Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Medical Billing Codes For Injury Via Turtle Among Thousands Created by New Law

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the there's-a-code-for-that dept.

Government 380

A new government law has created an unusually precise list of injury codes for billing purposes. Currently there are 18,000 standard billing codes; the new law would expand that list to around 140,000. If you've been injured at the Opera, walked into a lamppost, pulled something while playing a trumpet, or have been attacked by a turtle, there's now a code for that. From the article: "The federal agencies that developed the system—generally known as ICD-10, for International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision—say the codes will provide a more exact and up-to-date accounting of diagnoses and hospital inpatient procedures, which could improve payment strategies and care guidelines. "It's for accuracy of data and quality of care," says Pat Brooks, senior technical adviser at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services."

cancel ×

380 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Some turtle attack advice (5, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37398800)

The obvious temptation is to run, but that would be a mistake. NEVER show a turtle your fear.

Re:Some turtle attack advice (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37398836)

These guys [umd.edu] would have you believe differently.

Re:Some turtle attack advice (1)

brusk (135896) | more than 2 years ago | (#37398852)

Awww snap!

Re:Some turtle attack advice (1, Funny)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399276)

Do not poke snapping turtle with remaining fingers.

Re:Some turtle attack advice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37398880)

I've always managed to avoid turtle attacks by following some advice my sensei gave me.

Walk softly and carry a large pepperoni pizza.

Re:Some turtle attack advice (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37398936)

And you know what? There's a code for that!

Re:Some turtle attack advice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37399220)

Any code for injuries from robotic turtles? http://cyberneticzoo.com/?p=1711 [cyberneticzoo.com]

Re:Some turtle attack advice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37399446)

My grandfather tried to save a duck who was being dragged under water by a snapping turtle. He slid an oar under the duck and flipped it into his row boat - both turtle and duck were in the boat with grandpa - there was a potential for a turtle attack.

Good for insurance (3, Insightful)

Spunkee (183938) | more than 2 years ago | (#37398838)

This is designed to make it easier for insurance companies to deny payment in more situations. The overhead created will increase costs for everyone and that's good for the people at the top.

Hopefully the system implodes on itself.

Re:Good for insurance (1)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 2 years ago | (#37398956)

This is designed to make it easier for insurance companies to deny payment in more situations. The overhead created will increase costs for everyone and that's good for the people at the top.

Hopefully the system implodes on itself.

We can't wait around for it to implode. If this occurs, there will be no healthcare at all for a while until a new system is created. What needs to be done is to create the new system now so that we have a much shorter window of pain.

Also, there's no evidence that it will hit some critical value where its internal contradictions would be the sole force to cause it to implode. More likely it'll just get worse and worse until it hits a point where it is pushed to collapse from the outside, facilitated by its internal weakness. We already know it to be illegitimate; it will likely prove weak as well if faced with serious opposition. It's more a question of how long we, the outside, are willing to wait to knock it over. Hoping won't accomplish anything.

Re:Good for insurance (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37399150)

One of the assumptions I've heard from the government is that in the 5-year span, the health care system will collapse. They then expect a 2-3 peroid where hospital care is nearly impossible to get; during that time they expect a single payer system to emerge out of necessity and for health care to slowly re-open.

I've heard that directly but I've also heard it in slight reference. For example, I was hearing about some really cool projects the federal government is doing. The feds can do some things that aren't cost effective for the private industry as if the original funding came from the federal government they don't have to pay patent/copyright fees. I made a comment about how its really cool but a shame that patent/copyright keeps it unavailable to most people, when they pointed out int 5-10 years the government will be the only payer so we'd all benefit.

Finally, I'm aware of some practice where over half their costs are trying to get insurance to pay. A single payer system scares me, but when you think about cutting the cost of our current healthcare in half immediately, it becomes tempting. I'm sure we wouldn't see all of that due to covering everyone, but long term preventive health is cheaper, you wouldn't have people going to the emergency room and then never paying etc so I'm hopeful.

