« Older Entries

Importance of Medical Coding for Insurance

With health and diseases becoming a major issue these days around the world, it has become A LOT more important to have more and more coders involved in the medical field for insurance. But what is medical coding? A medical coder, clinical coding officer, or diagnostic coder are professionals involved in the health care sector who analyze clinical documents and using proper classification systems, assign standard codes to them. They provide medical coding guidelines and suggestions to help regulate the ways doctors, nurses, and other medical staff provide care for their patients. There are three main types of medical coding:

1) ICD (International Classification of Diseases): These are codes used for describing the cause of illness, injury, or death.

2) CPT (Current Procedural Terminology): These deal with anesthesia, surgery, pathology, radiology, measurement procedures, and new technological changes in the medical field.

3) HCPCS Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System): These include outpatient hospital care, medical aid, and Medicare.

Let us look at some points as to why coding is necessary for the medical field.

DATA SYSTEMS
When the coding is paired with the data systems of the hospitals, a powerful tool is made. By doing so, a large number of data from various hospitals, clinics, and other sources are stored, accessed, and used from one large online data system. This implementation helps in the transfer of any patient’s data from any hospital to another for any medical purpose. This information helps doctors to be more connected and make wiser decisions, especially in cases involving the life and death situation of the patient.

PATIENT CARE

Coding is very much required for reimbursements, which include submitting medical claims with insurance companies and bills between insurers and patients. The transfer of information for bill related purposes requires medical records, patient’s medical needs, lab results, pathology records (if any), and any other related documents. Appropriate payment is possible only when the required diagnostic codes are put in place, which also means to verify in case the medical claim is denied by the insurance company.

REGULATIONS

Medical billing and coding fall under the rules and guidelines of many countries and states. Coders in this field are also responsible for protecting the privacy of the patients and their families. They are supposed to take safeguards to preserve the confidential details concerning the patient and his/her medical background in a safe place. Electronic medical records fall under the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) codes issued by the World Health Organization (WHO).

Medical coding analysts are in the front line in healthcare data analytics. They work in many types of healthcare setups and not necessarily in hospitals and clinics. Their valuable service is very functional for research and development in the medical field.

Medical coders are in high demand, with an average growth rate of 20% over 10 years. The training imparted to become a medical coder can be offline and online. Many institutes provide Online Medical Coding Training globally that are reasonably priced and provide proper teaching. Medical training may seem hard, but with many jobs being created in this field, this is the first option chosen by many coders who wish to work in the medical field. Of course, with the ongoing pandemic, it is best to have Medical coding training online.

Tags:

What We Have Here Is A Failure To Communicate

The results of this past election proved once again that the Democrats had a golden opportunity to capitalize on the failings of the Trump Presidency but, fell short of a nation wide mandate. A mandate to seize the gauntlet of the progressive movement that Senator Sanders through down a little over four years ago. The opportunities were there from the very beginning even before this pandemic struck. In their failing to educate the public of the consequences of continued Congressional gridlock, conservatism, and what National Economic Reform’s Ten Articles of Confederation would do led to the results that are playing out today.. More Congressional gridlock, more conservatism and more suffering of millions of Americans are the direct consequences of the Democrats failure to communicate and educate the public. Educate the public that a progressive agenda is necessary to pull the United States out of this Pandemic, and restore this nations health and vitality.

It was the DNC’s intent in this election to only focus on the Trump Administration. They failed to grasp the urgency of the times. They also failed to communicate with the public about the dire conditions millions have been and still are facing even before the Pandemic. The billions of dollars funneled into campaign coffers should have been used to educate the voting public that creating a unified coalition would bring sweeping reforms that are so desperately needed. The reality of what transpired in a year and a half of political campaigning those billions of dollars only created more animosity and division polarizing one extreme over another.

One can remember back in 1992 Ross Perot used his own funds to go on national TV to educate the public on the dire ramifications of not addressing our national debt. That same approach should have been used during this election cycle. By using the medium of television to communicate and educate the public is the most effective way in communicating and educating the public. Had the Biden campaign and the DNC used their resources in this way the results we ae seeing today would have not created the potential for more gridlock in our government. The opportunity was there to educate the public of safety protocols during the siege of this pandemic and how National Economic Reform’s Ten Articles of Confederation provides the necessary progressive reforms that will propel the United States out of the abyss of debt and restore our economy. Restoring our economy so that every American will have the means and the availability of financial and economic security.

The failure of the Democratic party since 2016 has been recruiting a Presidential Candidate who many felt was questionable and more conservative signals that the results of today has not met with the desired results the Democratic party wanted. Then again? By not fully communicating and not educating the public on the merits of a unified progressive platform has left the United States transfixed in our greatest divides since the Civil War. This writers support of Senator Bernie Sanders is well documented. Since 2015 he has laid the groundwork for progressive reforms. He also has the foundations on which these reforms can deliver the goods as they say. But, what did the DNC do, they purposely went out of their way to engineer a candidate who was more in tune with the status-quo of the DNC. They failed to communicate to the public in educating all of us on the ways our lives would be better served with a progressive agenda that was the benchmark of Senators Sanders Presidential campaign and his Our Revolution movement. And this is way there is still really no progress in creating a less toxic environment in Washington and around the country.

