While other electronic health records (EHR) systems tout their ability to translate or somewhat narrow the number of ICD-10 codes you’ll have to select from, our Electronic Medical Assistant® (EMATM) is born ready with structured data that correctly generates ICD-10 codes right along with your exam notes and populates them onto the superbill.
No guesswork. No translations. No worry of rejected claims. Just tap, touch and you’re done. It’s that simple.
While many physicians across the country are scrambling, our users have peace of mind.
While the initial deadline for the ICD-10 transition was October 1, 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) gave providers a one-year grace period until October 1st, 2016. Now that this grace period has ended, however, your claims can potentially be denied or audited if you have submitted inaccurate or unspecified codes.
This can pose a big challenge to your practice’s workflow and financial outcomes. Can you risk using an EHR that could increase your chance of coding errors by relying on GEMs and translation tools that can slow down your entire process?
Only 5% of ICD-10 codes have equivalent ICD-9 codes, making exact 1:1 translations nearly impossible. If your EHR system uses GEMs or similar added-on translation software, you’ll add more steps, more clicks, more work and more time to find the right code. Added minutes and inaccurate codes cost you money.
ICD-9 has one code for insect bite. ICD-10 requires specificity in clinical documentation, turning one code for insect bite into 180. This makes translation tools a risky and time-consuming endeavor.
ICD-9 has been around for a long time, and the codes are innately short. Inevitably, you’ve memorized the ones that you use most. But before you plan on memorizing the ICD-10 codes like you did for ICD-9, consider the effort it would take to learn a new language. Both German and Spanish have fewer words than the new classification of codes. Plus, the new alphanumeric ICD-10 codes are far more complicated than what you have been accustomed to, making memorization especially challenging.
You have enough things to think about when treating patients. Coding shouldn’t be one of them.
“EMA is on top of ICD-10. The coding is well-built into the system. I look forward to ICD-10 being very easy and not having to look at a book to figure out what code I need.”
“The billing features in EMA are very accurate and reliable. EMA basically tells you why the code was generated and definitely adds assurance to my billing.”
“With EMA Ophthalmology, it’s amazing how it codes automatically and all of the data points are positioned with the appropriate number of diagnoses. I’m glad I have EMA Ophthalmology.”