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 (18348)	7/14/2010 10:07:57 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

>> Which was exactly my point. As long as they don't do it, you will not have that data. You may collect more data but the marginal utility of the information is small. The data we collect today, augmented by ICD10 which will be fully deployed in a year or so, is totally adequate for now. What I've tried to point out to you is that the additional information yielded by these alternative schemes is of marginal value and comes at significant cost. Keep in mind that planning for ICD10 transition began well more than a decade ago (94?); whether ICD10 is actually necessary or useful at this point has less to do with its implementation than it does with its need. You seem to do a lot of work with various diagnosis classification methodologies. I wonder whether you have done any research on the quality of the underlying data? I am confident that when we go "live" with ICD10 here the value (quality) of the data will decline substantially for an extended period of time. If you are transitioning rapidly from one system to another, as you've indicated, you may well be better off just sticking with a methodology that people are competent with versus moving quickly from one to the next.