ICD 9 is the current version and is a coded list of diagnoses. ICD 10 would be an upgrade to that. The reason given is cost.
In their Press Release the AMA states:
The AMA House of Delegates voted today to work vigorously to stop
implementation of ICD-10 (The International Classification of Diseases
and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision), a new code set for medical
diagnoses. ICD-10 has about 69,000 codes and will replace the 14,000
ICD-9 diagnosis codes currently in use. "The implementation of ICD-10 will create significant burdens on the
practice of medicine with no direct benefit to individual patients'
care," said Peter W. Carmel, M.D., AMA president. At a time when we are
working to get the best value possible for our health care dollar, this
massive and expensive undertaking will add administrative expense and
create unnecessary workflow disruptions. The timing could not be worse
as many physicians are working to implement electronic health records
into their practices. We will continue working to help physicians keep
their focus where it should be – on their patients." A 2008 study found that a small three-physician practice would need
to spend $83,290 to implement ICD-10, and a 10-physician practice would
spend $285,195 to make the coding change.
This is a change from the AMA's recent support of the current administration in all their efforts. Hopefully we can see a continued set of efforts in this direction.
Posts