Re:Good for insurance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37399338)

Wow, for an anonymous coward, you are connected to some pretty good sources who seem to tell you all these massive projects the government is undertaking that nobody else has heard about. Congrats!

"From the government"?? (2)

count0 (28810) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399548)

Exactly how to you talk to the government? Are you talking with policy experts? Politicians? Government healthcare researchers? Government funded healthcare workers? In what capacity? What jurisdiction? What department?

I know that for most people, government is government is government. That's cool - government is at its best when it just takes care of things so well you don't notice it (rare but possible).

But if you're going to make a claim that the government intentionally plans for a 2-3 year period where hospital care is nearly impossible to get (and as a result thousands of people die) then you need to have a little more specificity than "I've heard from the government".

Something you may have heard from the health policy side: With the demographic curve of aging boomers, Western healthcare systems will have to become incredibly efficient in the next couple decades to keep the same level of care (older people need more care, we have more older people...). If we don't get those efficiencies, then we will likely see a period where hospital care is more difficult to get because of those increased pressures on the system.

Re:Good for insurance (5, Informative)

limbodog (2461424) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399550)

The 25 or so other countries who use these codes already have not yet imploded.

Re:Good for insurance (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37399060)

Other than plain old tin-foil hat paranoia and idiotic 'the only reason anyone does anything is to fuck me' thinking, what exactly do you base this on? And what idiot marked it 'informative'? Where is the information? Are the rantings of every loony now considered 'information'?

Re:Good for insurance (1)

Marillion (33728) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399102)

Furthermore, it may lead to patients lying to their physicians. When you have codes that suggest "hazardous" activities, if patients worry about rise in premiums due to risky behavior then they may lie about the cause of an injury. Patient: "I broke my arm bone while going to church." Doctor: "You wear skateboard pads to church?" Patient: "Um ... sure, doesn't everyone?"

Re:Good for insurance (2)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399144)

Doctor: "You wear skateboard pads to church?"

Those damn evangelicals are always trying new gimmicks to increase attendance. Xtreme 4 Jesus &c.

Re:Good for insurance (1)

jahudabudy (714731) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399392)

People already lie to their physician all the time; I doubt this will have a significant impact on that. And if it does, so what? You think the doctor is going to treat an arm broken at church differently than an arm broken skateboarding?

Re:Good for insurance (0)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399376)

No, it is designed to make it easier for Medicare and Medicaid to deny payment and to allege fraud, any benefit to the insurance companies is purely ancillary.

Re:Good for insurance (1)

vmaldia (1846072) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399432)

This is designed to make it easier for insurance companies to deny payment in more situations. The overhead created will increase costs for everyone and that's good for the people at the top.

Hopefully the system implodes on itself.

i used to work with ICD-10 and from my experience I believe that it was indeed made by and for insurance companies. A system made for and by doctors and patients would make things EASIER instead of more time consuming and complicated

Re:Good for insurance (1)

jahudabudy (714731) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399452)

Considering that insurance billing currently has nothing to do with injury coding, and this is merely the next iteration of it, I think your paranoia is misplaced.

How does it actually work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37398844)

How do you manage to search for the exact sonfition in 140k conditions?

Re:How does it actually work? (2, Interesting)

Tridus (79566) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399218)

We're talking about bureaucrats here. They never think about details like that.

I've dealt with similar nonsense when buliding systems before. Seven pages of codes to classify a file, most of which never get used because it was far too complicated for the users to figure out... and they don't think it's specific enough.

And I say that as a government employee. This type of nonsense goes on all the time.

Re:How does it actually work? (1)

Andrewkov (140579) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399272)

And in other news, all accidents are caused by code 1 - Unknown Accident.

tag based system (2)

FunkyELF (609131) | more than 2 years ago | (#37398848)

Wouldn't a tag based system be more effective than trying to exhaustively list 140,000 things?
Or can each of these 140,000 be used in a combination?

