It is often argued that ICD-10 coding does nothing for the patient. Recently that point was made at the U.S. House Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Health hearing “Examining ICD-10 Implementation” last week.
Frank Irving, editor of Medical Practice Insider, reported that Dr. John Hughes, a professor at Yale School of Medicine, argued that data collection through ICD-10 could lead to better patient care.
But Rep. Larry Bucshon, R-Indiana, pushed back on that point. He disagreed with Hughes’ example of collecting data from a patient with a vascular injury. “How does that impact that patient’s medical care?” he asked.
Hughes agreed it wouldn’t have any impact. He stressed that the accumulation of ICD-10 data would be useful.
Bucshon hit the point again. There would be no direct effect on patient care in the short run.
Since Bucshon was a vascular surgeon, I wonder if he would agree that eating a half pound of bacon for breakfast would have no direct effect on a patient’s health in the short run.
Let’s try another analogy.
Since Bucshon is a politician, I wonder if he would agree that voting would have not direct effect on a citizen’s well being in the short run. It’s only one vote that doesn’t affect the outcome of an election by itself. So why bother?
Physicians often have to look at medicine through different lenses. Their view goes from the patient encounter level to the worldwide research level. To now argue that the only view that matters is the one focused on patient counters seems disingenuine.
Of course it’s a way to connect with the non-healthcare professionals. Explain how they relate to the problem. Create a little fear.
Despite that point and better points he made about the cost of ICD-10 implementation to small medical practices, Bucshon was basically supportive of it.