3 ms·
Contributing reason, sure, but main reason makes no sense.
by BugsJustFindMe 15d ago
Contributing reason, sure, but main reason makes no sense.
- pas 15d agoapparently there's an ICD code for it i guess if someone gets a meltdown (mental breakdown) after losing a lot of money
- BugsJustFindMe 15d agoThat definitely still seems like contributing. Also, the ICD ontology specifically exists for billing purposes and isn't the same as patient diagnostic classification, though there is overlap and people do mistakenly use it as such sometimes. But there's a difference between "emergency visit for X" (treat X) and "emergency visit because of X" (treat Y proximal to X). (I also edited my original comment to include this last part, since it seems likely to create confusion)
- pas 15d agothere's a difference in semantics between clinical reason and billing, agreed, though it seems that the news article did not sensationalize the study, and the study uses at least one valid code that can be a primary reason for a visit, and while I'm absolutely just a random dog on the internet, for me the overlap in meaning seems significant to warrant the use of this term. https://icdlist.com/icd-10/F63.0 https://icdlist.com/icd-10/F63.0 https://icdlist.com/icd-10/Z72.6 https://icdlist.com/icd-10/Z72.6 "The code is not accepted as a principal diagnosis "
- deleted 15d ago[deleted]
- nyeah 15d agoMaybe. On the other hand it's common for genuine medical problems to 'make no sense' to a layperson. That tradition goes back thousands of years.