What if you walked into a lamp post, fell and hit your head on a turtle, it got angry and bit your ear?

Make it simple (0)

Serenissima (1210562) | more than 2 years ago | (#37398910)

Tag 1: They got hurt because they did something stupid and/or reckless Tag 2: They got hurt because someone around them did something stupid and/or reckless That should cover most things.

Re:Make it simple (1)

i kan reed (749298) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399128)

Complete nonsense. Rather than mod you down, I'd just like to point out that natural circumstance can and frequently does circumvent any level of planning or recklessness engaged in by people. You CAN be severely injured by a lightning strike from a clear sky. Not every injury can be blamed on a lack of responsibility,

Moreover, the importance of classifying injuries goes beyond insurance, and doctors can use these codes to help identify specialties that are applicable to a patient.

Re:Make it simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37399246)

So which specialty is it that specifically needs to filter patients on whether they were hit by a turtle? Are some doctors specialized in lamp-post-related injuries?

Re:Make it simple (3, Insightful)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399302)

There are people who believe that, if something bad happens to someone, then that person did something to deserve it. The action to "earn" punishment might be reckless behavior, or the punishment could be divine retribution, but either way bad things only happen to bad people.

For that type of people, it's a justification for their belief that no one ever deserves a safety net in case all else fails. You might find that this drives certain political views.

Re:Make it simple (1)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399444)

Insurance agents?

Re:Make it simple (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399288)

I had cancer, which of your two tags covers that?

Re:Make it simple (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399418)

It depends on who was smoking the cigarettes.

Re:Make it simple (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399538)

Not all cancer comes from cigarette exposure. So tags 1 and 2 still don't apply.

Re:Make it simple (1)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399460)

Was it an accident?

Then you got cancer on purpose! No coverage for you!

Re:Make it simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37399310)

That won't work. Most police department will not assign fault as they don't want the liability. The officers will phrase things so that their opinion is known and the lawyers can read behind the line and if they're all above board ensure things go correctly. If muncipalities don't want that liability, could you see a hospital assuming it? ALl it would take is a few people to sue saying they weren't doing something stupid and no hospital would use that tag anymore.

Also, some times you legitimately don't know. One Sunday I picked my daughter up from her visitation from her mother; on the way home she complained of a head ache, blurred vision, feeling nauses, etc. I asked her when she started and she told me since the car wreck. After the WTF moment passes, I asked what car wreck etc and took her to the emergency room where she was diagnosed with a concussion and a sprained wrist.

My health insurance refuses to pay the bill as they feel the person at fault for the accident should have to cover it. There is no police report because the officer present said there were no injuries and that one vehicle was standing still and the other one had stopped and was only moving forward due to the dirvers foot coming off the brake with no acceleration so they were going to slow to cause a concussion. Dr.'s have disagreed, but since the police officer said that, they won't tell me who the other driver is. I tried family court in that my ex is obligated to tell me about things like my daughter, but I can't prove the concussion was a result of the accident as it was daignosed two days later and the police officer says there were no injuries so they won't force her to tell me the details so I can try and track this person down.

Re:tag based system (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#37398920)

Wouldn't a tag based system be more effective than trying to exhaustively list 140,000 things?
Or can each of these 140,000 be used in a combination?

What if you walked into a lamp post, fell and hit your head on a turtle, it got angry and bit your ear?

Yes, you can use them in combination.

You CAN be injured by a turtle, struck by lightening and suffer traumatic brain injury and a hernia. On a plane. On an experimental plane. On the runway.

This would engender a number of codes and would be indicative of very, very bad karma. Or perhaps God really does have a sense of humor.

Re:tag based system (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37398972)

>>What if you walked into a lamp post, fell and hit your head on a turtle, it got angry and bit your ear?

This is no laughing matter. Turtle-lamp-ear accidents are up an infinite percentage this year.

