You’ve heard the buzz, ICD-10 will be delayed a year now that President Obama has signed the bill. At Netsmart, we believe the delay to ICD-10 implementation simply forestalls the inevitable. All current activities from Accountable Care, Meaningful Use, and Mental Health Parity are based upon a shift from pay-for-quantity to pay-for-quality.
As we welcomed in 2014, we also said ‘Hello’ to the start of Meaningful Use Stage 2. The HITECH Act is now five years old. Over the next few weeks, I’ll be doing a deeper dive into some of the changes the 2014 criteria mandate. Note: All stage 1 certified solutions (also known as 2011 stage 1), expired 12/31/2013. This expiration requires your organization to upgrade to a 2014 Edition Certified EHR Technology (CEHERT). Continue reading Meaningful Use: How Do You Get It Right On The First Try?
June 18, 2012
was recently asked the following question:
There always seems to be an on-going debate in the market as it relates to Diagnosis. There is debate is between DSM-IV and DSM-V and in other instances, I hear people in the behavioral health industry lash out against ICD-9 vs. DSM. But what I do not understand is why the code set used to define the diagnosis is focused upon as the source of frustration. In my mind, these code sets are just a language used to describe/identify a diagnosis and rather than debate the issue of whether you can truly ever accurately diagnose a client with mental illness, it seems that people debate the language. In my mind, it is as though someone called me an “idiot” in French. Frankly, I do not rally against the French language, I take umbrage with the assessment that I am an “idiot.” I am sure I am missing something, but can you explain why the language used (DSM-V, ICD-9, DSM-V) makes such a difference to people in the market? Continue reading Diagnosis Code Debate