CMS Issues ICD-9 to ICD-10 Transition Claims Instructions

CMS published a special MedLearn Matters article addressing ICD-9 to ICD-10 transition claims instructions. The article SE1325, addresses institutional provider which includes home health and hospice providers. Providers will be required to split claims so that all ICD-9 codes remain on one claim with Dates of Service (DOS) through September 30, 2014 and all ICD-10 codes placed on the other claim with DOS beginning October 1, 2014 and later. While the processing requirements for hospice should be clean because they bill on a monthly basis, home health has several challenges and issues to clarify.

Since home health does episodic billing, will all Medicare and Medicaid patients be required to be discharged and readmitted at their first billable visit on or after October 1, 2014? Under important details in the article, Note 1 states that “creating multiple/interim claims on a single encounter is not a new concept and that these instructions will apply to relatively few claims that span this single implementation date (October 1, 2014) will be impacted.” This could impact 1/6th of all claims for 2014 impacting over 1 million Medicare episodes alone, so this would not affect a “relatively few claims”.

There is a potential that CMS would fall back to the logic stated in Note 2 and treat the episode as a single service; however not likely because of the problems this causes. If an episode starts before October 1, 2014 and the resumption of care is completed after, which code set would you use? ICD-10 should be used, then the diagnosis data will not be consistent across the episode. If ICD-9 is used, then agencies will be required to code certain claims under each of the ICD data sets during an extended period. This would result in increased confusion amongst coders and potential errors.

CMS also needs to clarify which OASIS data set (M item), is tied to the DOS; M0030 (Start of Care (SOC) Date) or M0090 (Date Assessment Completed). CMS has implemented different program changes based on each item depending on the circumstance. M0030 makes sense except in the case of recertification, since that is not used. M0090 can be beneficial, as it allows a few days of wiggle room around the October 1st implementation date. In the case of SOC, this would allow for SOC to be completed as early as September 27th, considering that October 1st will occur mid-week. This could be helpful especially if all Medicare and Medicaid patients will need to be discharged and readmitted.

Either scenario would not be pleasant. Ideally, there should be a 60 day window on either side of October 1, 2014 to allow for entering ICD-9 or ICD-10 codes. This would put the burden on the government. The agencies would have the ability to do what is best for their staff and the patients. The government would need to handle processing both types of claims during this time.  This would decrease the burden on the agencies.  There has not been any talk of this and it does appear the burden will fall onto the agencies.



 

Proposed One Year Delay of ICD-10

As many of you may have heard, yesterday HHS announced a proposed rule that would delay the compliance date of ICD-10 for one year, from October 1, 2013 to October 1, 2014.

While we have stated our opposition to a delay, we are pleased that HHS has issued a proposed date so that people can move forward and properly plan with a new date in effect.

We also applaud HHS for addressing the added costs this delay will cause. They state a 1-year delay would add 10 to 30 percent to the cost—or $1 to 6.4 billion— for entities that have spent or budgeted for the transition. It’s disappointing that those who were properly preparing will incur these penalties, but what’s more of a concern is the message it sends about the ability to procrastinate. While some organizations may think, “Why should we prepare early, we might get penalized,” that’s not a gamble we would want to take.

Despite the fact that groups like the AMA opposed ICD-10 because of it’s financial burden, HHS explains the reason for a delay is to allow ample time between implementation of Version 5010 (now going into effect June 2012), which is needed before ICD-10 can be implemented.

One thing is clear in the HHS proposal. They have no intent to completely kill ICD-10 and move to ICD-11. ICD-10 is coming, albeit a year later than anticipated, and organizations need to prepare.

What now? Organizations will need to re-evaluate their timelines. If you were behind the ball before, now is your chance to get on track. If you were already on track for the 2013 deadline, it doesn’t mean you can do nothing for the next 12 months. Spend the time improving on any weaknesses such as documentation by clinicians and work to cultivate relationships between clinicians and coders. Here are 10 more steps you can take to be properly prepared.

As always, we are here to help make the transition to ICD-10 as easy and pain-free as possible. We’re confident everyone can meet the final compliance date and it will make our healthcare system more efficient and cost effective.

Tell us in the comments, how do you feel about the one year delay?

