Re: [Health-dev] ICD10PCS - add to products

[Chris]

Hiya!

On 03/19/15, Luis Falcon wrote:
> Hi Chris !
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:34:26 -0700
> Chris <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > Unless I'm missing something, the icd10pcs module does not create
> > products (in the products model) for invoicing. I'm wondering if it
> > should? On a clean install, it seems I have to manually enter the
> > product for the invoice. Instead, create a Procedures category, and
> > add all the procedures to the products for easy invoicing/billing.
> > Easy changes to data files (although, they are huge already!).
> > 
> > Thoughts? Hehe, hopefully not missing the obvious and the
> > functionality already exists. =-)
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> The health_service module is the guy that mediates between the actual
> services and what to invoice or not.
> 
> The thing is that health_services is generic, meaning that it does not
> match a specific procedure / coding with its related product / service
> on the product model.

Yeah, from what I gather the workflow is something like:

Health_services > Create > Input name (other info) > Create Invoice >
Invoices > Add product line > Post

Mostly manually entered information.

> We've been thinking on the best way to actually make the procedures
> appear on the service model upon completion. For instance, Dx imaging,
> lab, surgeries, procedures, evaluations / encounters, meds, ...

Agreed!

> As you can see, there is not a fixed way to approach this. One thing
> that I thought was to introduce the "serviceable" attribute on the
> models, so from there, we can select the related product, but also
> linking it to the ID and description of the service itself.
>
> We have to come to a balance between functionality and concreteness .
> Your example is a very good one. We should not associate each medical
> procedure to a product. The ICD10PCS has over 72000 procedures, and
> the ICPM over 800. Similar things would happen in the labs, imaging,
> etc...
> 
> I think that grouping in terms of evaluations / encounters, surgeries
> (and not the procedures within it), etc .. and having a link from the
> services model, we could drill down and see the details.

You make good points about this. Here, procedural coding for billing is
almost absolute. For better or worse. So, this is important, especially
because how tedious it is to *manually* input procedure codes (with long
descriptions) into invoices.

That is, mark what models are invoice-relevant? It seems to me, also,
that the default behaviour for 'serviceable' models should be to create
an health_services line. That is, a lab test request should, for
example, create a line on the health_services row with pertinent info
already saved. Then, the user can decide whether to create the actual
invoice, ignore that service, etc.

How to tie the invoice to a product -- that's where the groupings come
in, you think?

> This is a hot topic in GNU Health and we need to address it in this 3.0.

Agreed! =-)

There is a task for health_services functionality, but do you think we
should create a task for this larger issue? For example, "Connect
billable services to health_services module"?

All the best,

-C