Citing “ridiculous” ICD-10 diagnosis codes and the administrative burden of adopting them, a pair of bills introduced recently in the House and Senate would halt implementation of the ICD-10 code set and require a government study instead.
 
“Have you run into a lamppost? That’s ICD code W22.02XA,” begins Rep. Ted Poe (R-Tex), in a Dear Colleague letter. “If it’s the second lamppost you’ve run into, that’s ICD code W22.02XD,” he adds, in what has become a common misunderstanding among ICD-10 critics of how the codes should be applied.*
 
His bill, to repeal ICD-10 implementation, H.R. 1701, so far has 11 co-sponsors. The bill was introduced April 24 and referred to the House subcommittee on health.
 
Meanwhile, on May 16, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) introduced S.972, which would require use of the ICD-9 code set instead of ICD-10 in the HIPAA code set standards. That bill, which has three co-sponsors (including Sen. Rand Paul [R-Ky.] John Boozman [R-Ark.] and John Barrasso [R-Wyo.]), was referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.
 
“Not only is this a significant burden administratively on our medical professionals, but it’s also expensive,” Poe states in his letter. “Implementation is expected to cost between $83,000 and $2.7 million, depending on the size of the practice. To make it even worse, doctors face the threat of not getting paid for their service or being accused of fraud if they use the wrong 7-digit code,” he adds.
 
*Rep. Poe could use a few lessons on ICD-10 use himself. The “subsequent encounter” described by W22.02XD, refers to the patient’s subsequent encounter with a health-care professional, not a lamppost, as regular readers of DecisionHealth Daily – and DecisionHealth coding publications – well know.