Ten for 10: The Top Ten Reasons We Need ICD-10 Now

Many industry groups including ourselves, AHIMA and HIMSS are spreading the word out about why ICD-10 should not be delayed. Why is ICD-10 so necessary? This list of reasons, courtesy of AHIMA, shows why we need to implement ICD-10 as soon as possible:

1) It Enhances Quality Measures. Without ICD-10 data, serious gaps will remain in the healthcare community’s ability to extract important patient health information needed for physicians and others to measure quality care.

2) Research Capabilities Will Improve Patient Care. Data could be used in a more meaningful way to enable better understanding of complications, better design of clinically robust algorithms, and better tracking of the outcomes of care. Greater detail offers the ability to discover previously-unrecognized relationships or uncover phenomenon such as incipient epidemics early.

3) Significant Progress Has Already Been Made. For several years, hospitals and healthcare systems, health plans, vendors and academic institutions have been preparing in good faith to put systems in place to transition to ICD-10. A delay would cause an unnecessary setback.

4) Education Programs Are Under Way. To ready the next generation of HIM professionals, academic institutions have set their curriculum for two-year, four-year and graduate programs to include ICD-10.

5) Other Healthcare Initiatives Need ICD-10. ICD-10 is the foundation needed to support other national healthcare initiatives such as meaningful use, value-based purchasing, payment reform, quality reporting and accountable care organizations. Electronic health record systems being adopted today are ICD-10 compatible. Without ICD- 10, the value of these other efforts is greatly diminished.

6) It Reduces Fraud. With ICD-10, the detail of health procedures will be easier to track, reducing opportunities for unscrupulous practitioners to cheat the system.

7) It Promotes Cost Effectiveness. More accurate information will reduce waste, lead to more accurate reimbursement and help ensure that healthcare dollars are used efficiently.

If ICD-10 is delayed...

8) Resources Will Be Lost. For the last three years, the healthcare community has invested millions of dollars analyzing their systems, aligning resources and training staff for the ICD-10 transition.

9) Costs Will Increase. A delay will cause increased implementation costs, as many healthcare providers and health plans will need to maintain two systems (ICD-9 and ICD-10). Delaying ICD-10 increases the cost of keeping personnel trained and prepared for the transition. Other systems, business processes and operational elements also will need upgrading. More resources will be needed to repeat some implementation activities if ICD-10 is delayed.

10) Jobs Will Be Lost. To prepare for the transition, many hospitals and healthcare providers have hired additional staff whose jobs will be affected If ICD-10 is delayed.

And Finally...


We Can’t Wait for ICD-11. The foundations of ICD-11 rest on ICD-10 and the foundation must be laid before a solid structure can be built. ICD-11 will require the development and integration of a new clinical modification system. Even under ideal circumstances, ICD-11 is still several years away from being ready for implementation in the United States.

Tell us what you think of this Top 10 List. Do you agree? Or do you think ICD-10 should be delayed? We welcome your comments.

Our Response to ICD-10 Delay

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced on Thursday that they plan to delay ICD-10. With no specifics on what this delay will entail, it’s causing a lot of confusion and speculation about what is to come. We feel it was very irresponsible for HHS and the Obama Administration to make those statements without giving a clear plan. 

As we stated back in November when the AMA began opposing ICD-10, we disagree with a delay. We firmly believe conversion to ICD-10 is long overdue and delaying it will only increase health care costs and the burden on everyone.

We are very disappointed with HHS’ decision, which contradicts everything they have been saying. On CMS’ November 17^th national provider call, representative Pat Brooks said, “This is a firm implementation date, and there will be no delay.” CMS and HHS have been adamant all along that there would not be a delay. In turn, the health care community has spent a lot of time and money investing in new processes and systems. By going back on their statements, they are continuing to lose credibility.

Vendors, as well as publishers, educators, colleges, consultants, and many others, have already spent millions of dollars getting ready for conversion. It has even spurred job creation— for example new positions like ICD-10 Project Manager.  Even health care providers like hospitals and home care agencies have invested significant resources into the transition. With a delay, all of these groups will have to re-work what they've already done and it will cost more money. This added cost for vendors will be pushed down to providers, and then consumers. 

This decision also has a lot of political pressure and motives behind it. CMS’ Acting administrator Marilyn Tavenner made the announcement that they would re-evaluate the timeline at an AMA meeting. It’s important to note Tavenner is currently vying for the official appointment and AMA backed her nomination in November.

