🚀 go-pugleaf

333.90 is an ICD code, it's not a made up code.  Its valid.


Dave Greenlee <daveg@mail.airmail.net> wrote:

>In the current web version of his Fen/Phen FAQ, which was last updated
>Monday, 08-Jul-96 18:52:02 Local time, per the Netscape Document Info
>screen, Dr. Hitzig represents as follows:

>'QUESTION: My insurance plan will not pay for weight loss. Is there
>anything I can do about that?

>ANSWER: Tell your doctor's office manager to use the ICA code 333.90. He
>or she will know what that means. This number tells the insurance company
>that you are being treated for a neurotransmitter deficiency.'

>----------------------------------------

>THIS DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE TRUE.  Explanation:

>On July 29, I emailed Hitzig requesting an explanation of the foregoing
>information since neither I nor my physician could seem to make any sense
>out of it.  Hitzig emailed back a few days later asking that I contact
>his office by toll-free voice line for help.  I did so, but the person to
>whom I spoke was not able to offer a coherent explanation for the code.

>I emailed Hitzig again asking that he reply to me personally.  That
>message went out on August 12.  On Wednesday, August 14 I received a
>email reply from an unidentified person in his office which said that he
>was out until Thursday and would need some time to catch up on his email.
> That letter went on to say:

>> The codes you are talking about are made up by the office staff
>> and really relate to nothing but a number we made up for typing
>> to be easier.  The paperwork behind the codes is what means something.

>I have since emailed Hitzig twice, on August 23 and 29 asking that he
>reply to my August 12 email.  There has been no response, so earlier
>today I emailed him a copy of my August 23 post adding that it was my
>fourth request for information and going on to say 'If you do not reply
>to the following by 9/19/96, I intend to post this message in appropriate
>newsgroups with the Subject heading [I have removed the proposed heading
>since it no longer applies and was uncomplementary], together with a full
>explanation of what has occurred.'  Discoveries later this morning have,
>however, made the need for that posting unnecessary.

>After sending that mail, however, I happened to recheck his faq at
>http://www.fenphen.com/faq.html, noting that it still contained the Q&A
>set out above.  It also contained a note stating that 'An up to date,
>text-version of the FAQ is also maintained in Dr. Hitzig's Mindspring FTP
>Space." I FTP'ed to that location and found a file with the filename
>'ftp://ftp.mindspring.com/users/fenphen/ faqsep10.wpd'.  I presume this
>to be the current version of the faq referred to on the web page.  In
>this version of the FAQ, the section referring to diagnosis code 333.90
>has been altogether removed.

>One must conclude from these facts that Hitzig has CEASED TO SUPPORT his
>prior advice that 333.90 constitutes a justifiable diagnostic coding to
>obtain payments from insurance companies for fen/phen treatment for
>obesity in circumstances in which the insurance does not cover treatments
>for weight loss.

>I invite Dr. Hitzig's comments upon this matter.

>cc:     Dr. Hitzig <fenphen@balt.mindspring.com>