Sepsis-2.5: Resolving Conflicts Between Payers and Providers.

Howard Rodenberg, Theodore Glasser, Alison Bartfield, Shalika Katugaha
{"title":"Sepsis-2.5: Resolving Conflicts Between Payers and Providers.","authors":"Howard Rodenberg,&nbsp;Theodore Glasser,&nbsp;Alison Bartfield,&nbsp;Shalika Katugaha","doi":"10.1097/CCE.0000000000000970","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Competing definitions of sepsis have significant clinical implications and impact both medical coding and hospital payment. Although clinicians may prefer Sepsis-2, payer use of Sepsis-3 to validate clinical diagnoses may result in denial of payment or requests to recoup previously paid funds from healthcare providers. The Sepsis-2.5 project was a cooperative effort between a hospital system and a private payer to develop a community-based, literature-supported consensus definition for sepsis characterized by the presence of clinical illness, a source of infection, and evidence of organ dysfunction. This new definition (\"Sepsis-2.5\") has been instrumental in resolving provider-payer conflicts in defining clinical sepsis and reimbursing care.</p>","PeriodicalId":10759,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Explorations","volume":"5 9","pages":"e0970"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/28/19/cc9-5-e0970.PMC10462079.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Explorations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000970","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Competing definitions of sepsis have significant clinical implications and impact both medical coding and hospital payment. Although clinicians may prefer Sepsis-2, payer use of Sepsis-3 to validate clinical diagnoses may result in denial of payment or requests to recoup previously paid funds from healthcare providers. The Sepsis-2.5 project was a cooperative effort between a hospital system and a private payer to develop a community-based, literature-supported consensus definition for sepsis characterized by the presence of clinical illness, a source of infection, and evidence of organ dysfunction. This new definition ("Sepsis-2.5") has been instrumental in resolving provider-payer conflicts in defining clinical sepsis and reimbursing care.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

败血症-2.5:解决支付者和提供者之间的冲突。
脓毒症的不同定义具有重要的临床意义,并影响医疗编码和医院支付。虽然临床医生可能更喜欢败血症-2,但付款人使用败血症-3来验证临床诊断可能导致拒绝付款或要求从医疗保健提供者那里收回先前支付的资金。脓毒症2.5项目是医院系统和私人付款人之间的一项合作努力,旨在制定以社区为基础、文献支持的脓毒症共识定义,其特征是存在临床疾病、感染源和器官功能障碍的证据。这个新的定义(“败血症-2.5”)在解决提供者-付款人在定义临床败血症和报销护理方面的冲突方面发挥了重要作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信