We’re also concerned about HHS’ use of the term "compliance" date, suggesting ICD-10 will be implemented per schedule, but providers will have a leeway period where they won't be found in non-compliance. In some instances a leeway period makes sense, for example with the new Face-to-Face requirements, claims were allowed to go through for three months after implementation.  But if this happens with ICD-10, it can be extremely harmful because vendors will have to work in two different sets of codes at once, in turn driving up costs and administrative burden even more.

While we anxiously await HHS’ new plan, we’ll continue our planning with the October 1, 2013 deadline in mind. We suggest no one stop in their preparations and hopefully we will quickly receive a revised plan from HHS.

Our hope is that the delay is brief because the shift to ICD-10 is a big step to improving health care in this country. It will make our healthcare system more efficient and cost effective and improve the level of care that this nation needs.

We're here to make the transition to ICD-10 pain-free and easy for home care agencies. Please contact us anytime to discuss how your organization can have a smooth transition.

Are your vendors prepared for ICD-10?

Are your vendors prepared for ICD-10? 

This question may be on your mind lately, which is a good thing. Making sure your vendors are prepared for ICD-10 is crucial and should be as soon as possible.

Unfortunately, many home care professionals can’t say that their vendors are prepared and ready for ICD-10. When we asked this question during our ICD-10 survey at the 2011 NAHC Annual Show, nearly half (46%) said “no” or “not sure” if their vendors are prepared.

We need to get this number way down. Talking to your vendors is one of the first things you should do in your ICD-10 planning to make for a smooth transition.

When you ask your vendors (point of care, EHR, billing, etc.) what they are doing to prepare, they should be able to tell you their clear plan leading up to implementation and how they will support you during the transition. If they cannot, you may want to consider an alternative vendor.

CMS has provided more detail on what specifics you should discuss with your vendors here.

And check out our helpful list of 9 other things you should be doing now to make for smooth transition.

How will ICD-10 affect productivity?

We’re back with more insights gleaned from our ICD-10 survey administered around the 2011 NAHC Annual Show.

Daymarck's Carie Wright (right)
surveying a home care professional
at NAHC 2011 in October.

One of our survey questions asked if you thought ICD-10 conversion would cause a decrease in productivity. 57% answered yes. And the average response of how long this decrease would last was 7 months.

The impact on productivity is one of, if not THE, biggest challenge of ICD-10 conversion. While there will be an initial learning curve and a need for a culture change that requires more specificity and communication, the impact on productivity can be minimized with proper planning and preparedness.

Agencies that have prepared for conversion well in advance should actually see a minimal impact on productivity. If an agency waits to the last minute however, this decrease can last even more than 7 months.

To help make sure you have a smooth transition with little impact on productivity, we’ve developed a helpful list of 10 things you should be doing now to prepare.

ICD-10 versus OASIS-C: Culture Change versus Process Change

When we asked home care professionals if they thought ICD-10 conversion would be more problematic than OASIS-C conversion in our latest survey, 58 percent answered yes. In fact, 25 percent said ICD-10 conversion would be extremely more problematic than OASIS-C.

We wholeheartedly agree and here’s why: 

Conversion to OASIS-C was a process change in which clinicians had to learn a new set of standardized questions. ICD-10 on the other hand will require a culture change— one where clinicians must increase their written, narrative descriptions when assessing a patient. It’s not a matter of what box do I check, but completely changing the way they document.

Currently, some agencies do great narrative summaries. These agencies will have less of a culture change, but will still need to change terminology and some focuses. Many agencies, however, do a poor job at documenting. They may not see the need for it and want to focus their time on the patients, not paperwork. These agencies will have the most difficult time, as they will need to learn to document more, spend more time and effort writing narratives, be more specific and use the right terminology.

Overall, ICD-10 will require much more training for all parties, and a lot further in advance than OASIS-C. It will cause a decrease in productivity, even for the most trained agencies, as they become more vigilant to make sure they are doing everything correctly.

While you can’t totally avert all the problems associated with ICD-10, with proper preparation, you can significantly offset them. With OASIS-C, many did no training whatsoever until just a couple months before. This can’t be done when instituting a cultural change. With proper planning and training, and by addressing any current documentation issues beforehand, you can tailor your ICD-10 training to address these issues so they don’t become a much larger problem after conversion.

To learn more about what you can do right now to prepare for ICD-10 conversion go to: 10 Things You Should Be Doing Right Now to Prepare for ICD-10.

10 Things You Should Be Doing Now to Prepare for ICD-10

As a remote coding agency focused on home care, we know and understand the importance of ICD-10 and its specific implications for home care agencies. We’ve been thinking about it since 2007. In fact, it was one of our reasons for starting Daymarck. Implementation may not be until October 2013, but home care agencies need to develop a plan now to make sure they are fully prepared.

Here are 10 things that you should be doing right now:

1)   Start talking to all your vendors (point of care, EHR, billing, etc.) to see what they are doing to prepare. They should be able to tell you their clear plan leading up to implementation.

2)   Take a look at any planned provider or system changes and decide if you should do them before, during or after ICD-10 implementation. Ask yourself how this change will be impacted by ICD-10.

3)   Identify your current coding work flow (who is doing how many codes) and what impact ICD-10 will have on it. Then decide what your new workflow process will be.

4)   Decide how you will train your staff on ICD-10. Will it be in-house or external? If you are a Daymarck customer, our training resources will be available to you so you don’t have to worry about this.

5)   Take a hard look at your personnel and determine if they are up to the challenge. This may mean you will need to hire new people or use an outside partner. Make sure your staff is committed to the change and not just doing it to keep their jobs.

6)   To ensure people are committed to the transition, communicate and start conversations about ICD-10 and its benefits and impact with your staff. Communicating with clinicians should be a very strong focus, as many are not up to speed on the necessity and reasoning for the change to ICD-10.

7)   Determine how ICD-10 will impact your budget. Budget constraints can include decreased productivity, training costs, and longer time getting Request for Anticipated Payments (RAPs) out meaning decreased cash flow.  For smaller agencies with limited cash flow, delays in getting RAPs out can be detrimental.

8)   Cultivate the relationship between coders and clinicians as ICD-10 will force them to work more closely together. Good relationship and communication between these two groups will help overcome decreased productivity. While these two groups may have different goals, encourage them to think of the big picture.  

9)   Decide how you will overcome a decrease in productivity. Our recent survey showed the average decrease will last 7 months. With decreased productivity and the same staff, you will either get less assessments out per day or force personnel to work longer hours which can lead to burnout. Have a plan to make sure both your staff is taken care of and your assessments are getting done.

10)Take a deep breath. It may seem overwhelming now, but with proper planning and communication, we’ll get through it together. And when it’s all said and done it will be great for the industry.

Help Home Care Help Healthcare

We hope this helps as you and your organization think about conversion to ICD-10. As a leader in the home care industry, we are dedicated to helping make home care a big part of the answer in solving our country’s healthcare challenges. This monumental shift to ICD-10 is a big step to improving our operations as an industry and will improve the level of care that this nation needs.

ICD-10 Survey

Please visit the results of our ICD-10 survey administered during the National Association for Home Care and Hospice Show in October 2011. It should give you more insight into the challenges and opportunities as we transition as an industry to ICD-10. Go to http://www.daymarck.com/icd10/.

Myth Dispelled: ObamaCare ≠ ICD-10

A recent Forbes article sheds even more light on a widespread ICD-10 myth: That ICD-10 is a product of "ObamaCare."

Although this is a common misperception, ICD-10 and Health Care reform (aka “ObamaCare”) are completely unrelated. ICD-10 conversion was decided upon by the Bush Administration in 2008. President Bush then granted a 2-year delay on implentation in his final days in office, delaying it from October 2011 to October 2013.

How common is this misunderstanding? We asked home care professionals if they thought the two were related in our ICD-10 survey at the 2011 National Association of Home Care and Hospice Annual Convention. Here's what they said:

• Nearly a third (32 percent) answered yes that Health Care reform and ICD-10 were related. 
• Another 29 percent said they were unsure. 
• The remaining 39 percent answered correctly, that the two were unrelated.

So what does this misconception mean for home care? That people are not well informed on the reasons for and long history behind ICD-10.  Without this knowledge, home care professionals may not take conversion seriously resulting in lack of preparation and decreased productivity.

Knowledge is power. So start having conversations at your agency about this myth and the reasons for ICD-10.

For more results of our ICD-10 survey go to: http://daymarck.blogspot.com/2011/11/icd-survey-results-are-in.html

Response to American Medical Association’s Opposition to ICD-10 Implementation

On November 15, 2011, the American Medical Association’s (AMA) House of Delegates voted to vigorously stop the implementation of ICD-10.

