Difference between revisions of "MU-ProbList"
(Added a glossary link to record~) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Enable a user to electronically record, modify, and retrieve a patient’s problem list for longitudinal care (i.e., over multiple office visits) in accordance with the applicable standards% specified in Table 2A row 1. | + | Enable a user to electronically [[record~|Record]], modify, and retrieve a patient’s problem list for longitudinal care (i.e., over multiple office visits) in accordance with the applicable standards% specified in Table 2A row 1. |
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ICD9 is currently the coding used for the problem list, but ICD 10 will be required in the future. Fortunately for us this is something the VA will have to tackle as they bill. The concern is that there will be a delay in releasing the code for this but since WorldVistA had finally managed to negotiate the release of the lexicon files from the VA in a timely fashion, hopefully there is a mechanism permanently in place for this to be done smoothly. This is not the whole story, however, as there is a one to many relationship between ICD9 and SNOMED and ICD10. | ||
| + | |||
| + | In addition, there is a problem list coding effort going on between Kaiser Premanante and the VA so it is possible they will come up with their own standard for coding problems and will not follow what is required by Meaningful Use. However, considering that they bill the insurance companies and Medicare as well (?), presumably the VA will need to conform. | ||
Latest revision as of 12:56, 1 April 2012
Enable a user to electronically Record, modify, and retrieve a patient’s problem list for longitudinal care (i.e., over multiple office visits) in accordance with the applicable standards% specified in Table 2A row 1.
ICD9 is currently the coding used for the problem list, but ICD 10 will be required in the future. Fortunately for us this is something the VA will have to tackle as they bill. The concern is that there will be a delay in releasing the code for this but since WorldVistA had finally managed to negotiate the release of the lexicon files from the VA in a timely fashion, hopefully there is a mechanism permanently in place for this to be done smoothly. This is not the whole story, however, as there is a one to many relationship between ICD9 and SNOMED and ICD10.
In addition, there is a problem list coding effort going on between Kaiser Premanante and the VA so it is possible they will come up with their own standard for coding problems and will not follow what is required by Meaningful Use. However, considering that they bill the insurance companies and Medicare as well (?), presumably the VA will need to conform.
