4 ms·

You don’t need arbitrary codes to get statistics for something that can be typed in a description field.

paulddraper 3y ago
You don't need to type arbitrary descriptions for something that can be a standardized code.
vanattab 3y ago
Well the codes are just a standard way to enter the data so you don't have x reports of "duck bite" and y cases of "bitten by duck" or "mallard bite"
owenmarshall 3y ago
Speaking as someone who has seen the inside of an EHR system, their data models, and what data actually ends up stored there: lmao
petsfed 3y ago
I've spent a lot time around people doing statistics for environmental science, especially regulatory compliance around accidentally killing birds and bats. The unfortunate reality for the statisticians is that every tech thinks they're Henry David Thoreau or something. Like, nobody cares if it was a particular large exemplar of a given species, or that it had magnificent plummage, just write down the species of the carcass and where it was located, and move on. Instead, there's so much variance from (mass produced and standardized) data sheet to data sheet that you can't even use hand writing recognition to automate the process of ingesting the data. Manually entering the data is somebody's whole job, because they've tried to automate it, and failed. The billing codes exist explicitly to limit the amount of independent thought that can be applied to something that is adequately summarized as "bit by a duck, third visit".
- marvin 3y ago
  What if it was a lemur, though? Bet they don't have a code for that.
  - webnrrd2k 3y ago
    According to Google, it's: 2023 ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Code W55.81XA Bitten by other mammals, initial encounter
  - skylanh 3y ago
    The codes are possibly (also) related to incidents that CDC or other organizations would like statistics on. Lemur's aren't common, ducks are, and "Chlamydia psittaci in ducks: a hidden health risk for poultry workers" is (via https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25854003/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25854003/)
- CogitoCogito 3y ago
  > The billing codes exist explicitly to limit the amount of independent thought that can be applied to something that is adequately summarized as "bit by a duck, third visit". None of this explains why these codes are needed for billing though. We simply don't need to bill differently for these pieces of information. The visit might have all these tags for informational purposes, but the bill should be for "visit to GP" and that's it.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    That doesn't make sense, it's easy to imagine that subsequent visits will cost slightly different amounts in terms of resources, labour, etc... and require somewhat different procedures in terms of treatment.
    - CogitoCogito 3y ago
      Your position is kind of ridiculous. That applies to every single business ever and yet magically hospitals can't get by without itemizing _everything_? Of course not. Besides nowhere but in the US is this normal, which alone demonstrates your claim that somewhat different procedures _require_ this to be totally false. The only reason that hospitals in the US get away with it is because of the ludicrous agreements that you sign when arriving (you agree to pay whatever magical amounts we decide to bill you...). If those contracts were unenforceable (as they should be), hospitals wouldn't come up with this idiocy and would charge things simpler and would tell you ahead of time what your cost will be.
      - MichaelZuo 3y ago
        Have you never seen or heard of anyone getting seriously bitten by an animal before? It's not at all some mystery or make-work that the initial and subsequent visits for treatment will differ somewhat, do you not believe this?
  - petsfed 3y ago
    The application is so misunderstood that I called them billing codes, when these are in fact diagnosis codes. They exist primarily to simplify records transfer when you go to a new clinic/hospital/doctor/whatever, and secondarily to allow the NIH to track how a given health risk develops over time.

You don't need to type arbitrary descriptions for something that can be a standardized code.

Well the codes are just a standard way to enter the data so you don't have x reports of "duck bite" and y cases of "bitten by duck" or "mallard bite"

owenmarshall 3y ago

Speaking as someone who has seen the inside of an EHR system, their data models, and what data actually ends up stored there: lmao

petsfed 3y ago

I've spent a lot time around people doing statistics for environmental science, especially regulatory compliance around accidentally killing birds and bats. The unfortunate reality for the statisticians is that every tech thinks they're Henry David Thoreau or something. Like, nobody cares if it was a particular large exemplar of a given species, or that it had magnificent plummage, just write down the species of the carcass and where it was located, and move on. Instead, there's so much variance from (mass produced and standardized) data sheet to data sheet that you can't even use hand writing recognition to automate the process of ingesting the data. Manually entering the data is somebody's whole job, because they've tried to automate it, and failed. The billing codes exist explicitly to limit the amount of independent thought that can be applied to something that is adequately summarized as "bit by a duck, third visit".

marvin 3y ago
What if it was a lemur, though? Bet they don't have a code for that.
- webnrrd2k 3y ago
  According to Google, it's: 2023 ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Code W55.81XA Bitten by other mammals, initial encounter
- skylanh 3y ago
  The codes are possibly (also) related to incidents that CDC or other organizations would like statistics on. Lemur's aren't common, ducks are, and "Chlamydia psittaci in ducks: a hidden health risk for poultry workers" is (via https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25854003/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25854003/)
CogitoCogito 3y ago
> The billing codes exist explicitly to limit the amount of independent thought that can be applied to something that is adequately summarized as "bit by a duck, third visit". None of this explains why these codes are needed for billing though. We simply don't need to bill differently for these pieces of information. The visit might have all these tags for informational purposes, but the bill should be for "visit to GP" and that's it.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  That doesn't make sense, it's easy to imagine that subsequent visits will cost slightly different amounts in terms of resources, labour, etc... and require somewhat different procedures in terms of treatment.
  - CogitoCogito 3y ago
    Your position is kind of ridiculous. That applies to every single business ever and yet magically hospitals can't get by without itemizing _everything_? Of course not. Besides nowhere but in the US is this normal, which alone demonstrates your claim that somewhat different procedures _require_ this to be totally false. The only reason that hospitals in the US get away with it is because of the ludicrous agreements that you sign when arriving (you agree to pay whatever magical amounts we decide to bill you...). If those contracts were unenforceable (as they should be), hospitals wouldn't come up with this idiocy and would charge things simpler and would tell you ahead of time what your cost will be.
    - MichaelZuo 3y ago
      Have you never seen or heard of anyone getting seriously bitten by an animal before? It's not at all some mystery or make-work that the initial and subsequent visits for treatment will differ somewhat, do you not believe this?
- petsfed 3y ago
  The application is so misunderstood that I called them billing codes, when these are in fact diagnosis codes. They exist primarily to simplify records transfer when you go to a new clinic/hospital/doctor/whatever, and secondarily to allow the NIH to track how a given health risk develops over time.