those entities that have been actively planning and working toward being compliant on October 1, 2013.

Finally, in its March 2, 2012 letter to the Secretary on a possible delay of the ICD-10 compliance date, the NCVHS urged that any delay should be announced as soon as possible and should not be for more than 1 year. The NCVH made this recommendation in consideration of its belief that a delay would cause a significant financial burden “that accrues with each month of delay.”

The HHS believes that a 1-year delay would benefit all covered entities, even those who had are actively planning and striving for a 2013 implementation. A 1-year delay would enable the industry as a whole to test more robustly and implement simultaneously, which would foster a smoother and more coordinated transition to ensure the continued and uninterrupted flow of health care claims and payment.

Therefore, the HHS is proposing that covered entities must comply with ICD-10 on October 1, 2014.

 Bonus: Some Interesting Data I Found in the ICD-10 Proposed Rule:

• The total number of health care claims in 2013 is projected to be 5.8 billion.
• The cost to health plans for manually processing a pended claim is $2.30 per claim.
• According to the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), the staff time required to manually process a returned claim is 15 minutes, at a cost of approximately $4.14 for labor, a factor derived from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This includes staff time spent to correct the error and resubmit claims that are returned.
• Using the experience of one university’s bachelor’s-level health information management program, students take the ICD coding course in the spring of their junior year. Students enrolling in Spring 2012 courses will graduate in May 2013. Anticipating the October 1, 2013 compliance date, the university started offering ICD-10 courses this spring in place of ICD-9 with the understanding that it will be preparing students for employment after graduating in 2013. If ICD-10 is delayed a year, as proposed in this rule, the 30 students in the program will have to take ICD-9 courses in addition to their ICD-10 courses in order to obtain the ICD-9 competencies to get jobs. The extra course will cost each of the 30 students approximately $2,000 (in-state tuition) or a total of $61,000.
• Total cost of a 1-year delay in the compliance date of ICD-10 = $3,808M (mean average)
• According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Detailed Statistics, 2007 Economic Census, there are approximately 220,100 physician practices.. The U.S. Census Bureau data indicates that two percent of physician practices have revenues of $10 million or more, therefore approximately 4,400 physician practices are not small entities.
• According to the Small Business Administration’s size standards, a small entity is defined as follows according to health care categories: Offices of Physicians are defined as small entities if they have revenues of $10 million or less; most other health care providers (dentists, chiropractors, optometrists, mental health specialists) are small entities if they have revenues of $7 million or less; hospitals are small entities if they have revenues of $34.5 million or less.
• The 2007 Census Bureau reports that there are approximately 6,500 hospitals. The data indicates that 85 percent of hospitals have sales/receipts/revenues of $10 million or more.
• Statistics cost of delaying ICD-10 to 2014 were based on:
• Physician practices with less than 50 physicians = 233,239
• Physician practices with 50 to 100 physicians = 590
• Physician practices with more than 100 physicians = 393
• Hospitals with less than 100 beds = 2757
• Hospitals with 100 to 400 beds = 2486
• Hospitals with more than 400 beds = 521

 

Haven’t Started Your ICD-10 Preparations Yet?

Start your plan by reviewing the resources below:

• Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) ICD-10 overview
• American Health Information Management Association (AIHMA) ICD-10 implementation
• American Academy of Professional Coders (AAPC) ICD-10 implementation

 

Manage My Practice offers ICD-10 transition help to physician practices, focusing on documentation improvement to support ICD-10 coding. For more information, please complete the contact form here.