Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dybdahl who wrote (18337)	7/13/2010 1:17:17 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

>> and the health care IT solutions are becoming global. A very long-term proposition. >> Several European countries are running into serious problems these days because ICD-10 starts to look old and worn-out, and inadequate to solve modern health care IT problems. ICD-10 is simply not detailed or precise enough to plan a large health care system well. This is nonsense. ICD9 was reasonably extensible, and ICD10 is even more so. We don't need coding that outpaces the ability of providers to utilize it. I see facilities routinely where ICD9 coding is beyond careless because the complexity of the coding exceeds the capabilities of the individuals who are using it. So, what good is a further refinement of the list if people aren't going to carefully differentiate the codes that appear on that list? Your suggestion is that ICD9 is inadequately detailed, yet hospital personnel are not taking the time to properly assign codes as it is. Do you think a longer list of codes is going to solve this problem? What exactly is the nature of the problem created by this lack of detail? Perhaps I'm not understanding the problem correctly.