Multiple DRG types

[nmayle]

There isn't just one type of DRG code. There is MS-DRG and also APR-DRG. See:

https://www.healthcare-economist.com/2012/06/19/what-is-the-difference-between-drgs-ap-drgs-and-apr-drgs/

[tdfow]

If the billing code is DRG, then I expect that MS-DRG or APR-DRG would be noted in the billing_code_type_version field.

[nmayle]

I agree, that as it currently stands, one would have to hack this in. However, isn't this schema a work in progress? Isn't the point of our comments to improve and/or correct the schema where it doesn't match the world of billing or the language of the rules?

[tdfow]

It does seem cleaner to have MS-DRG and APR-DRG to be the billing_code_type values. Regarding the billing_code_type_version, I also feel they should specify if there are any formatting expectations/guidance for the different versions for the billing code types.

[taylorpatriciab]

I concur that it's cleaner to have MS-DRG and APR-DRG be the billing_code_type values. Each then has versions that correlate to the annual releases. The billing_code_type_version would capature that value.

[tdfow]

@shaselton Any CMS updates to whether the Billing Code Type Values in schema will be updated to reflect MS-DRG, APR-DRG instead of just DRG?

[shaselton-usds]

@nmayle Hopefully this was answered in over here: #9

cc @tdfow @taylorpatriciab