Cyclo, I'm not sure why you think Hokie is wrong; he's more knowledgeable about health care than most of us on a2k, because he "works" in the industry.
Conflict deepens over kids' health bill
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent 1 hour, 10 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - In a deepening conflict with the White House, Democrats pushed a revised children's health bill through the House on Thursday but lacked the votes to overcome a threatened second straight veto by President Bush.
The vote was 265-142 on a bill so politically charged that one Republican bluntly accused Democrats of timing the events to dovetail with attack ads planned by organizations supporting the legislation.
"They won't take yes for an answer," retorted Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, as Democrats vehemently denied the charge. He said the legislation included changes demanded by GOP critics of the earlier vetoed bill, including one to prevent illegal immigrants from gaining benefits.
The measure now goes to the Senate.
cicerone imposter wrote:Cyclo, I'm not sure why you think Hokie is wrong; he's more knowledgeable about health care than most of us on a2k, because he "works" in the industry.
I don't know about most of a2k, but certainly more so than you. And why the quotes around work? If you are questioning, specifically, I work for Cerner. It's too bad you didn't come to the annual Cerner Health Conference we hosted a few weeks ago... you may have learned something.
And for knowing more about health care than I, you're batting about. .500.
In my world, that's failure.
cicerone imposter wrote:And for knowing more about health care than I, you're batting about. .500.
In my world, that's failure.
I imagine you get a lot of that in your world.
Not really; I meet up with people like you about once in every two thousand people or so.
cicerone imposter wrote:Not really; I meet up with people like you about once in every two thousand people or so.
Well that's nice. If you're done bashing and making your snide comments, perhaps you would care to make a comment that's on the topic?
Just responding in kind. To you, I'm not up to par on health care issues. Many on this thread have already shown your statements to be in error on health care issues. Your pedestal has been broken a long time ago; you just haven't noticed.
cicerone imposter wrote:Just responding in kind. To you, I'm not up to par on health care issues. Many on this thread have already shown your statements to be in error on health care issues. Your pedestal has been broken a long time ago; you just haven't noticed.
In kind? Was my previous comment somehow degrading to you? I don't see that. In either case, many on this thread haven't shown anything I've said to be in error. You, despite your constant search for refuting information, have come up short each time you've tried. Though, that doesn't stop you from inserting your own words into report where it isn't up to the task. I seem to remember how you claimed I was an idiot for claiming that ICD-9 is used for billing simply because I didn't specify which volume of the code values are used - though you had no idea what it was until you googled it. You are trying hard to dismiss my comments because I don't provide you 110% of the information YOU need to understand. That's not my burden.
I mean, if I hadn't googled it - I had declared someone who said the ICD-9 was still used, an idiot as well.
(ICD-11 meanwhile is [unofficially, though] used, but ICD-10 is out since the early 90's - in my classes at university, my students used the ICD 10 since ... 1992) :wink:
Walter Hinteler wrote:I mean, if I hadn't googled it - I had declared someone who said the ICD-9 was still used, an idiot as well.
(ICD-11 meanwhile is [unofficially, though] used, but ICD-10 is out since the early 90's - in my classes at university, my students used the ICD 10 since ... 1992) :wink:
And you can call me an idiot all you want, but the ICD-9
IS used.
I can tell you for a fact that 30% of that a minimum of 30% of the larger organizations in the USA use the ICD-9. I know that because those are the codes we provide them for their databases.
ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM: Implementation Issues and Challenges
Anita Hazlewood, MLS, FAHIMA, RHIA, University of Louisiana at LaFayette
Background
ICD-9-CM is the United States' modification of the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, developed by the World Health Organization. It is the most universally applied classification system for coding diagnoses, reasons for healthcare encounters, health status, and external causes of injury. The regulations regarding electronic transactions and code sets promulgated under HIPAA designate ICD-9-CM as the medical code set standard for diseases, injuries, or other encounters for healthcare services.