AMA president, Peter W. Carmel said, "The implementation of ICD-10 will create significant burdens on the practice of medicine with no direct benefit to individual patients' care. 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."

While we agree the transition to ICD-10 codes will be a major undertaking and result in added costs up front, our stance is that ICD-10 transition is both beneficial to the healthcare arena and long awaited. AMA stance that they are opposing this so physicians can keep their focus on the patients is not justified. While physicians have to document diagnoses for each patient encounter, this ultimately would not change the physicians focus on their patients.  They rarely are responsible for the final submission of codes prior to billing. This should be the responsibility of certified medical coders to ensure accuracy.

Several studies have been conducted weighing the costs and benefits of ICD-10 conversion. A study sponsored by the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics (NCVHS) and conducted by the RAND Corporation evaluated the cost of training, productivity loss and system changes versus the benefits of going to a “superior code” set[1]. It concluded that the benefits outweighed the costs associated. Benefits included those to providers such as more accurate payment and fewer rejected claims, as well as patient benefits including improved disease management and timelier intervention of emergent diseases, such as SARS, which cost the Asian economy more than $10 billion.

Additional reasons why transition to ICD-10 is crucial include:

·    Endorsed by the World Health Organization (WHO) all the way back in 1993, ICD-10 is currently used in all other industrial countries around the world. With all countries on the same system, the WHO and Center for Disease Control (CDC) can have more accurate and consistent health records which are critical to ensure the quality of care, sound management, health financing and administration of health systems.

·    Since the implementation of ICD-9 in 1979, many new diseases and diagnoses have been discovered. The current ICD-9 system of three-digit categories and no more than 10 subcategories can no longer accurately track why people seek medical treatment.

We urge the AMA to direct its attention to other pressing issues in the healthcare arena, and focus on solutions. One such issue is the current law that prohibits nurse practitioners and other advance practice providers from ordering and managing patients under home care.  There are currently bills in Congress (H.R. 2267) and Senate (S. 227) to amend this law, recognizing the shortage of primary care physicians and an aging population in need of chronic care. There have been other bills introduced in the 111^th Congress.  Both these bills died because they were not addressed before the end of session. The AMA has historically slowed progress of expanding the roles of nurse practitioners on both state and federal levels by consistently requesting additional studies and discussions on various NP issues.  Even when there is clear evidence based data showing expansion of the advanced practice nurse roles have significant cost benefits while delivering safe patient care. A recent study by Dobson, DaVanzo & Associates shows the cost savings over 10 years to be $309.5 million dollars to the Medicare system by using nurse practitioners to order and manage home care patients.[2] AMA’s official support of this overdue legislation would help facilitate getting these bills pushed through Congress and the Senate.

The second issue in need of the AMA’s attention is opposing Medicare Advisory Commission’s (MedPAC) recommendations to add copays to Medicare home care episodes.  Medicare home care service copays has been advanced in Congress as a means of deficit reduction as well as a means of limiting the growth of Medicare home health expenditures. Some Medicare Advantage (MA) plans have imposed home health copays. Copays are regressive, in-efficient and fall most heavily on the poorest and oldest Medicare beneficiaries.

The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (2010) recommended a uniform 20 percent copay and a uniform overall deductible of $550 for all Medicare services combined, including home health care. In January 2011 the MedPAC voted to recommend a home health copay (as much as $150 per episode) for episodes not preceded by a hospital or nursing home stay as a means to encourage beneficiaries to control utilization of care. Once again, the AMA’s strong opposition to these recommendations would have a larger impact on patient’s receiving care through proper healthcare access.

It is well accepted that ICD-10 will allow for quicker and larger medical care advancements. While the AMA may try to stop or delay ICD-10, we strongly believe it will and should be implemented. Health and Human Services (HHS) has already delayed implementation by two years to give institutions and providers additional time to prepare for this transition. We see a low probability, as well as little benefit, of it being delayed any further. AMA's opposition of ICD-10's implementation will only further delay the American healthcare industry from keeping up with the rest of the world.

---

[1] http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/2004/RAND_TR132.pdf

[2] http://www.congressweb.com/nahc/docfiles/20110923_Dobson.pdf

Many Clinicians Still Doing the Coding

In our recent survey of home care professionals about ICD-10 conversion, we asked who at your organization was doing the medical coding. Results showed that 23 percent of home care agencies still have clinicians assigning and sequencing diagnosis.

