Talk:Certificate of medical necessity

I
I removed the tag. This is a USA subject, therefore, I don't understand why it should be globalized. If I was to talk about Medicaid cards, I wouldn't be expected to globalize it, so why would this have to be globalized? Unless other nations also have Certificate of medical necessity. In which case, it would be something different, either with a different name or a different document with the same name. If it has a different name, then it should have its own page with that name. If it has the same name, then either we can add it to this page or create a Disambiguation page with "Certificate of medical necessity (USA)" and "Certificate of medical necessity (Other_Nation)". Fanra 13:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you made the right choice. The documentation for the Globalization template clearly states that "These tags should only be applied to articles where global perspectives are reasonably believed to exist" -- and how "global perspectives" could exist on an obscure piece of bureaucratic paperwork that's specific to a single country is beyond me.  Thanks for being bold.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If
If you're going to delete this page for failure to cite sources, you should definitely get rid of this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factoring_%28finance%29

There's no source information whatsoever there; just FYI. If Wikipedia's going to apply a policy, it should apply it consistently.

If this is article does not contain enough sourcing information, please indicate here what would be, because given the complete lack of source information in the vast majority of articles on this site, I fail to understand how there's not enough sourcing information or context here. There are external links to pertinent information, and the information is mentioned by name. Rather than repeat (or transclude) the information here, I'm assuming most Wikipedia users are smart enough to click on the blue words if they're curious.

If you can't give me a straight answer about what would be enough sourcing information and you want to delete this page anyway, go ahead: I'll lose no sleep over it. If you don't have any instructive comments or some hint at what adequate sourcing for this particular article might be (I've read the "NOR" guidelines, and there's no way to apply them consistently), then I'm not sure Wikipedia is the right place for me to share my knowledge. I've got my own wiki to run.--Amhlaw 20:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello. In answer to your question, please keep in mind that other wikis (or Wikipedia itself) are not generally considered reliable sources nor establishment of notability, per WP:V and WP:N respectively, nor does your own knowledge or a primary source you wrote based on it per WP:OR. Generally, what constitutes this is a writeup in an impartial secondary source-something like a newspaper, editorially-controlled magazine, or editorially-controlled and independent major Web site. Information from a government source can also qualify. In this case, that may be the easiest to find, and would apply especially in this case as it bears important relation to a government program. I've also included an additional secondary-source writeup from Physician's News Digest on these certificates, which should be enough to qualify this one to keep.


 * While I realize it can be difficult, please do not take a request to delete as a personal attack. The reason we require community consensus and administrative review in the deletion process is so that notable and verifiable content does not get deleted-and even if it accidentally does (and it sometimes will, WP's run by humans that make mistakes sometimes), there's a deletion review process to take another look at what happened and restore the content if it was deleted erroneously.


 * Finally, thank you for pointing out another article which failed to cite sources. I was able to find one for it. In the future, if you find any articles which do not cite their sources, and you cannot or do not wish to find them yourself, please add the template to the top of the article. This will alert the readers and writers of the article to the problem, as well as place the article into a category of unsourced articles. Many Wikipedians check that category and will source the article or nominate it for deletion as appropriate, and upon being alerted to the problem the author or a reader may do so as well. Seraphimblade 22:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply
Thank you for the measured and thoughtful reply. I'm sorry I flew off the handle there, but thanks for keeping your cool and explaining the process a bit more. Amhlaw 18:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Certificate of medical necessity. 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 tag to http://www.cms.hhs.gov/CMSForms/CMSForms/list.asp?filtertype=dual&datefiltertype=&datefilterinterval=&filtertype=keyword&keyword=medical+necessity&intNumPerPage=10&cmdFilterList=Show+Items
 * Added tag to http://www.ngsmedicare.com/ngs/wcm/connect/ngsmedicarecontent/ngsmedicare/publications/manuals/chapter+7
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120418063635/http://www.physiciansnews.com/law/802.miller.html to http://www.physiciansnews.com/law/802.miller.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Same as a Letter of Medical Necessity?
Is this the same thing as a Letter of Medical Necessity that is required by FSA/HSA providers and/or private insurance companies? I created Q127181660 but now I'm wondering if that is conceptually the same thing as this. U+1F360 (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)