In testimony before Congress in May 2002, Sue Prophet, AHIMA's director of coding policy and compliance, testified that "AHIMA believes that adoption of a replacement for the ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes is an absolute necessity, as ICD-9-CM is more than 20 years old (implemented in 1979) and has become outdated and obsolete." 1
cicerone imposter wrote:ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM: Implementation Issues and Challenges
Anita Hazlewood, MLS, FAHIMA, RHIA, University of Louisiana at LaFayette
Background
ICD-9-CM is the United States' modification of the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, developed by the World Health Organization. It is the most universally applied classification system for coding diagnoses, reasons for healthcare encounters, health status, and external causes of injury. The regulations regarding electronic transactions and code sets promulgated under HIPAA designate ICD-9-CM as the medical code set standard for diseases, injuries, or other encounters for healthcare services.
In testimony before Congress in May 2002, Sue Prophet, AHIMA's director of coding policy and compliance, testified that "AHIMA believes that adoption of a replacement for the ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes is an absolute necessity, as ICD-9-CM is more than 20 years old (implemented in 1979) and has become outdated and obsolete." 1
What is your point? So this lady thinks they're out dated - big deal. They are still in use, like it or not. Is this another one of your lame attempts to prove me wrong?
USAFHokie80 wrote:Walter Hinteler wrote:I mean, if I hadn't googled it - I had declared someone who said the ICD-9 was still used, an idiot as well.
(ICD-11 meanwhile is [unofficially, though] used, but ICD-10 is out since the early 90's - in my classes at university, my students used the ICD 10 since ... 1992) :wink:
And you can call me an idiot all you want, but the ICD-9
IS used.
If you would kindly read what I've written:
Walter Hinteler wrote:I mean, if I hadn't googled it - I had declared someone who said the ICD-9 was still used, an idiot as well.
Again:
I noticed after googling that the ICD-9 is still used in the USA.
Btw: the first computer software for ICD-10 - in German - was published in the mid 90's.
Walter Hinteler wrote:USAFHokie80 wrote:Walter Hinteler wrote:I mean, if I hadn't googled it - I had declared someone who said the ICD-9 was still used, an idiot as well.
(ICD-11 meanwhile is [unofficially, though] used, but ICD-10 is out since the early 90's - in my classes at university, my students used the ICD 10 since ... 1992) :wink:
And you can call me an idiot all you want, but the ICD-9
IS used.
If you would kindly read what I've written:
Walter Hinteler wrote:I mean, if I hadn't googled it - I had declared someone who said the ICD-9 was still used, an idiot as well.
Again:
I noticed after googling that the ICD-9 is still used in the USA.
Btw: the first computer software for ICD-10 - in German - was published in the mid 90's.
we provide the software for several hospitals in germany. we also have hospitals in france, spain, india, australia, england, maylasia and many other countries - 20 in all. we do use ICD-10 codes for european clients, but the US uses ICD-9 and so that is what we provide.
Well, I don't and didn't doubt that.
Again: I only found out after googling that the ICD-9 is still in use. (We wondered about this already in the 90's.)
On the other hand, when you produce software for European universal mandatory healthcare - you really should know a bit more that.
(The OPS-2007/2008, which is used for surgery etc in hospitals according to the ICD-10 and the actual health care regulations must be a bit confusing, though :wink: )
Walter Hinteler wrote:Well, I don't and didn't doubt that.
Again: I only found out after googling that the ICD-9 is still in use. (We wondered about this already in the 90's.)
On the other hand, when you produce software for European universal mandatory healthcare - you really should know a bit more that.
(The OPS-2007/2008, which is used for surgery etc in hospitals according to the ICD-10 and the actual health care regulations must be a bit confusing, though :wink: )
The software is based on a database and aliased. We don't need to make special considerations for which coding systems are used. It's basically plug-n-play. Oh, and as far as the surgical codes - I'm not intimately familiar with them as I am not on the team that produces them.
Actually, the thing that gave us the most trouble with germany was the enormous words! The applications are layed out in english and then they use an internationalization translation file to display in other languages. But some of the words in english are very short and then in german were very long. This caused layout issues at first. :-)
Quote: This update includes data for ICD-9-CM diagnosis and procedures codes for the year 2008. ICD-9-CM 2008 update information was obtained from the following documents, which were obtained from NCHS, CMS, and the Federal Register:
At least you have information that's not widely known.
Who knows about ICD-9 version 2 except those in the medical-insurance field?