While this number seems to be slowly declining, it is still far too high. The problem with clinicians doing coding is that their main focus should be on patient care. They are dealing with compliance issues that relate to patient care, and shouldn’t be worried about coding compliance issues as well. Clinicians are also not certified and typically receive little orientation training on how to properly assign codes. This means more room for error and potential for inaccurate payments.

Coding in the home health arena is complex. Home health care coders must gather information for coding from multiple sources, be familiar with inpatient procedure codes, late effect codes, and know how to read discharge information, rehab reports and more. Home health coders are also responsible for coding both acute and post-acute diagnoses. On top of everything a clinician is doing every day to care for patients, this can be overwhelming and detrimental to agencies.

On top of these current challenges, these clinicians will have to learn a whole set of new codes for ICD-10 conversion. Significant time and costs will need to be allocated to get these clinicians properly educated on the new system. There is also a greater chance of decreased productivity if clinicians are wearing both hats. Our ICD-10 survey revealed 57% of people thought conversion would cause a decrease in productivity, with an average decrease lasting seven months. With clinicians doing coding, this could significantly increase the length of decreased productivity.

The benefits of lifting the burden off of clinicians and hiring coders or a remote coding firm are plenty. More accurate payments. Better patient care. Improved compliance. Less burn out on employees. Peace of mind.

And with ICD-10 approaching, what better time to make the switch?

ICD-Survey: The Results Are In

The results are here on the first ever ICD-10 survey dedicated to the home health community. We had more than 235 home care professionals—including clinicians, coders, and administrators from all types of organizations— give us their opinions about ICD-10 and let us know what they are doing to prepare. They responded to the survey either online or in-person at the NAHC Annual Convention between September 13- October 7, 2011.

What the survey responses revealed is that home health care professionals are unprepared for ICD-10 conversion in October 2013. 76 percent of respondents revealed they have either not begun planning for ICD-10 conversion or are in preliminary stages of planning. Just 3% said they have developed a formal plan and are beginning to implement.

Our survey also revealed 70% have not begun to train employees on ICD-10. Twenty five percent have begun to train just a few key staff members and only 2% have had mass training.

We think these results illustrate that many are either underestimating the significance of ICD-10 conversion or perhaps don’t have the necessary resources to take action. We’re at a time where it’s critical for home care organizations to be in full planning and preparing mode so they can combat the negative effects conversion will likely bring.

Other key findings of the survey include:

·      59% of respondents feel converting to ICD-10 will be more problematic than converting to OASIS-C. 55% of those respondents think it will be extremely more problematic.

·      57% of respondents feel ICD-10 will cause a decrease in productivity for both clinician and administrative staff. The average response for how long this decrease in productivity lasting was 7 months.

·      46% of respondents were either not sure or do not think their vendors are appropriately preparing for ICD-10 conversion.

The biggest challenge of conversion revealed by respondents was educating clinicians and providers on the needs for more specific documentation (46%), followed by learning and implementing ICD-10 sets (28%). The biggest benefit of ICD-10 revealed was more-accurate payment (56%), followed by improved disease management (39%).

Ken Hooper, a principal of HC Healthcare Consulting, commented on the results, saying, “These findings are not surprising nor inconsistent with hospitals, but they are worrisome because people are behind the power curve. I’d also be interested to see what respondents are considering ‘preliminary planning,’ which may only consist of reading something about ICD-10.”

Over the coming weeks, we will take a deeper dive into the results of each question, revealing the implications for the industry right here on our blog. We also plan to conduct future ICD-10 surveys to measure the progress of preparations leading up to conversion in 2013.                        


Thanks for everyone who participated! We hope ICD-10 conversion is as pain-free as possible for everyone. Contact us to discuss how we can help. 

NAHC Wrap-Up

We hope you’re back in the swing of things after the 30^th Annual NAHC Annual Convention in Las Vegas a couple of weeks ago!

Daymarck team at NAHC 2011

We don’t know about you, but we thought it was one of the best conferences yet. During our three days exhibiting, we met hundreds of home care professionals from across the country and in all facets of the industry. We introduced our Pain-Free answer to coding and OASIS review to many, and heard feedback from numerous happy customers (here’s a video of one such instance).

