“Hurry up and wait,” is the theme of U.S. healthcare’s advance from ICD-9 to ICD-10 transactions. A new bill introduced before the U.S. House on May 12, 2015, which actually calls for an ICD-10 transition period, has some in the industry wondering if this indicates another delay will occur in the ICD-10 implementation deadline. However what the bill, H.R. 2247, actually proposes is a longer transition period during which errors will not be considered fraudulent. A key aspect of this new bill is that it would provide a “safe harbor” period for healthcare providers. After all, a significant increase in specialized knowledge encompassing clinical information codes is required for success in ICD-10 coding. Yet, a transition period also creates a broader window during which there would be a higher potential for fraudulent claims. After so many delays, it isn’t surprising there is confusion. For more about the new bill, read the article, “New House Bill Calls for ICD-10 Transition Period, But Not a Delay” by Chris Dimick in Journal of AHIMA, May 13, 2015, found online here: http://journal.ahima.org/2015/05/13/new-house-bill-calls-for-icd-10-transition-period-but-not-a-delay/ The debate is covered in the Healthcare IT News article “Should HHS delay ICD-10 penalty for two years?” which can be read online here: http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/should-hhs-delay-icd-10-penalty-two-years For more about this issue and how your organization can be prepared to prevent revenue distuption, check out Finally Friday! “ICD-10 Possibilities: Delay, Transition, or Enforcement Moratorium?” This May 15, 2015 episode and its slides are online at appealacademy. com. Be sure to share your thoughts with this forum.