Electronic Health Records

Policy & Regulation News

CMS Clarifies Flexibilities After ICD-10 Compliance Deadline

By Kyle Murphy, PhD

- The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has provided clarification concerning its joint announcement with the American Medical Association (AMA) on flexibilities following the October 1 ICD-10 compliance deadline.

CMS clarifies the flexibilities it will provide following the ICD-10 compliance deadline

On Monday, the federal agency released answers to numerous frequently asked questions in response to feedback from members of the healthcare industry.

First and foremost, CMS reiterates in the FAQs that the July 6 announcement in no way signifies another ICD-10 delay.

"Medicare claims with a date of service on or after October 1, 2015, will be rejected if they do not contain a valid ICD-10 code," the federal agency states. "The Medicare claims processing systems do not have the capability to accept ICD-9 codes for dates of service after September 30, 2015 or accept claims that contain both ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes for any dates of service. Submitters should follow existing procedures for correcting and resubmitting rejected claims."

  • How to reduce meaningful use complexities for EHR adoption
  • Mount Sinai Medical Center wins Enterprise HIMSS Davies Award of Excellence
  • School health information exchange off to slow start in PA
  • Federal Agencies Accredited for Health Information Exchange
  • Why disruption needs to be avoided in healthcare analytics
  • eClinicalWorks to Pay $155M for EHR Certification Allegations
  • Are Meaningful Use Incentives Worth a Provider’s Investment?
  • HalfPenny offers latest Meaningful Use Tool Kit
  • Cerner Makes Key Revenue Cycle Management Hire
  • Why clinical quality measures are necessary
  • What’s next after Mostashari’s last day at the ONC?
  • EHR-Based Reminders Quickly Improve Medication Adherence
  • Can Japan Turn “Medical Receipts” into a Nationwide HIE?
  • Selling, scaling telehealth services for widespread adoption
  • iPad mini fits pockets, budgets, and mobile EHR needs
  • Five Senators Call for Greater EHR Interoperability Guidance
  • Top 8 Goals of Stage 3 Meaningful Use Proposed Rule
  • Stakeholders Seek Common Changes to Quality Payment Program
  • NJ Health System Selects Cerner EHR for System Implementation
  • Alarm simplification can avoid fatigue, boost patient safety
  • Which providers have most benefited from EHR incentives for Medicare?
  • How Most Office-Based Physicians Utilize Health Data Exchange
  • Greenway is first ambulatory HIT vendor to join Healtheway
  • Pennsylvania eHealth Collaborative extends DIRECT grant
  • Doubts Raised about 21st Century Cures Act Interoperability
  • NYeC, Healtheway develop HIE interoperability certification
  • ICD-10 Coding Concerns Dispelled with 5 CMS Facts
  • Could Goal-Directed EHR Functionality Optimize Health Outcomes?
  • Hospitals Use EHR Interoperability to Boost Care Coordination
  • Why don’t first responders have instant access to EHRs?
  • Bloated healthcare costs raise EHR concerns
  • ONC Offers Recommendations for Safe, Effective Health IT Use
  • Clinical documentation in the EHR
  • Is your hybrid EHR-paper workflow putting patients at risk?
  • Oregon Health System to Go Live With $79.5M Epic Implementation
  • Certifying EHR for the future of meaningful use: ICSA Labs Q&A
  • Myriad Resources Devoted to Patient Engagement Improvements
  • What Vitera’s acquisition of SuccessEHS means to providers
  • ONC Chief Science Officer Fridsma to depart federal agency
  • 3.2% of Hospitals Now Meet HIMSS Stage 7 EMRAM Standards
  • ONC Declares Winning Solutions of Health IT Innovation Challenge
  • Wake Forest has another rocky quarter after EHR implementation
  • Meaningful Use Requirements Won’t Ensure Interoperability
  • ICD-10 implementation timeline for small and medium practices
  • NFL team tackles concussions with EHRs, portable imaging tech
  • EHR-based order sets: 7 methods for successful development
  • Is MACRA the “Burning Platform for Progress” in Healthcare?
  • How Will Direct Continue to Advance Health Data Exchange?
  • FHIR Testing Expands with Cloud-based Approach
  • athenahealth Mobile App Offers Clinicians Drug Therapy Resources
  • Group Seeks Changes to Meaningful Use EHR Certification
  • Parents want email chat with docs, but don’t want to pay
  • CHIME Commends CMS QPP Proposed Rule, AMGA Voices Criticism
  • Surescripts adds 12 Epic health systems to clinical network
  • Early Praise for CMS Proposed Rule to Promote Interoperability
  • NQF Framework Aims to Improve Interoperability Measurement
  • AMIA Seeks Overhaul of Clinical Quality Measure Guide
  • 42% of Healthcare CIOs List Patient Matching Issues a Top Priority
  • How EHRs can promote safety of medical devices using UDIs
  • Cancer Screening Test Vendor to Launch Epic EHR Implementation
  • $23 billion EHR market will continue growth with replacements
  • MiHIN pilots PHI network for meaningful use patient engagement
  • Breaking Down How the Apple Health Records EHR Data Viewer Works
  • Interoperability, Better Functionality Top EHR Replacement Factors
  • Marilyn Tavenner’s Exit from CMS Brings Praise, Speculation
  • Tight CEHRT deadlines will cause Stage 2 meaningful use woes
  • Patient engagement a priority for AHIMA at annual convention
  • FDA recognizes need for medical device interoperability standards
  • Social Security Joins CommonWell’s Push for Interoperability
  • Direct messaging enhances Kansas HIE
  • Analyzing a doctor’s dissenting opinion on EHR value
  • IHE, PCHAlliance to Launch Joint Interoperability Initiatives
  • Critical access hospitals still facing EHR adoption challenges
  • What’s so important about thinking beyond ICD-10 compliance?
  • AMIA Urges FDA Improve Clinical Decision Support Regulation
  • ONC: EHR Satisfaction, Interoperability Vital for Patient Safety
  • Worrisome lack of coding accuracy in ICD-10 National Pilot
  • NIST Offers Guidance for Securing Patient EHRs on Mobile Apps
  • AHIMA: Revenue, readiness remain among top ICD-10 concerns
  • EHR Use, Administrative Burden Accelerating Physician Burnout
  • How’s payment reform changing the traditional revenue cycle?
  • 41% of Organizations Are Not Reimbursed for Telehealth Services
  • Outdated IT delays ACOs, pay-for-performance models for payors
  • Awarding of DoD EHR Modernization Contract Forthcoming
  • What are Potential Benefits, Challenges of HIE Use?
  • 71% of safety net patients want email, texts, and portals
  • St. Vincent Medical, IHIE Partner for EHR Interoperability
  • Does EHR design limit the critical thinking of physicians?
  • Alaska, Other States Recognized for ONC HIE Milestones
  • DirectTrust Seeks Changes to ONC Health Data Exchange Framework
  • New Stoltenberg program aims at rural providers
  • Telehealth for chronic disease patients improves satisfaction
  • Survey: Measuring the return on investment in clinical IT systems
  • CHIME $1M Challenge Pushes for National Patient Identifier
  • Stage 2 Meaningful Use clinical quality measures for eligible professionals
  • HIE Partnership to Improve Health Data Exchange of Imaging
  • EHR System Customization Benefits Patient-Centered Medical Homes
  • Utah continues outreach in wake of health data breach
  • UPDATE: Final Rule for Meaningful Use Modifications Under Review
  • 4 Ways to Reduce EHR Use-Related Patient Safety Threats
  • Of particular importance to healthcare organizations and providers is what constitutes a valid ICD-10. CMS has furnished them with an answer:

