Re: WhyYouShouldCare: Major Changes in Medical Bil... - Page 4

Mustang Shar · ‎03-24-2010

@Reba055 wrote:
Omg this is ridiculous! More bureaucratic BS to further bog down the system. This isn't necessary. What are they going to do with the additional info? They already can't oversee and manage the fraud going on now and it's much simpler. Who's going to pay for managing all this as well as educating users? Lord help us all.

My understanding of this very delayed change was granted to us so we could plan for the enormity of CODES. Codes that identify specifics such as fell down stairs at residence, severed tendon at work with power equipment, never smoked, smoked but quit. Things of that nature.

Europe has been using the codes for quite awhile and I think USA is the last to implement it. So we are way behind.

Mustang Shar · ‎03-24-2010

@Bird mama wrote:
Yea, ICD-10 is so radically different than ICD-9 I barely recognize it. I've been in health insurance for nearly 35 years and the new stuff looks Greek to me.

Omg, you too? LOL, I was in it 30+ years and retired before this hit the fan!!! The books were handed out to us and my jaw just dropped...holy cow! It's great for injury information, but the poor billers trying to code ...no way!

Im so glad I'm out of there!

SaRina · ‎04-17-2015

@Yumagirl wrote:
I'm a NP and I can tell you, these codes are a pain! Large institutions have coders, but we do our own. I had to code bug bites today. Probably 50 choices! All the changes have slowed down and frozen my computer.

I would agree that 50 choices for "bug bites" is absurd. You can probably get away with 2 choices - poisonous bug bite, non-poisonous bug bite, for example.

But going back to my previous post where my second (bogus) co-pay had a code that indicated a specific specialist -- that was certainly not enough. A particular condition should have been specified.