Is it doable to create new descriptions from just the codes. Unless the
meaning of each code is common knowledge then you have to make recourse to
the original description, which makes your description a derived work at the
very least.
Is there any clean-room way of arriving at a description
All,
It is interesting how much energy this conversation is getting.
Now, I must admit that I am not pleased with any government granted
monopoly.
There are certain rights (and I am not a lawyer) granted under the
referenced FARS/DFARS for end-users. You need to check those for
yourself or
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 10:24:52AM +, 80n wrote:
Is it doable to create new descriptions from just the codes. Unless the
meaning of each code is common knowledge then you have to make recourse to
the original description, which makes your description a derived work at the
very least.
Ah,
A derivative work includes some portion
of the original verbatim and that should be avoided.
In order to work for billing the codes themselves would have to be carried
over from the CPT system. Thus making any attempt to re-describe CPT codes
a derivative work and largely useless.
-FT
--
So could one use the CPT number for reimbursement without some
certification that they are the same as the real CPT codes?
Dave
mspohr wrote:
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
I dont think so. From what I understood the codes themselves are copyright.
Further, thier use is mandated by the government for use in medical billing.
This issue has already been the subject of litigation.
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f2000/2076.htm
-FT
On 12/11/06, mspohr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I agree. I don't think you would have to declare them something
other than CPT codes even if they had the same number. With
a different description, they couldn't be certified as the same and
wouldn't come under the legal agreement of CMS (HCFA).
I think it would be nice to have alternative to
I think the issue is bigger than that. The AMA has a legal agreement
with CMS/HCFA for reimbursement of CPT codes. If the code isn't an
official CPT code, then reimbursement would be denied by CMS,
even if you weren't sued by the AMA. If the descriptions didn't
match the AMA's then they would
I find this discussion of CPT codes reimbursement interesting. Let me
paraphrase:
To petition your Government (for reimbursement), you need to submit
your request in Elvish. Organization XYZ owns the Elvish language.
Ergo, to communicate with your Government, you need to buy a license
from
On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 02:16:32PM -0700, David Forslund wrote:
I think the issue is bigger than that. The AMA has a legal agreement
with CMS/HCFA for reimbursement of CPT codes. If the code isn't an
official CPT code, then reimbursement would be denied by CMS,
even if you weren't sued by
Alex Caldwell wrote:
Thanks Tim,
I was going by the agreement on this page on the CMS site which links
to the download for the Excel file:
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/ama/license.asp?file=http://new.cms.hhs.gov/apps/ama/report_xyz.pdf
It did not seem to me as restrictive as what you
Tim Cook wrote:
I should have provided a reference for my quote. It is from the
clickable license agreement on the AMA site.
I should have probably also noted that they are available from the AMA
on CD in ASCII for less than $100 / year. So it would be cheaper to
purchase them than to
This reminds me of a similar situation in the UK with postcodes (their
equivalent of zip codes). Unlike the US where zip codes are in the public
domain, the British Post Office owns the postcode database and protects it
agressively.
An enterprising group of people recently started an initiative
That leads me to ask: does the AMA claim copyright on the CPT codes
themselves, or just on the descriptions of the codes? If the latter,
I think there would be a lot of merit in a community project to
create and maintain new descriptions. I've been told that the AMA's
descriptions are not very
I think, then, a good web-based community project would be the
creation of a whole new set of codes and descriptions. However the
codes would happen to map one-to-one with the CPT codes, and the
mapping would be created/shared only among those with CPT licenses.
Publications that reference CPT
Payers will always invent excuses to reject claims. However in my
experience the CPT description is not submitted as part of a claim.
Rod
www.sunsetsystems.com
On Saturday 09 December 2006 14:53, Peter Holt Hoffman wrote:
I have a question about this though: don't at least some payers
reject
Alex Caldwell wrote:
The way I interpret the agreement on
the site, I believe it is OK to do this as long as you just do it
just for yourself for your own internal use, but you are not allowed
to re-distribute them. So perhaps it would be OK to distribute the
Open Source EMR minus these
17 matches
Mail list logo