Re:tag based system (1)

elsurexiste (1758620) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399076)

What if you walked into a lamp post, fell and hit your head on a turtle, it got angry and bit your ear?

You are right, we are not precise enough. We should reevaluate the whole lot and add such obvious mishaps.

Faceted classification (1)

count0 (28810) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399348)

You're right - a faceted system would be much more powerful (think the guided navigation at your favorite ecommerce store with choices to narrow search by brand, price range, star rating, and type of gear - each of those is a facet).

It's just math - a system with five facets with 10 choices in each facet gives 100,000 unique descriptions vs. having to write out hundreds of thousands of possibilities.

For these healthcare codes, looking at facets like type of injury, location of injury, the activity involved, the object involved (turtle or otherwise) etc. would give far better coverage with less complexity.

cz

Re:tag based system (1)

gilleain (1310105) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399474)

Wouldn't a tag based system be more effective than trying to exhaustively list 140,000 things? Or can each of these 140,000 be used in a combination?

What if you walked into a lamp post, fell and hit your head on a turtle, it got angry and bit your ear?

In fact, if you are a trumpeter at the opera, and a turtle bites you so that you walk into the scenery, which happens to be a lamppost...

TMNT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37398862)

Is it the same code for regular turtle injuries and ninja turtle injuries?
What if I am attacked by a renaissance artist, will that have the same code as the ninja turtle injury and if not, how do I know which one to use?

What is the code for burns via shark? (2)

clonan (64380) | more than 2 years ago | (#37398870)

I need to know in case a henchman falls into the tank...

Re:What is the code for burns via shark? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37399114)

uhhh...lasers....

Re:What is the code for burns via shark? (4, Funny)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399294)

W5649XA
W902XXA

Re:What is the code for burns via shark? (3, Informative)

stubob (204064) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399308)

W56.49 "Other encounter with shark" + W90.2 "Exposure to laser radiation" is all I've got.

Re:What is the code for burns via shark? (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399430)

I need to know in case a henchman falls into the tank...

Dear Dr. Evil:

Your recent Workman's Compensation claim has been returned to your office for further processing. We need additional information before we can later reject it out of hand. The description of a coworker falling into the shark tank needs to be clarified.

Please describe whether the shark came in contact with coworker (ICD 10 CM code W56.42XA for initial contact, W56.49XD for any subsequent encounters), was actually bitten by the shark (W56.42XA initial bite, W56.41XD subsequent bites) or merely struck by the animal (W56.42XA initial, W56.42DX subsequent). If lasers were involved, please additionally code W90.2XXA (Exposure to laser radiation, initial encounter) or W90.2XXD (subsequent) as appropriate.

In reviewing previous similar claims, it appears that your employees have had similar issues with Sea Bass. Since a Sea Bass has a different code than a Shark, you would use W56.51XA (Bitten by fish, initial encounter) or W56.51DX (subsequent bites) or if the Sea Bass just hit the employee code as Other Contact with Fish (W56.59XA or XD as appropriate).

Of course, these codes exclude any poisonous Shark or Sea Bass. If this was noted, please contact the World Health Organization for further guidance.

We hope we may be of continued service to you.

Sincerely,

EvilOverlord Insurance Company
"More Evil than you could ever be"

Re:What is the code for burns via shark? (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399470)

Can anybody tell who's been to a recent ICD-10 coding seminar?

This isn't really interesting (5, Funny)

mat catastrophe (105256) | more than 2 years ago | (#37398892)

ICD-9 had codes for masturbation.

Go ahead and think about why I might know that. Scar yourselves.

Re:This isn't really interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37398942)

Because your penis was damaged by the fan blades in a vacuum?

Re:This isn't really interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37399010)

Well, ICD-10 does not have that, strangely. But they do have these:

Z7251 High risk heterosexual behavior
Z7252 High risk homosexual behavior
Z7253 High risk bisexual behavior

Guess soon comes denying your medical care because of your sexual orientation.

