Guest guest Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 The point with regard to inclusion of the term diagnosis may not be one of clarity, but rather redundancy. the LHC made an issue of this, so its not surprising a response has been launched. I have not checked, but according to Tom Haines, other professions like MD do not explicitly authorize diagnosis as it is implied by the right to independent treatment. No further clarification is necessary. Its like if a person is short. I don't have to add that they are also not tall. If Tom is wrong, then it would be a good idea to include the authorization. the point is not to waste resources on losing and irrelevant battles. When it comes to diagnosis, I agree that we are more than capable of diagnosing back pain, but not lupus and such things. But we probably already have the right to code for diagnoses like backache. If not, this should be clarified. Chinese Herbs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2005 Report Share Posted March 19, 2005 I agree with you but find that most practitioners do not know what an ICD-9 code means let alone the ramifications. It was my understanding that the medical practice acts specify that a physician does diagnose and it is written in the law. While our acu law in CA seems a bit vague about this issue, getting clarity is good. What if someone comes to see for such and such and you think they have a certain condition. You should have the knowledge enough to understand what it is and WHO to refer them to. Having a good base in western medical science should provide this. If we lose this then schools will look to drop these classes and we will see a drop in professional respect as well. We will definitely become more isolated not integrated in the healthcare arena. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > < > >cha > CA doings >Fri, 18 Mar 2005 10:07:36 -0800 > >The point with regard to inclusion of the term diagnosis may not be one >of clarity, but rather redundancy. the LHC made an issue of this, so >its not surprising a response has been launched. I have not checked, >but according to Tom Haines, other professions like MD do not >explicitly authorize diagnosis as it is implied by the right to >independent treatment. No further clarification is necessary. Its >like if a person is short. I don't have to add that they are also not >tall. If Tom is wrong, then it would be a good idea to include the >authorization. the point is not to waste resources on losing and >irrelevant battles. When it comes to diagnosis, I agree that we are >more than capable of diagnosing back pain, but not lupus and such >things. But we probably already have the right to code for diagnoses >like backache. If not, this should be clarified. > > > >Chinese Herbs > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.