IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

cicerone imposter wrote:

Who knows about ICD-9 version 2 except those in the medical-insurance field?

it's not a new version. it's just updates to the current version. new procedures and diagnoses added. these updates happen a few times a year.

oh, and cerner isn't in the "medical-insurance" industry. we are a medical technology provider. the only thing we have to do with insurance is the automation and streamlining of the billing process. we are actually leading a movement to change the way insurance is handled. our ceo says that he hopes that in the future we can do away with insurance companies (as they exist today). specifically, we use a clinic model based on an integrated EMR system. the patient carries a debit-type card that he uses to check into the clinic. this card also acts as an HSA debit card to pay for medical needs as well as store the insurance information for the patient. this would eliminate the need for the long waits for payments and the disputes about whether or not a claim is covered. all of this would be handled in real-time before the patient ever leaves the office.

0 Replies

Why then have ICD-10s and 11s?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Why then have ICD-10s and 11s?

Couldn't tell you. I don't know why a new library is needed either unless it has something to do with the organization of the diagnoses and procedures - which is very possible. ICD-9 is worlds better than LYNX and SNOMED for that reason. The latter two do not inherently display any sort of organizational structure. ICD does. A general diagnosis will have a code lik e 799.00. More precise or descriptive diagnoses of the same thing will have the decimals filled out - such as 799.02.

0 Replies

The ICD "provides codes to classify diseases and a wide variety of signs, symptoms, abnormal findings, complaints, social circumstances and external causes of injury or disease".

And since that changes constantly, it's constantly re-written (e.g. new chapters, de-organised etc) - since the first ICD came out in ....

ICD-1 - 1900
ICD-2 - 1910
ICD-3 - 1921
ICD-4 - 1930
ICD-5 - 1939
ICD-6 - 1949
ICD-7 - 1958
ICD-8 - 1968
ICD-9 - 1979
ICD-10 - 1992 (officially 1994)

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

The ICD "provides codes to classify diseases and a wide variety of signs, symptoms, abnormal findings, complaints, social circumstances and external causes of injury or disease".

And since that changes constantly, it's constantly re-written (e.g. new chapters, de-organised etc) - since the first ICD came out in ....

ICD-1 - 1900
ICD-2 - 1910
ICD-3 - 1921
ICD-4 - 1930
ICD-5 - 1939
ICD-6 - 1949
ICD-7 - 1958
ICD-8 - 1968
ICD-9 - 1979
ICD-10 - 1992 (officially 1994)

my point was that it can (and is) simply be updated and have new code added. there is no need for an entirely new "version"

0 Replies

Until now, the new versions differed totally - as does the ICD-11 as far I a followed the discussions and what has been published so far.

(The difference between ICD-9 and ICD-10 is really great - just comapre some chapters especially in psychiatric.)

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

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?

All too often, you prove yourself wrong...You don't need anyone to do that.

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:
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?

All too often, you prove yourself wrong...You don't need anyone to do that.

I'm not even sure what to say to this. Walter has looked it up and said he found that we still use ICD-9. I've posted proof that hospitals in the US are currently using ICD-9 databases in their computer systems. So, how exactly am I wrong ?

0 Replies

ICD-9 or whatever, our society (the most powerful in history) can make decisions on it's priorities and some of us think total medical care is a priority and some do not. The difference is in one's values of what we should be doing.

0 Replies

"Forms" do not replace the attending physician.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

... The difference is in one's values of what we should be doing.

Very true. Some think a person should provide for him or herself, while others think each person is entitled to be "taken care of by the Governement".

In other word, there are those for WELFARE and those who aren't for WELFARE...

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

Very true. Some think a person should provide for him or herself, while others think each person is entitled to be "taken care of by the Governement".

In other word, there are those for WELFARE and those who aren't for WELFARE...

So you think, universal health care is "welfare"? I pay my insurance fees any month as does everyone else, even those "on welfare".

0 Replies

That's the primary misconception of universal health care; people think it's a total welfare system, and it's not.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

That's the primary misconception of universal health care; people think it's a total welfare system, and it's not.

Total welfare system? Who thinks that?

In Massachusetts, we have Universal Health Coverage. Some individuals are covered by the welfare portion ( medicaid), while others are covered by Medicare and still others by private insurance.

Thus, only those on WELFARE ( medicaid ) are in the WELFARE system.

So, there isn't total welfare in the Massachusetts system, is there?

0 Replies

how is it that the universal health care systems are not largely welfare based? if we mandate that every person must have health insurance, then what of the people who insist they are too poor to pay for it, but whom do not qualify for medicare/medicaid? they will have to be paid for by the gov't. or, i suppose we could force them to buy their own insurance - but we know that won't really work.

0 Replies

under the ontario health insurance system , the premium is based upon annual income . my premium is deducted every month by my former employer from my pension payment .
at year-end my i calculate the total premium payable from a simple table and any adjustments are made at that time .
anyone not having a regular pay/pension income , such as self-employed , make the payments when they make quarterly interim tax payments .
those not having any taxable income , do not have to pay the premium - no income tax = no health premium . it's pretty simple imo .
hbg

0 Replies

that would be simple. but that would leave far too many people not paying into the system. i like the idea presented in the last plan where the funding is generated from an increased sin tax. given that smokers and drinkers have higher rates of illnesses related to this, it seems only fair that they help shoulder the burden of the cost of treatment.

0 Replies

Quote:

that would be simple. but that would leave far too many people not paying into the system. i like the idea presented in the last plan where the funding is generated from an increased sin tax. given that smokers and drinkers have higher rates of illnesses related to this, it seems only fair that they help shoulder the burden of the cost of treatment.

we certainly have plenty of SIN TAXES that flow into the health-insurance fund .
since people with low incomes - many of them seniors - do not pay income taxes , i can't see how they can pay a health-insurance premium unless they are given some additional money . it would just be extra administration costs to first give them the money and then collect the premium imo .
by including them in the health-insurance plan , they can get the same health care as any other citizen - the physician doesn't know and doesn't care if you have paid a premium in any particular month .
the patient may have paid into the fund for a long time while working but may later not have had to pay into it because of lower income or loss of job .
the physician receives the same amount of money whether he/she treats a prince or pauper - doesn't have to worry about getting paid .
if low-income citizens had no insurance , they would not be able to afford primary health-care and would cost additional monies once they appear in the ER when they are really sick - better to treat as many people as possible up-front imo - it saves money .
hbg

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

how is it that the universal health care systems are not largely welfare based? if we mandate that every person must have health insurance, then what of the people who insist they are too poor to pay for it, but whom do not qualify for medicare/medicaid? they will have to be paid for by the gov't. or, i suppose we could force them to buy their own insurance - but we know that won't really work.

Again to explain how it works here (simplified):
- if employed with earnings below a set incomelimit, you pay half the insurance contributions as an employee, and your employer pays the other half.
- the poor, the unemployed, and the elderly get their fees completely or partly paid by those organisation they get their money from.

(Btw: only about a quarter of persons with incomes above the income limit choose to purchase private health insurance.)

0 Replies

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know