Updated on: November 21, 2016

ICD-10 Dual Coding Bill Introduced

By
Original story posted on: July 10, 2015

A bill to provide a safe harbor period for the transition from ICD-9 to ICD-10 by allowing healthcare providers to submit claims in both ICD-9 and ICD-10 was introduced today in the House.

Today’s action caps a week of policy flurry and set off with the announcement on Monday of an agreement reached between the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the American Medical Association, calling, in part, for a 12-month grace period for inaccurate ICD-10 code use. 

 

H.R. 3018, the Code-FLEX act, provides for a period of dual coding for six months. The bill was introduced by Reps. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Tom E. Price (R-N.C.).

“The Code-FLEX act would give physician practices much-needed flexibility and provides a window of time to address inevitable system issues,” said Robert Tennant of the Medical Group Management Association. “This would ensure that claims are processed and paid in a timely manner and that physicians would continue to be able to provide care to their patients.” 

Tennant told ICD10monitor in an email that the bill provides for a period of dual code use for six months, stressing that the bill is not a delay, as it would permit those providers who are ready to start submitting 10 codes on Oct 1. to do so.

Could provisions of this latest bill be incorporated into a new policy by the CMS, as was case with H.R. 2247, that allowed 12 months of unspecified codes, that made its way into Monday’s announcement by CMS?

“They could certainly do that without being required to by Congress,” said Tennant, adding that the agency did so in 2012 “with the exact same policy (glide path for six months when both 4010 and 5010 claim formats were permitted).”

To date there have been three bills introduced to either repeal ICD-10 or provide a transition period. The latest, H.R. 3018, offers dual coding.

“We can’t do both ICD-9 and ICD-10 at the same time,” warned Stanley Nachimson of Nachimson Advisors. “I don’t think it has much of a chance of going anywhere.”

Follow ICD10monitor and Talk Ten Tuesdays for more information on this developing story.

Disclaimer: Every reasonable effort was made to ensure the accuracy of this information at the time it was published. However, due to the nature of industry changes over time we cannot guarantee its validity after the year it was published.
Chuck Buck

Chuck Buck is the publisher of ICD10monitor and is the executive producer and program host of Talk Ten Tuesdays.

Related Stories

  • Coding Clinic Advice Highlights from Second Quarter
    Guidance and advice effective with discharges occurring on and after June 21, 2019. The American Hospital Association (AHA) Coding Clinic for ICD-10-CM/PCS for the second quarter of 2019 was released last month, and there are some interesting topics and guidance within…
  • How Voice Recognition Can Go Wrong?
    “Let me count the ways.” EDITOR’S NOTE: Dr. Remer reported on this topic during the most recent edition of Talk Ten Tuesdays. I have been doing a project evaluating emergency department documentation, and many of the emergency providers utilize voice…
  • Are HIM Coding Professionals Qualified to Query for Clinical Validity? Part III
    Progress has been noted on this issue since first reported last July by ICD10monitor. Since the last Talk Ten Tuesday’s segment in August 2018 about whether HIM Coding Professionals are qualified to query for clinical validity, I am happy to…