Changed counting rules and an unintended consequence of hospital reimbursements?
==============
Early on, we concluded that coronavirus statistics are generally problematic and that “cutting to the chase, the most reliable number being reported is the number of COVID-19 related “Daily New Deaths”.
For details, see: How will we know when we’ve turned the COVID-19 corner?
I argued that if anything is discrete and countable, it’s a death (versus, say, a “confirmed case”).
I acknowledged the problem posed by the difference between “dies with” and “died because of”.
But, I assumed that the counting rules would stay the same and that there wouldn’t be incentives (intentional or unintended) to either over- or under-report.
Silly, me.
A couple of weeks ago, the CDC changed a counting rule.
The original rule: If a patient tests positive for the coronavirus and dies, put COVID on the death certificate.
The change: Doctors should also record “presumed” coronavirus deaths even if they aren’t “confirmed cases”.
In NYC alone, that change boosted the death total by almost 5,000.
That might be the right way to do it, but it did screw up the data series.
So be it.
==============
A second counting issue has to do with economic incentives…
The Homa Files 