Talk:Current Procedural Terminology

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

There are many non-working links listed in the sources section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.10.3 (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

The copyright restrictions are heavily criticized in the medical billing and clinical research communities. It is fair to dedicate a section on criticism accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.174.21.2 (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would call the copyright restrictions "sickening". 71.212.103.210 (talk) 05:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section on whether the Copyrights on CPT require users of the code to license the copyright from the AMA concludes that it IS required, but references that with a (dead) link to the AMA's own website. It is totally unclear to me what is and is not enforceable copyright at this point... but concluding that a "license" is necessary because the entity selling licenses says it is necessary, and when a court case has concluded something different and complicated is an unreasonable conclusion. Without a better reference, this article should simply say "it is unclear".

Ftrotter (talk) 05:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regulatory Capture

Step 1. Regulate clinicians use your words or else no one gets paid
Step 2. Demand charge for a license to use your words
Step 3. Profit !

The AMA must be brought to account for their bad business practices. Is the answer for all of us in mass to file complains with the better business bureau???

One

One of the more frustrating things about CPT codes is that they seem to be heavily under copyright. Go try looking up ICD codes and you can find them on the net as well as discussions on which codes go where and which codes are often grouped together but are not obvious. Such discussions seem to be much rarer about CPT codes and I believe the copyright status of the work is the major reason for it. TMLutas 15:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CPT codes

I am currently attending a "cram course" on cpt coding...I need help in locating some answers, but have found this to be impossible on the net. I get plenty of help with "ICD9"! Where can I get on line help with CPT? Kathy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.118.125.34 (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Newest version is now cpt 2008 isbn 978-1-57947-940-4 --168.85.177.4 (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is "you don't." You generally have to pay for access to the list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section breakouts are out of date. E.g. Medicine:cardiovascular now is 92920-93799. Is there a process and source to update this? --Larmanius (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Larmanius[reply]

External Links

The external link going to "CPT® Procedure Codes" is a service that requires sign-up for a 28-day free trial and a subscription to get anything useful out of it. Should it really be linked to? It seems to me like it's mostly free advertising for someone's service, but I'm curious what others think. Would rather have a short discussion here than boldly make the change and likely have it reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.240.246.18 (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Current Procedural Terminology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120917102527/https://www.ashp.org/s_ashp/docs/files/Suppl6_Alexander.pdf to http://www.ashp.org/s_ashp/docs/files/Suppl6_Alexander.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]