Director of Business Development, Carie
Wright, conducting an ICD-10 survey

One of our favorite parts of this year’s show was learning what you thought of ICD-10 through iPad surveys in our booth. More than 230 of you shared your opinions and told us what you are doing to prepare for conversion. The survey spurred lots of great discussion and confirmed ICD-10 will be an important issue for the homecare industry leading up to conversion in October 2013. Stay tuned for the results of the survey which will be posted later this month.

A big thanks goes out to all who we got to meet at NAHC this year. And for those who couldn’t make it, feel free to check out our event photos, as well as this video from the show floor.

Please don’t hesitate to contact us any time to learn more about ICD-10 or discuss your home care coding needs.

NAHC Annual Meeting is Almost Here- Will you be there?

The clock is winding down, and the 2011 NAHC Annual Meeting is almost here! We’re looking forward to meeting all the home healthcare professionals in Las Vegas in just a few short days.

If you’re attending the show, we hope you will take a minute to stop by our booth (#862) and learn more about Daymarck’s Pain-Free answer to OASIS review and home healthcare coding. 

While you’re there, we also invite you to fill out our quick survey about converting to ICD-10. By participating, you will be eligible to win one of six casino-grade poker sets (a $150.00 value). Not attending? Don’t worry; you can fill out the survey now here.

You can also help us raise money for the Caring Institute by becoming a fan of Daymarck on either Facebook or Twitter by the end of the show. We’ll donate up to $1,000 to this deserving organization!

For those attending, we look forward to seeing you in Las Vegas! And if you can’t make it, stay tuned here and on Facebook or Twitter for updates during and post-show.

What do you think of ICD-10?

There are many ICD-10 surveys out there, but none have focused on the home health community— until now.

We’re conducting an ongoing study of the home health community’s perceptions and preparations for the ICD-10 conversion, and want you to participate.  

By participating in our survey, you’ll be registered in a drawing for a 300-piece poker set, in honor of the National Association for Home Care (NAHC) Annual Conference in Las Vegas October 1-5, 2011.

This is the first survey (open between September 9, 2011- October 6, 2011) as part of our ongoing study leading up to implementation in October 2013.0

Share your opinions on ICD-10 here!

ICD-10 Creates Need for Coding Specialists

According to Government Health IT, a recent survey by the professional staffing firm TekSystems found that staffing topped the list of ICD-10 challenges.

Teksystems’ survey respondents, in fact, “overwhelmingly ranked” four jobs that will be most in-demand leading up to and beyond the October 1, 2013 ICD-10 compliance deadline.

1. ICD-10 project managers
2. Data architects
3. Software developers
4. ICD-10 coding specialists

The changeover to ICD-10 in 2013 will, not surprisingly, demand new skills for many employees.  And for some agencies, it might mean hiring new staff or finding a partner that understands the new regulations. Here at Daymarck, our coders stay up-to-date on all the changes in regulations, including ICD-10.

If you have questions about ICD-10 or wonder if you are prepared, please contact us. We make home care coding as pain-free as possible. 

Join us in San Diego for the 17th Annual NAHC Financial Management: July 13-15, 2011

By Nick Dobrzelecki RN, BSN
Daymarck CEO

We are thrilled to be exhibitors at this year’s National Association for Homecare & Hospice (NAHC) annual financial management conference in San Diego, CA, July 13-15, 2011. The conference provides financial management techniques and strategies to achieve success in the home care and hospice industry. Daymarck’s goal in exhibiting is to help attendees improve their bottom line by making home healthcare coding as pain-free as possible.

At last year’s conference, I met with hundreds of home healthcare senior management executives and other administration professionals. No matter who I talked to, the same concerns echoed throughout the event – folks are worried about how their organizations will adapt to the potentially turbulent changes in the regulatory environment with the transition to ICD-10. At Daymarck, we know it is harder and harder to stay profitable  - and that is where we can help. Our team of expert, certified coders stays up-to-date on ALL regulatory changes – including ICD-10- providing our clients with the confidence that we will deliver for you.

We will be at NAHC Financial again this year – and, in fact, are hosting the opening reception – and look forward to talking to each of you about how using a professional coding team can save your organization money. Daymarck will also release a case study at NAHC detailing how home healthcare agencies can be more efficient – allowing you to focus on what you do best – patient care and safety. 

I look forward to those conversations and seeing you at the opening reception.