Re:This isn't really interesting (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399192)

In any specific injury, how do they distinguish 'bisexual' from either 'heterosexual' or 'homosexual'?

Re:This isn't really interesting (1)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399412)

If we gotta explain it to you son, you won't understand.

Re:This isn't really interesting (1)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399534)

The system seems designed to encode what the patient tells the doctor about the cause of the injury, not just information relevant to treating the injury. (It's a government-designed system, big surprise.) So if the doctor knows their sexual orientation, it'll get encoded in the injury code.

Just like the "walked into a lamp-post" one. Does it matter if it was a lamp-post as opposed to a telephone pole, a sign-post, or a mailbox? No, but they'll still encode that particular detail.

Re:This isn't really interesting (1)

RNLockwood (224353) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399016)

No thanks, I'm not into self mutilation.

Re:This isn't really interesting (1)

wisty (1335733) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399054)

Did you realize before or after you took the pen from the "lost and found" box?

Re:This isn't really interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37399408)

Did you realize before or after you took the pen from the "lost and found" box?

An unfortunate side effect of misreading a common saying as "the penis mightier than the sword.".

Turtle Shell (1)

Marxom (13260) | more than 2 years ago | (#37398894)

I assume "Struck by turtle" is an indicator of being hit by a turtle shell thrown by a fat Italian man named Mario

Re:Turtle Shell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37399020)

I assume "Struck by turtle" is an indicator of being hit by a turtle shell thrown by a fat Italian man named Mario

That's right. And the code for the same event with Luigi is $code + 1. The same even with a non-Italian with any name is $code / 10 + 3 * 2.

If you were in an accident where a laptop computer burned your legs via slow thermal overheat, followed by a trip to the hospital where the ambulance wrecked and threw your body forward in the vehicle so that the top of your head was injured (but nothing else on your body aside from the "pre-existing" thermal burn), subsequently followed by the transfer from the first wrecked ambulance to another ambulance where a bystander spat into your eye, damaging your EYELID, but no other part of the eye, with food remnants in bystander's mouth (tobacco leaf remnants are not included)..... HEY! That's code number 3!!!!!!! Wow, it must be common.

Oh, and code 3 is not required to be covered by any insurance company. :}

Why stop at 140,000? (2)

bigredradio (631970) | more than 2 years ago | (#37398926)

Why stop at 140,000? There are an infinite number of ways you can get hurt. I think that the most common injuries could be classified within the 18,000 codes. All other injuries should be labeled 'misc'. The additional cost and confusion out weighs the benefit. Once you open the door to classifying EVERY injury, you will get a lot of duplicates because of mistakes and misspellings. Code 999 = Hit by potato gun. Code 1256 = Injured shooting a potatoe gun.

Re:Why stop at 140,000? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37398938)

Technically those two are different. You can hurt yourself as your spud gun misfires, or you can hurt someone else as your spud gun fires properly and hits.

Re:Why stop at 140,000? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37399024)

Well, no in both cases a person gets hit by a potato gun. In your case someone gets hit by the projectile.

We need a new code here, hit by projectile fired from correctly working potato gun.

Re:Why stop at 140,000? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37398958)

Code 1256 = Injured shooting a potatoe gun.

Dan Quayle? Is that you?

Re:Why stop at 140,000? (1)

Rennt (582550) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399404)

Not to be confused with Code 1000 = Hit by potatoe gun, and Code 1257 = Injured by shooting a potato gun. DETAILS PEOPLE!

Re:Why stop at 140,000? (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399456)

Codes specifically involving Quayle seem almost too detailed.

Flaming Skis (3, Interesting)

Jodka (520060) | more than 2 years ago | (#37398948)

My favorites:

V9107XA Burn due to water-skis on fire, initial encounter
V9107XD Burn due to water-skis on fire, subsequent encounter
V9107XS Burn due to water-skis on fire, sequela

Re:Flaming Skis (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37399178)

What is "Other contact with turtle"? They're so... How do you.... Would it fit in...... How long would it......??

