The codes would be the same as those that they currently accept (i.e. the AMA CPT codes) so there is no issue with the codes. The problem with the AMA is that they copyright the descriptions and prevent distribution of their copyrighted descriptions. The project would be to create new descriptions that were functionally the same and could be freely distributed under an open license such as the Creative Commons license (http://creativecommons.org/).
/Mark --- In openhealth@yahoogroups.com, David Forslund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This effort would require commitment from the payor that they > would accept those codes for reimbursement. Otherwise this > effort will be relatively useless. > > Dave > mspohr wrote: > > > > The goal of the CPT code project would be to create a version of > > procedure codes for use in billing in the US that could be freely > > distributed. > > While it would be nice to fit this into an overarching ontology, this > > would introduce overhead which is not warranted. The CPT codes > > themselves are a dead end (except for billing in the US) from both > > intellectual property and information design standpoints and the task > > of an ontology of procedures is better left to something more suitable > > such as Snomed or ICD or even the HCPCS. > > > > I think KISS applies here. > > > > /Mark > > > > --- In openhealth@yahoogroups.com > > <mailto:openhealth%40yahoogroups.com>, Adrian Midgley <amidgley2@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Rod Roark wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps I don't understand what you mean, but CPT codes are just for > > > > procedures. The project I was suggesting was limited to restating the > > > > descriptions for them, with about the same standards for preciseness > > > > currently found in CPT. A broader scope would be very daunting. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if we are going to do (an) ontology, let us not handicap ourselves > > > by building it for just one lot of data. It could be written one > > > chapter at a time, certainly. > > > > > >
