Re: CDT-5

From: Dr Steve (nospam_at_home.net)
Date: 12/07/04 

Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 19:54:47 GMT

Bill,

You "partially" misunderstand me. I am very much in favor of the ADA
creating the code standard. I think it is helpful and useful. My point is
that my money was used to create the codes, now I have to pay again to look
at them, then pay again to have them in my software (per machine). No, I do
not pay the ADA directly for the licensing costs of the CDT code standard on
the computer, but the PMS vendor has to pay it, which becomes either a
higher monthly maintenance cost, or less money the software vendor can use
on enhancing the software. 

-- 
~+--~+--~+--~+--~+--
Stephen Mancuso, D.D.S.
Troy, Michigan, USA
....................................................
This posting is intended for informational or conversational purposes only.
Always seek the opinion of a licensed dental professional before acting on
the advice or opinion expressed here.  Only a dentist who has examined you
in person can diagnose your problems and make decisions which will affect
your health.
......................
"Bill" <dentaldoc@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1102441100.992590.253790@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Steve wrote:
>
> Has everyone run out and bought their copy of the new CDT-2005
> standards
> yet? Anyone beside me annoyed that the ADA uses our dues money to
> develop
> this standard, but charges us to obtain a copy of the standard once
> completed. Then, we pay again to have out PMS licensed to incorporate
> it
> into the software.
>
>
> Am I alone in expecting the ADA to send dues paying members a copy of
> the
> standard as a benefit of membership? At least, just a list of revisions
> for
> the new standard. Even a Password protected link to the standard or its
>
> revisions.
>
> --
> ~+--~+--~+--~+--~+--
> Stephen Mancuso, D.D.S.
> Troy, Michigan, USA
>
>
> Bill's reply:
> Back in the 1970s, many insurance companies wrote their own revisions
> to the first ADA code set. The result was a mishmash of various codes
> and subcodes. A dentist had to use a different revision for each
> insurance company. I found this to be very frustrating and inefficient.
>
> By the early 90s the ADA published their own code set in the ADA
> Journal, and started legal proceedings to assure their copyright to the
> CDT codes.
>
> (That in itself is a reason to support the ADA. If the code set and its
> revisions weren't in the hands of dentists through the ADA, you can bet
> that forty different insurance companies would still be using forty
> different procedure code systems. They would still be revising them at
> whim, as they always did before, so you couldn't even be sure that any
> of the forty different complete code sets you kept on file would be
> valid for any of the insurance claims you tried to file each day. I do
> NOT want to go back to those days again.)
>
> As the federal government started writing the HIPAA regulations in the
> 1990s, the ADA was savvy enough to realize that if you don't lead the
> government where you want to go, they will simply steamroller over you.
> So a permanent committee and sizeable resources were devoted to
> establishing a credible means of input into code writing and revisions,
> with the result that the ADA has been able to coordinate code revisions
> without undue governmental impositions.
>
> Just imagine the dental profession suffering under a diagnosis-related
> code system similar to that which the government devised for Medicare.
> It's not far-fetched to think the government would impose a system that
> would say to dentists: "No more itemized billing. Just use the
> diagnosis code for caries, for example. If the diagnosis is caries, we
> will pay $100 per patient for the total case, regardless of the amount
> or extent of caries."
>
> That is the general approach the government has taken to the medical
> profession. Don't think they wouldn't do the same to dentistry if they
> had the chance.
>
> Yeah, I would like to get the CDT-2005 free too. But I don't think that
> forty bucks will break any dental practices these days. And if you are
> as thrifty as Joel and I are, you can still get the code free from
> Delta or from the many PPO's who have to send out revisions anyway. I
> won't even mention a Google search . . .  ;-)
>
> - dentaldoc
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: CDT-5
    ... Anyone beside me annoyed that the ADA uses our dues money to ... this standard, but charges us to obtain a copy of the standard once ... that forty different insurance companies would still be using forty ... government where you want to go, they will simply steamroller over you. ...
    (sci.med.dentistry)
  • Re: shame on MISRA
    ... Ada was NOT FREE It cost the US government several million pounds. ... The Ada standard did not cost me several million dollars. ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
  • Re: Ada Component Registry proposal
    ... ;-) But the current standard really is Ada 2000, ... see what changed between Ada 95 and Ada 2000, but I prefer to just use ... "When ISO published the Technical Corrigendum, ... the project editor would provide to ISO in response to such a request. ...
    (comp.lang.ada)
  • Re: CDT-5
    ... Anyone beside me annoyed that the ADA uses our dues money to>>> develop ... >>> this standard, but charges us to obtain a copy of the standard once ... >>> Am I alone in expecting the ADA to send dues paying members a copy of>>> the ... >>> Stephen Mancuso, D.D.S.>>> Troy, Michigan, USA ...
    (sci.med.dentistry)
  • Re: shame on MISRA
    ... and that full Ada is not nearly as bad as full C. ... the price of the MISRA C standard is infinitely ... The MISRA C standard may cost money for a valid reason. ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)