Icd 10 Research Paper

The ICD-10 switch went live on October 1st and we are now left assessing which predictions were on the money, which missed the mark, and which effects are currently impacting the system the most.
Before the compliance deadline, many compared ICD-10 to Y2K and HIPAA 5010 that came before it. Many possessed an almost apocalyptic mentality and expected the worst. Presently, however, it appears as if ICD-10 has been similar to Y2K only in the sense that their courses of action have run in a similar fashion: both have passed with a few hiccups along the way, but relatively smoothly and insipidly.
While many in the industry are surprised to see that the nightmare scenario they anticipated has not occurred, some significant issues have emerged. Some of these issues including: long wait times for billers, lack of customer service personnel training, a

With the number of codes increasing from 14,000 to 70,000, the demand for coders and billing personnel has increased and exceeds local demand. Many healthcare organizations recently have contracted with coding vendors to provide ICD-9 coding assistance, in part to allow in-house coders to undergo ICD-10 training and participate in dual coding. However, It is still unclear how coding professionals and vendors will be impacted long-term by the implementation.
According to Forbes, the ICD-10 switch for providers has been better than expected. Despite an August 2015 WEDI Survey that said one in four doctor practices weren’t ready for the October 1 transition to ICD-10, insurers are happy with what they are seeing so far. Both UnitedHealth and Humana are reporting on smooth rollouts. Humana has reported that only 0.03 % of all calls from providers were regarding benefits, claim status, spanning date of service, and authorization. United similarly reported that call volumes from providers have been “normal” with only a “slight uptick” in claim