Implementing the new ICD-10 procedural and diagnostic codes, which the CMS says must happen by Oct. 1, will be more expensive than previously estimated, according to new research. But costs will vary widely depending on practice circumstances.
Implementing the new ICD-10 procedural and diagnostic codes, which the CMS says must happen by Oct. 1, will be more expensive than previously estimated, according to new research. But costs will vary widely depending on practice circumstances.
The American Medical Association-funded report was written by consultants Carolyn Hartley, president and CEO of the Physicans EHR, and Stanley Nachimson, principal for Nachimson Advisors. The report updates Nachimson's widely quoted 2008 estimates, which the new report acknowledges were calculated when “no actual implementation experience existed” and before the health information technology industry received an infusion of billions of dollars from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009.
In 2008, Nachimson estimated ICD-10 implementation costs at $83,290 for small practices, $285,195 for medium-sized practices and more than $2.7 million for large ones.
Read the full story here: http://bit.ly/1bFrHaD
Source: Modern Healthcare
AI Meets Medicare: Inside CMS’s WISeR Model With Sanjay Doddamani, MD, MBA, Part 2
August 5th 2025In this second part of his interview with The American Journal of Managed Care®, Sanjay Doddamani, MD, MBA, a former senior advisor to CMMI and founder and CEO of Guidehealth, continues a dialogue on the future of value-based care and the promise—and limits—of AI-enabled innovation, reflecting on challenges like rising Medicare costs and patients’ growing financial burdens.
Read More
A meta-analysis showed that control group outcomes in psilocybin trials for depression were significantly weaker than those in selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) and esketamine trials, suggesting that psilocybin’s large observed treatment effects may be inflated by methodological factors such as functional unblinding and expectancy bias.
Read More