MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Your Meaningful Use and International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision Checklists

2011· article· en· W2790564326 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cathy Thomas Hess

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Skin & Wound Care · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Coding and Health Information
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMedicaidReimbursementPaymentIncentive programIncentiveFiscal yearFamily medicineMandateHealth careMedical emergencyFinanceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It seems we are living our healthcare lives meeting deadline dates and changing workflows based on regulations. Target dates for "meaningful use" began in 2010 and continue until 2015. The target date for International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) conversion is October 1, 2013. Meeting Meaningful Use Let's begin with electronic health records (EHRs). The Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs will provide incentive payments to eligible professionals, eligible hospitals, and critical access hospitals (CAHs) as they adopt, implement, upgrade, or demonstrate meaningful use of certified EHR technology. Remaining dates to remember for this task include the following: September 30, 2011-Last day of the federal fiscal year. Reporting year ends for eligible hospitals and CAHs. October 3, 2011-Last day for eligible professionals to begin their 90-day reporting period for calendar year 2011 for the Medicare EHR Incentive Program. November 30, 2011-Last day for eligible hospitals and CAHs to register and attest to receive an Incentive Payment for Federal fiscal year 2011. December 31, 2011-Reporting year ends for eligible professionals. February 29, 2012-Last day for eligible professionals to register and attest to receive an Incentive Payment for calendar year 2011. For 2015 and later, Medicare-eligible professionals, eligible hospitals, and CAHs that do not successfully demonstrate meaningful use will have a payment adjustment in their Medicare reimbursement.1 Conversion from ICD-9 to ICD-10 Next, let's take a look at the mandate for ICD-10. A number of other countries already use ICD-10, including United Kingdom (1995), France (1997), Australia (1998), Germany (2000), and Canada (2001). The mandated date for conversion to this new coding system in the United States is October 1, 2013. According to the American Medical Association, the following exemplifies the differences between the ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes: "The differences between ICD-9 and ICD-10 are significant, and physicians and practice management staff need to start educating themselves now about this major change so that they will be able to meet the October 1, 2013, compliance deadline. ICD-10 Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes are the ones designated for use in documenting diagnoses. They are 3 to 7 characters in length and total 68,000, whereas ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes are 3 to 5 digits in length and number more than 14,000. The ICD-10 Procedure Coding System codes are the procedure codes, and they are alphanumeric, 7 characters in length, and total approximately 87,000, whereas ICD-9-CM procedure codes are only 3 to 4 numbers in length and total approximately 4000 codes. Moving to ICD-10 is expected to have an impact on all physicians. Because of the increased number of codes, the change in the number of characters per code, and increased code specificity, this transition will require significant planning, training, software/system upgrades/replacements, and other necessary investments. Before the ICD-10 codes can be used, however, physicians and others in the healthcare community must start using the new version of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act transaction standards known as 5010 by January 1, 2012, as the current version, 4010, does not accommodate use of the ICD-10 codes."2 According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services,3 the new, up-to-date classification system will provide much better data needed to measure the quality, safety, and efficacy of care; reduce the need for attachments to explain the patient's condition; design payment systems and process claims for reimbursement; conduct research, epidemiological studies, and clinical trials; set health policy; support operational and strategic planning; design healthcare delivery systems; monitor resource utilization; improve clinical, financial, and administrative performance; prevent and detect healthcare fraud and abuse; and track public health and risks. Whether you are meeting the regulations for meaningful use and/or implementing changes for ICD-10, remember that a successful transition and implementation require a well-planned and well-managed implementation process.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.185
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.232
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Skin & Wound CareSame topicMedical Coding and Health InformationFrench-language works237,207