3 ms·
Medical diagnosis codes are all about reimbursement. Doctors do not rely on coding so much as finance dept relies on coding. Proper coding means more $$, so ta
by criley2 10y ago
Medical diagnosis codes are all about reimbursement. Doctors do not rely on coding so much as finance dept relies on coding.
Proper coding means more $$, so talented dx coders are valuable.
Separating the code this way may not make sense medically, but it makes a lot more sense when you realize CMS or Blue Cross wants more coded granularity for automatic transmission of accurate financial information.
- matt4077 10y agoWhat does this have to do with anything? Is it just to inject a bit of cynicism? Because while there's certainly a lot to be gained by a bit of creativity with the coding, the first/subsequent encounter distinction is ill-suited, considering these are binary categories, and any mistakes/attempts to defraud can detected with an sQL query shorter than this paragraph. Concerning the original question: it's basically denormalized, with the usual tradeoffs. I'd guess it's easier to double the number of codes than to add a new attribute to legacy systems.
- manigandham 10y agoMedical codes date back before modern computer systems - this is what legacy process looks like.
- criley2 10y agoDx codes are a big part of my programming world, I work on medical software. Not trying to be cynical, just offering an insider perspective from someone who just helped hundreds of hospitals and thousands of agencies complete the ICD-10 switch seamlessly with no rejected 485s, no rejected 837I(5010)s or other payer rejections. Not trying to be cynical, just trying to offer a view into the requirements set before me.