Tags:

Unitary Patent System

Until now, the long awaited Unitary Patent System, along with the proposed centralised European patent litigation system seemed like something of a distant reality. However, a number of recent developments have seen the System take one step closer to being brought into effect, and it is hoped that the first unitary patent will be registered in 2014.The Unitary Patent System and the European Unitary (EU) Patent:Part of the proposed system is the introduction of the European unitary (EU) patent. The proposed EU patent is closely related to, but different from the European patent, which is granted under the European Patent Convention. European patents, once granted, become a bundle of nationally enforceable patents, in the states designated by the applicant.At present, European patents (once granted) require validating in each EPO member state for which the patent proprietor seeks patent protection. Validation requires payment of the associated fees, and can require a full translation of the patent specification into the national, official language. Accordingly, validation can be costly, coupled with the need to appoint a national representative to act on applicant’s behalf. Further costs arise annually with renewal fees being payable in each member state in which the patent is validated.It is proposed that the new EU patent will, once granted and at the proprietor’s request, become a European patent having unitary effect. The application and examination procedure will be identical to that of European patents, until such time that the patent is granted. However, it will be during the post-grant phase that the process will differ, with the proprietor being presented with the opportunity to opt for a European unitary patent with unitary protection (in all member states participating in the system), instead of the usual European patent with individual territorial protection. The new process would also provide for the patent proprietor to combine both schemes, i.e. to request a European patent in a selection of member states party to the European Patent Convention and not of the unitary patent system (at the time of writing, of the 27 EU countries, only Italy and Spain are not party to the unitary patent system), and a unitary patent in those states party to the unitary patent system, thus providing the proprietor with much flexibility.The EU patent, if introduced, will provide proprietors with the benefit of a simplified validation procedure, as well as fewer translation and renewal requirements. It is further hoped that the new system will help in making patent protection more accessible, particularly to SMEs, and in making Europe more attractive to inventors, both those within Europe and across the world. The EU patent is awaited with much anticipation, as it has been since it was first discussed way back in the 1970s…The Centralised European Patent Litigation System (Unitary Patents Court):A second aspect of the proposed system is the introduction of a centralised European patent litigation system. The centralised system is intended to provide a mechanism by which patent proprietors will have greater legal certainty, particularly in relation to infringement and revocation proceedings concerning European patents (and the new European unitary patent). It is also hoped that a centralised system will significantly reduce patent litigation costs, eliminating the need to conduct litigation in each member state of interest (and under the current system, where the patent has been validated). And yet given the major advantages such a system would bring, it is the introduction of the centralised European patent litigation system that has stalled the introduction of the unitary patent system as a whole.The reasons for the delay are numerous, not least due to a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) that the introduction of the European Unified Patent Court (a substantial part of the proposed system) would be incompatible with the European Union.The proposed Regulation on the creation of the unitary patent system may change as a result of this judgement, with the European Council (which represents the governments of the Member States of the European Union) suggesting a number of alterations in a recent statement, published on the 29 June 2012. The European Council recommended the deletion of three provisions, Articles 6 to 8 of the Regulation, which define the acts which constitute infringement of a unitary patent. Deletion of these Articles is thought to remove the possibility of the Unified Patent Court making referrals on substantive patent law to the CJEU. If these recommendations are adopted, the result will likely be that the CJEU will have no jurisdiction in UPC cases. Whether the CJEU adopts this is yet to be seen.The plans were further stalled on the issue of the location of a central divisional court. However a recent development appears to suggest that progress in respect of the introduction of a Unified Patent Court is gradually taking place. In its statement of 29 June 2012, the European Council also reported that the Unified Patent Court is to be headquartered in Paris. It further reported that the central court will be supported by two specialist courts residing in London (for pharmaceutical related cases) and Munich (for mechanical engineering cases). It has been suggested that the Unified Patent Court, if introduced, will have the jurisdiction to hear issues relating to European Patents granted under the European Patent Convention and also those patents granted under the new unitary right.The final decision now rests with the European Parliament, which in combination with the European Council forms part of the two-part legislative framework of the European Union. This too has been delayed, largely due to the recent announcement of the European Council, as set out above.The European Parliament was due to vote on the unitary system on the 4 July 2012, however, the vote was postponed while the European Parliament decides whether the CJEU can be excluded from the unitary system. It is not yet known when the European Parliament will vote on the introduction of the system. Until then, the launch of a unitary patent system hangs in the balance pending the approval of the European Parliament.

Tags: