Man who died from motorcycle counted as covid death

wow, how many of these mistakes are there?

now im not saying to dstrust all of the data, but it seems officals are in a void spehre where all bad things that happen come from covid which is skrewing up some data, if that makes sense

so there was a single error in counting people who have died? There have also been lots of doctors who say deaths have been under-counted because they didn't have enough tests to be able to use them on dead people. 

So unless there is evidence that this is something that happens relatively frequently, this one case doesn't really have much relevance as it would be statistically insignificant. 

what makes you think it was a one thing occurence?

the fact is that not everything that happened that was bad is covid related, 

why would we not? There is no evidence that this is a widespread issue. The better question is why would anyone jump to the conclusion of a widespread issue when no evidence that one exists?

no one has ever claimed this is the case. Pretending like someone is arguing this is a straw man argument you would find on fox news. 

Also from Washington:

I just cast a spell from The Book of Shadows, and now I am immune, but the rest of you should get off the internet and stay off - the virus is attracted to hard-wire and wireless 

You're right, it's not just one thing. There is probably a healthy percentage of fake deaths blamed on COVID. But what do we think the percentage is without being experts and people following this? All i can say is "i don't know." But, since you and i are on sites like this, where we debate and talk... we understand there is always a percentage of people that are too far gone. Whether you and i respect each others views, we can talk. There is a percentage of people you can't even talk with. But we know, that percentage is low. It's random. Same here... there are some doctors, some hospital admins, faking for money. But, that percentage is likely low... following just logic. But it's there. Overall however... am i going to risk getting this virus to find out? No. Although that would be perfect evidence for me, a first hand account. But, i live with at risk people, and i know, many live with at risk people are know someone in that category. Also, we don't fully understand this virus. I'm confident on that bc i have family in the medical field that i trust. So... what is better? To take this seriously or not? I think, personally, not taking this seriously is the same as believing in the insane crowd. I'd rather not put people i love in danger, or others in danger... bc some insane people want to be hard asses. If they are right... great! It's a hoax for Biden or whatever... awesome conclusion. But if they are wrong, and i didn't take it seriously and someone i love died... i will live forever hating myself. So... best conclusion for me is to pretend this is serious. That is the responsible thing to do. For me it's easier bc i live with people at risk... for others that don't, they ignore it and put my at risk to give it to my loved ones bc they want to be rebel. One is a bad human being for putting me in that situation. 

Not sure that a void sephre makes sense.

Sorry, but you did ask.

How many of theses mistakes are there?

Well there's skrewing and dstrust, so that makes three.

Sorry, but you did ask.

The mistakes are a two way street, but I would imagine the most mistakes would likely be made about distinguishing deaths caused by flu-based pneumonia and covid-19.

fake news, everyone knows motorcycles cause covid

did you know they can call a death covid death if the doctor thinks it was a covid death?  no test needed.

seems there's a financial incentive to claim covid deaths, so inflated numbers should be expected.

What's that?

Asymptomatic people already have inflated the covid death numbers. Many dead people tested with even a faint residual of Covid got marked down as a Covid death.

You had to know that was going to happen when hospitals got rewarded with Federal dollars for inflating death counts of Covid.

Covid is still very dangerous for at-risk people.

please provide evidence for your baseless claim. 

what are you even talking about?

It is true that a section of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (or the CARES Act) calls for higher compensation from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for the care of patients with a primary or secondary diagnosis of COVID-19.  The measure is found in Section 3710, and the increase is 20%.

sorry, i'm not particularly used to reading congressional bills so it's possible i'm not understanding this correctly. But there doesn't seem to be a section 3710 in the document you linked to. 

Also, it doesn't appear that this has been passed into law. It says the last action was a hearing.

"03/19/2020

So why would something that hasn't been passed be affecting how hospitals operate?

It's this bill sorry.

(Sec. 3710) This section increases payment under the Medicare prospective payment system, during the public health emergency, for inpatient hospital discharges of individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 by 20% for the uninsured and Medicare patients.

SEC. 3710. MEDICARE HOSPITAL INPATIENT PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT SYSTEM ADD-ON PAYMENT FOR COVID-19 PATIENTS DURING EMERGENCY PERIOD. (a) In General.--Section 1886(d)(4)(C) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(4)(C)) is amended by adding at the end the following new clause: ``(iv)(I) For discharges occurring during the emergency period described in section 1135(g)(1)(B), in the case of a discharge of an individual diagnosed with COVID-19, the Secretary shall increase the weighting factor that would otherwise apply to the diagnosis-related group to which the discharge is assigned by 20 percent. The Secretary shall identify a discharge of such an individual through the use of diagnosis codes, condition codes, or other such means as may be necessary. ``(II) Any adjustment under subclause (I) shall not be taken into account in applying budget neutrality under clause (iii) ``(III) In the case of a State for which the Secretary has waived all or part of this section under the authority of section 1115A, nothing in this section shall preclude such State from implementing an adjustment similar to the adjustment under subclause (I).''. (b) Implementation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary may implement the amendment made by subsection (a) by program instruction or otherwise.SEC. 3711. INCREASING ACCESS TO POST-ACUTE CARE DURING EMERGENCY PERIOD. (a) Waiver of IRF 3-hour Rule.--With respect to inpatient rehabilitation services furnished by a rehabilitation facility described in section 1886(j)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(j)(1)) during the emergency period described in section 1135(g)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-5(g)(1)(B)), the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall waive section 412.622(a)(3)(ii) of title 42, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulations), relating to the requirement that patients of an inpatient rehabilitation facility receive at least 15 hours of therapy per week. (b) Waiver of Site-neutral Payment Rate Provisions for Long-term Care Hospitals.--With respect to inpatient hospital services furnished by a long-term care hospital described in section 1886(d)(1)(B)(iv) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(1)(B)(iv)) during the emergency period described in section 1135(g)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-5(g)(1)(B)), the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall waive the following provisions of section 1886(m)(6) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(m)(6)): (1) LTCH 50-percent rule.--Subparagraph (C)(ii) of such section, relating to the payment adjustment for long-term care hospitals that do not have a discharge payment percentage for the period that is at least 50 percent. (2) Site-neutral ipps payment rate.--Subparagraph (A)(i) of such section, relating to the application of the site-neutral payment rate (and payment shall be made to a long-term care hospital without regard to such section) for a discharge if the admission occurs during such emergency period and is in response to the public health emergency described in such section 1135(g)(1)(B).

Thank you for clarifying.

However i'm not sure the way you described it is accurate. You are claiming that hospitals have a reason to inflate deaths counts from covid because of this, but I don't see why. That bill says that they will receive increased compensation for treating people with covid. Whether they die or not is irrelevant to the funding as far as I can tell. As long as they can show the patient has covid, then they would get the extra funding. They have no reason to say a patient died from it in order to get the funding. So for example, the motor cycle patient, whether or not they reported he died of covid, they would get the same amount of money as far as i can tell. 

But again, i'm not an expert on reading congressional bills, so it's possible i have misunderstood. 

It's immediate proof for the financial claim. A death is counted as a discharge from the hospital.

ok, but all they would have to do is show his diagnosis of Covid. They do not have to show that covid killed him to get the funding. Therefore there is no reason for the deaths stats to be inaccurate. 

seriously?  you didn't know payment and funding is much higher for covid patients than regular?

Lol what are you talking about? You can't get a dead person to sign discharge papers. It's not like they can get up and walk out of the hospital. SMH. The funding isn't given on admittance. The funding is given upon discharge.

i understand. But from what I can see all the hospital has to do is show the patient had covid, they would get the funding. They can also report he died of the trauma from the motor cycle accident and that would not affect the funding. So they have no incentive to report an inaccurate cause of death. 

Dude. READ-THE-BILL.

Hospital gets the money ON A DISCHARGE. A death certificate is a certificate of DISCHARGE. You can't get funding for just sending in a COVID test result.

I swear, the mental gymnastics your cognitive-dissonance goes through are positively astounding. Has your brain EVER felt a moment of prolonged uncertainty?

Guess what? It's actually OK for your brain to be wrong about things.

ok, i'm not understanding your point. They get funding on discharge for any patient diagnosed with covid. As far as I can tell, the bill does not require the patient died from covid, just that they have it. So if a guy has covid and died of physical trauma then it's the same money as if the guy died of covid. Therefore they have no reason to give an inaccurate cause of death. 

As long as they were diagnosed with covid and were discharged then they get the money. 

Am I misunderstanding something? Does the bill only provide additional funding if the cause of death is from covid? Because i'm not seeing that. 

Okay let's try this again. How does a hospital discharge a dead person?

because death is a discharge, as you already said. 

but you are arguing that they have a financial incentive to report someone died of covid instead of something else, but there isn't. Whether someone had covid and died of an accident, or someone had covid and died from the virus, the hospital makes the same money. They don't have to report the person died from the virus in order to get the 20% extra money. 

Therefore they have no reason to say they died of covid if it isn't the covid that killed them. 

It doesn't matter anyway. People with Covid are counted the same as from Covid.

where is your evidence for that? You seem to just be assuming. 

You are assuming that I am assuming.