Stream: implementers
Topic: Procedure modifiers
Peter Bernhardt (Jan 04 2017 at 21:31):
I have a question about how to handle CPT modifier codes in a Procedure. Anyone dealt with this yet? TIA
Grahame Grieve (Jan 04 2017 at 22:04):
I can't even talk about that, Peter. Licensing issues that the AMA has declined to help out with
Peter Bernhardt (Jan 04 2017 at 22:53):
@Grahame Grieve that's a shame given CPT is in such wide use here in the land of E Pluribus Unum
Grahame Grieve (Jan 04 2017 at 22:57):
well, you could let them know. They've promised me a license etc. And we've tried to work with them to get the content at http://build.fhir.org/cpt.html fleshed out
Grahame Grieve (Jan 04 2017 at 22:57):
the logical FHIR approach is to just add modifier codes in the code a la
Peter Bernhardt (Jan 04 2017 at 22:58):
SNOMED ?
Grahame Grieve (Jan 04 2017 at 22:58):
<coding>
<system value="http://www.ama-assn.org/go/cpt"/>
<version value="2014"/>
<code value="31502 [modifier] [modifier]"/>
<display value="..."/>
</coding>
Grahame Grieve (Jan 04 2017 at 22:58):
but that's the sort of thing we tried to clarify with them and couldn't. Got any leverage with them? anyone...?
Peter Bernhardt (Jan 04 2017 at 22:59):
Maybe my outfit does. I'll escalate. I'd expect Cerner and Epic could exert some considerable influence, too. ;)
Grahame Grieve (Jan 04 2017 at 23:00):
I dug up an old dead thread and cc:ed you in. Maybe you can chime in and explain why this is a deal. And cc: epic/cerner as fit. And if they don't play ball, we'll shame them in public or something
Peter Bernhardt (Jan 04 2017 at 23:01):
thanks ...
Jay Lyle (Mar 02 2018 at 14:35):
any movement on this?
Grahame Grieve (Mar 02 2018 at 20:13):
no it's languishing in my inbox right now. It's me that needs shaming... but I'm shame proof till next week
Michelle (Moseman) Miller (Mar 05 2018 at 22:35):
For whatever it is worth, we do care :) We have procedure modifiers, but we are not currently exposing them via FHIR, which raises all kinds of questions about how to interpret Procedure.status = completed correctly when the modifier implies that the procedure was aborted or not-done...
Rob Hausam (Mar 09 2018 at 21:12):
I think we will want to treat these as a de facto compositional syntax (likely using codes separated with spaces), as Grahame described before. This would be similar to what we had said for ICD, but there based on some further feedback we're going to expand on that a bit (by Sunday) to add the possibility of including the additional symbols when required. I don't think we'll need to worry about anything more complex for CPT (unless something has changed which I'm not aware of, which I don't think is likely).
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
