I guess I missed the motivation for these modifiers. Which research questions benefit from these distinctions?
-- Dan ________________________________ From: Greater Plains Collaborative Software Development [[email protected]] on behalf of Wilson Nathan [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 1:21 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: modifier proposal from hackathon All, I talked over the billing section of the outline with one of our business planning folks who works with hospital account data and based on that conversation I would recommend the following adjustments to the billing diagnosis modifiers. Original: BILLING DX DISCHARGE DX PRINCIPAL DISCHARGE DX NONPRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DX PRIMARY PROFESSIONAL DX NONPRIMARY Suggested: BILLING DIAGNOSIS ADMIT DIAGNOSIS PRINCIPAL ADMIT DIAGNOSIS SECONDARY ADMIT DIAGNOSIS PRESENT ON ADMISSION DISCHARGE DIAGNOSIS PRINCIPAL DISCHARGE DIAGNOSIS SECONDARY Reasons: The main set of diagnosis found on the bill are discharge diagnosis (at least from a CLARITY perspective) Non-principal diagnosis are collectively referred to as secondary For admitting diagnosis it is important to know if it is/was present on admission Does the group have any thoughts and/or other suggestions? Nathan Wilson From: Greater Plains Collaborative Software Development [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dan Connolly Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 11:55 AM To: [email protected] Subject: modifier proposal from hackathon This was on the presentation machine at the hackathon. I gather it's a proposed modifier hierarchy. -- Dan
