How was Day 1 of ICD-10?
Here in PCC land, it was largely uneventful, which is just what we hoped for. Life is almost always better when you get to say, “That wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be.”
Don’t get me wrong, we’re not out of the woods, yet. First,we didn’t really expect problems at the submission level. It’s possible, of course (that’s what happened with the imms codes, originally). I don’t know how many people realize this, but PCC is effectively a clearinghouse. About 10K claims pass through our hub daily and we’re able to catch issues with claim submission quite quickly. This morning, our claims crew found a few tiny things – a practice here, a practice there – and it was always something unique and easily fixed. Uneventful.
Second, we should remember that many, if not most, of the claims coming through yesterday were ICD-9. Most of our clients have a 1-3 claim delay set to help maintain their 99% clean claim rate. By this time next week, we’ll really be seeing the ICD-10s. But we did see them yesterday and today and things look good. As we learn of anything, we will share it.
Finally, we all know that the Boss Level is when the claims start getting paid – or not, as the case may be. Our support team is already hearing rumors and whispers about various coding combinations, so we decided to create THIS FORM. In about 30 seconds, you can share with us any information you have about particular payers and their ICD-10 requirements. We’re going to take the entries, review them, and share them publicly for everyone to read. You don’t need to be a PCC client, you don’t need to give your name or ID. Just answer a few quick questions about something the payers told you and we’ll do the rest.
I don’t know how well this project will work and we also know it’s temporary, but you can’t succeed if you don’t try.
Back to work, ICD-10 isn’t going to make the sky fall.