Re:Flaming Skis (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399374)

Didn't you know? Its turtles all the way down...

And now to suit our great computer (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#37398966)

You're magnetic ink

Oblig. Oscar Wilde (2)

lobiusmoop (305328) | more than 2 years ago | (#37398968)

"Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. "

Re:Oblig. Oscar Wilde (1)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399464)

As a mandate from the Department of Redundancy Department.

Oblig. (1)

Megahard (1053072) | more than 2 years ago | (#37398976)

Does it cover death from a blogging accident [xkcd.com] ?

Re:Oblig. (1)

Exitar (809068) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399352)

It should, google gives 13,100 results for that, so I assume it is a quite common way of dying.

Now we have to start lying to our doctors? (1)

jabberw0k (62554) | more than 2 years ago | (#37398978)

So would "Fell off balcony at opera" go under the same code as "Strained vocal chords at the opera"? Good grief. Your government in action.

Re:Now we have to start lying to our doctors? (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399238)

Opera house is a place, not an injury or cause of injury. In both of your examples, the code for opera house would be used for the place of injury. There is nothing wrong with that. One of the injuries would also have 'broken left tibia' as the injury, and 'fall' as the reason for the injury. The other one of course would have different codes.

The codes are just a language used to describe things so that computers can easily search, categorize, etc. Once computers that can understand 'fell off balcony at opera' (like Watson) become pervasive we won't need special codes to replace natural language.

Not everything everyone does is some sign of inefficiency or stupidity.

Our doctors will lie for us (1)

OhHellWithIt (756826) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399298)

It will be interesting to see whether the codes are used. They're intended to provide useful data granularity, but even the current codes are underused. The psychologists I have worked with all used a diagnosis of something like "non-specific mood disorder" to protect patient privacy rather than giving the insurance company a more specific code with details that might possibly leak back to the patient's boss in some way.

The title (0)

Deatzo Seol (1429339) | more than 2 years ago | (#37398986)

It hurt my brain!

Re:The title (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399546)

I'm sure there is a code for that.

U.S. ICD-10 CM not the ICD-10 (2)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399014)

Just to clarify, ICD-10 is maintained by the WHO. The clinical modifications to the ICD-10 in the USA are known as "US ICD-10 CM".
 
Yes, they are very stupid

I'm cranky about it because for one of my clients I design insurance adjudication and practice management systems.

Re:U.S. ICD-10 CM not the ICD-10 (3, Interesting)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399520)

Just to clarify, ICD-10 is maintained by the WHO. The clinical modifications to the ICD-10 in the USA are known as "US ICD-10 CM". Yes, they are very stupid

However, from an epidemiological standpoint, having better information about the causes of health problems will allow better study of cause and effect relationships between wellness and disease, for example. Even if it is a pain to implement (there must be a code for that).

What kind of turtles? (1)

HideyoshiJP (1392619) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399022)

I certainly hope this has limitations on what sort of turtles this accounts for. I foresee many claims by the foot clan if not.

TMNT (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399034)

Now does this cover all turtle attacks, or only specific kinds of turtles? Are there subcodes for teenage turtles or mutant turtles or, heaven help us, ninja turtles?

No code for "blogging accident" (0)

ludwigf (1208730) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399050)

obligatory [xkcd.com]

But there is: Y93D1 - Activity, knitting and crocheting

Edge cases (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399058)

What if you are attacked at the opera by a trumpet-playing turtle hitting you with a lamp post? What about that shit, huh?

That's just wrong (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37399092)

To start with, the ICD-10 codes were not developed by any federal agency, ICD codes are developed by the World Health Organization, part of the UN. The federal government has finally mandated that ICD-10 be used in the United States. The US is the only country still using ICD-9, everyone else has already moved to ICD-10 which was released 12 years ago. The release date of ICD-11 was announced earlier this year, so by forcing the change at least we'll maintain our status of only being one version behind the rest of the world.

All part of the belief (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37399156)

All part of the belief that government knows best and needs to look after us.

It can and is used to justify anything; as if "the government" can do anything it wants under the guise of looking after us.

Some people like that, a free man usually loathes it.

My favorite, courtesy of NPR (1)

Frequency Domain (601421) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399160)

NPR did a segment on this yesterday. The best code was "Burned: skis on fire while water-skiing."

If you've ever seen what a snapping turtle can do to a broomstick handle, the code for a turtle attack wouldn't surprise you in the least.

Re:My favorite, courtesy of NPR (1)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399500)

I don't know about you, but I for one am glad that someone is finally going to be holding those Macaws to account. Those bastards have had it too easy for too long.

Is there one for... (1)

Mike Mentalist (544984) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399182)

If a pig walks by Castle Dracula on a Tuesday playing a banjo, what code is used if you get killed because Dracula bit you?

Relevant (2)

stubob (204064) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399204)

One of my favorites is T63.192A: "Toxic effect of venom of other reptiles, intentional self-harm, initial encounter"

But, as silly as these seem, there are already codes to cover the category in ICD-9. The turtle attack correlates to "Other specified injury caused by animal" excluding dogs, rats, snakes and lizards, etc. Similarly, "Accidents occurring in music hall" comes from the existing code "Accidents occurring in public building". So calm down with the government overreaching attitude that I'm sure will prevail in this thread. Being able to say "Other contact with turtle, initial encounter" versus "Other contact with turtle, subsequent encounter" may seem unnecessary, but to medical coders, it's not.

I'd like to comment and point out an error (1)

limbodog (2461424) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399320)

The law is not creating any codes. ICD-10 codes were created back in the early 90s and have been in use by countries other than the USA since the late 90s. But Medicare hasn't been eager to adopt anything that would require they change their software, so the USA sat on it's butt with the ICD-9 codes for the duration. ICD-10 does indeed give lots more detail. And while some of it is ridiculous sounding, the vast majority provides levels of detail that the insurers have been wanting, but the health care providers have had no mechanism to send. (bear in mind that the HIPAA law requires almost all providers use EDI electronic commerce for sending health care claims, so they've been on a standardized format for years) ICD-9 isn't up to the task. ICD-10 goes above and beyond. There will definitely be some issues (I'm seeing them already on some of my projects at an insurance company) as we figure out how to process claims when we receive a lamp-post-injury code etc. But we'll get there. As for costs. Will it increase costs? Yeah, in the short term. But it's got to happen. We're paying more now for not having it, we'll have to pay a bit more to adopt it, and then it is to be hoped that having it (ICD-10, that is) will eventually reduce some costs. How? Because the claims that get denied because the person shouldn't have been covered that is successfully communicated by the ICD-10 codes means that everyone else doesn't have to pick up the tab for that person who is setting his skiis on fire while being attacked by a bird with a lamp post. Trust me, you want payments to be as accurate as possible.

CODE F8181 (1)

psnINsplPL (1664145) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399326)

I'm not joking. F8181: Disorder of written expression

Y93C1: Activity, computer keyboarding.

Not uncommon (1)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399330)

My EMS agency uses EMSCharts, and it's the same deal. Since they don't allow you to type in a MOI (mechanism of injury), they need to have pretty much anything you can imagine - including several due to injury by spacecraft, depending on whether it was on the launch pad, falling from the sky, exploding, or being worked on.

Not surprising, it's just what happens when you try to pigeonhole every possible way that people injure themselves. They're too damn creative.

Snapping Turtles (1)

wbav (223901) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399398)

People don't understand how fast a snapping turtle can move, how far it can stretch out or the biting force.

They assume all turtles are harmless, that is until they are bit by one. Just some stats, they can whip their head around quickly, extend it approximately 75% the length of their body and can snap a broom stick in half with their bite.

