This terminology goes one louder.

There has been considerable controversy about the merit and risk of upgrading the terminology that is used in the USA to bill for most healthcare transactions: ICD9 to ICD10. However, given some of the concerns about the adequacy of ICD10, many are now advocating that we skip ICD10 (with costs of millions of dollars per large hospital and tens of billions of dollars, nationwide) and immediately proceed "one louder" to ICD11. It is argued that the investment will then be far more durable and with a more favorable impact on cost and quality accounting in healthcare. Others argue that we should go for the bird in the hand. No doubt many librarians could opine knowledgeably about the costs and benefits of changing classification systems and Linnaeus would be impressed by how many now labor to classify diseases, drugs and procedures.

Hat tip: Ken Mandl

No comments: