If you're looking for that clinching reason to finally kickstart the sprawling ICD-10 conversion, here it is: The longer you wait, and the nearer the deadline draws, the harder it may be to recruit workers with ICD-10 expertise.
As we saw in part 1, ICD-10: Putting more Americans back to work, ICD-10 holds promise to create new jobs for American healthcare IT professionals to implement the mandated code set between now and deadline day, October 1, 2013, as well as for those who can put the new codes into daily practice.
But will there be enough workers with ICD-10 know-how to fill those new roles?
“There's a fear in the industry that people with the expertise to implement ICD-10, do ICD-10 coding, there will not be enough of that expertise over the next couple of years,” says Stanley Nachimson, co-chair of WEDI's timeline initiative.
Jim Gibson agrees. As principal of Gibson Consultants, an executive search firm specializing in healthcare, Gibson explains that ICD-10 “by its nature creates a new type of talent, this expertise didn't exist shortly ago. It's supply and demand, and I don't think the supply will keep up with the demand.”
Calling ICD-10 “an unprecedented workforce training challenge,” the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics (NCVHS) pointed out that there's a “knowledge deficit in several key areas,” including: the complexity of the transition to ICD-10 code sets with respect to the impact on business operations, training and education; how and when to use the GEMs for ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM and PCS; the perceived need for an official, adopted, and mandated crosswalk between ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 code sets.
[Podcast: Understanding business impacts of HIPAA 5010 and ICD-10.]
Now, what that all means is that NCVHS, based on expert testimony, determined that healthcare organizations largely don't understand the many ways ICD-10 will change their business – or even how to move to the mandated code sets. “The massive change in the ICD-10 code set is something people are still unaware of,” WEDI's Nachimson adds.
Hence the job opportunities bound to crop up for people who already, or soon will, grasp ICD-10.
“As for the process of transitioning or converting, I have seen estimates as high as a 50 percent increase in staffing resources,” says Frank Reilly, senior consultant at the Hazen Group, a healthcare consultancy. “This is a temporary need, perhaps a year or so.”
Beyond implementation, based on other countries' experiences, U.S. providers would be wise to anticipate a 10-25 percent reduction in coder productivity, which “would indicate the need for more coders to keep up with a constant volume,” Reilly adds. “There's also the question about the need for increased skills, meaning not every current coder will easily make the transition to ICD-10.”
What's more, the knowledge deficit to which NCVHS refers means that training current and prospective employees for coding, documentation, software, and billing will be essential. “Organizations should plan to include appropriate training activities in their on-boarding processes to orientate new employees to their implementation activities and increase start-up productivity,” advises Tori Sullivan, manager in Capgemini's healthcare practice.
No shortcuts exist for training, implementation, and execution, all of which will be time-consuming and expensive. Likewise, finding professionals already seasoned in ICD-10 will prove challenging the closer that deadline comes.
“No matter how you slice it, it's likely to be a disruption, with some capitalizing on the opportunity and others becoming victimized by their own actions or inaction,” Gibson Consultants' Gibson adds, “and all will be chasing the talent.”
Tom Sullivan blogs regularly at ICD10 Watch.com