Re:Snapping Turtles (0)

Legal.Troll (2002574) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399508)

Please, please: This is a Slashdot Freestyle Uninformed Rant About the Way the Government is Handling Things I Know Nothing About (TM). Do not trouble the wildlife with pesky facts or troubling suggestions that anyone in the world other than Slashdot geeks could be trusted to perform a task without the input of Slashdot geeks.

Alright, hear me out on this... (1)

PseudoCoder (1642383) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399416)

I'll be the ridiculous poster who has an actual encounter with a turtle. Getting tossed about by the waves two weekends ago in Maryland, I feel sharp pain and scratching at my shins. There were no trees or branches anywhere on the beach, so I think maybe it's a crab (it is Maryland after all). As I kick to get away from the object, I feel more nipping at my ankles. My crab theory is shot to hell as I see the brown shell about 16" in diameter surface a few feet in front of me. I feel ridiculous as I tell the story when my friends ask me about the blood streaming from my shins and ankle. Had this "attack" been any worse. I may have needed this code after all. (I duck and take cover as I see clumps of vitriol and ridicule coming my way already...)

This is actually a good thing... (2, Informative)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399472)

While people are beating themselves silly to denounce this as "nanny state" or "government take-over of your life", they are missing how this is useful.

This actually makes health care data more usable. They are setting in a standard ontology for records. It improves comparability across different parts of the country or parts of the population.

To take the turtle example, previously if you were interested in turtle accidents, you may have needed to look under "reptile" "turtle" "tortoise" or maybe even just "animal". For that matter some people call snapping turtles just "snappers", which of course is also a kind of fish. Now with standard coding it is easier to find quickly who is being hurt by turtles, how often, when, and where.

Here's a good one. (1)

MadKeithV (102058) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399480)

T124.1.17.ZZ.Plural-Z.Alpha: Intentional self-harm injury sustained to left head in booth 24 at Eccentrica Gallumbits Spa and Saunas, hit in the head with a gold brick wrapped in a slice of lemon.

Generic code for a bunch of them (1)

bongey (974911) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399484)

ID 10 T injury.

1990 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37399504)

Hello year 2011!! This is 1990 calling, we want our news back!

ICD-10 was endorsed by the Forty-third World Health Assembly in May 1990. Who would have thought that Americans were going to take soo long to get with the program.

Don't be so sure you can do better (1)

Cajun Hell (725246) | more than 2 years ago | (#37399528)

When I rewrote everything, I was delighted that my ICD1 code list (since it was a totally new instance, I got to restart all internal version number sequences) contained only one entry:

1. living->hit() got called

and hit() just took a hit_points argument. I felt pretty clever.

I was surprised that everyone hated it. It turned out they wanted different damage types, so that magic missiles could bypass armor, some kinds of monsters could be resistant to fireballs, and so on. So I added a second optional parameter (which, if not passed, defaulted to blunt force trauma) for damage type. Then there was a list of defined constants for the damage type. It started out a short list

DAMAGE_BLUNT=0;
DAMAGE_SLASH=1;
DAMAGE_FIRE=2;
DAMAGE_COLD=3;
DAMAGE_ELECTRICITY=4;
DAMAGE_PUNCTURE=5;
DAMAGE_RADIATION=6;
DAMAGE_FLESH_EATING_SYNDROME=7;
DAMAGE_PUNCTURE_SILVER=8;
DAMAGE_TURTLE=9;
DAMAGE_POISON=10;
DAMAGE_BLUNT_SILVER=11;
DAMAGE_SLASH_SILVER=12;
DAMAGE_POISON_BLOOD=13;
DAMAGE_POISON_NERVE=14;

(Around the time we added werewolves, I realized I should have used an enum.) But people kept adding new things. Now that list of constant is up to 140000 entries. You can't ever really fix the problem, so please give our federal agencies some slack.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>