    ICD-10-CM is composed of codes with 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 characters. Codes with three characters are included in ICD-10-CM as the heading of a category of codes that may be further subdivided by the use of fourth, fifth, sixth or seventh characters to provide greater specificity. A three-character code is to be used only if it is not further subdivided. To be valid, a code must be coded to the full number of characters required for that code, including the 7th character, if applicable. Many people use the term billable codes to mean valid codes. For example, E10 (Type 1 diabetes mellitus), is a category title that includes a number of specific ICD-10-CM codes for type 1 diabetes. Examples of valid codes within category E10 include E10.21 (Type 1 diabetes mellitus with diabetic nephropathy) which contains five characters and code E10.9 (Type 1 diabetes mellitus without complications) which contains four characters.

    A complete list of the 2016 ICD-10-CM valid codes and code titles is posted on the CMS website at http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coding/ICD10/2016-ICD-10-CM-and-GEMs.html. The codes are listed in tabular order (the order found in the ICD-10-CM code book). This list should assist providers who are unsure as to whether additional characters are needed, such as the addition of a 7th character in order to arrive at a valid code.

    According to the FAQs, CMS will specify whether a claim is rejected for an invalid code versus a lack of specificity required for Local Coverage Determinations (LCD) or National Coverage Determinations (NCD). CMS has warned that the guidance will not result in changes to current automated claim processing edits, meaning that certain ICD-10 codes would be rejected if "not consistent with an applicable policy."

    Regarding Medicaid, CMS notes that added ICD-10  flexibility only applies to Medicare fee-for-service claims. However, the Medicaid programs in each state will be "required to process submitted claims that include ICD-10 codes for services furnished on or after October 1 in a timely manner."

    Additionally, CMS makes clear that 12-month one-year period of claims payment review leniency in no way guarantee that commercial payers will follow suit.

    Read all the FAQs here.



    Sign up to continue reading and gain Free Access to all our resources.

    Sign up for our free newsletter and join 60,000 of your peers to stay up to date with tips and advice on:

    EHR Optimization
    EHR Interoperability

    White Papers, Webcasts, Featured Articles and Exclusive Interviews

    Our privacy policy

    no, thanks

    Continue to site...