We have read with great interest the article entitled “Recalibration of the HAS-BLED Score: Should Hemorrhagic Stroke Account for One or Two Points?” in a recent issue of CHEST (February 2016). The authors noted that after a hemorrhagic stroke, it is unclear whether it should count 1 point (either for stroke or bleeding) or 2 points (1 point each for stroke and bleeding) on the bleeding risk score HAS-BLED (hypertension, abnormal renal/liver function [1 or 2 points], stroke, bleeding history or predisposition, labile international normalized ratio, elderly [> 65 years], drugs/alcohol concomitantly [1 or 2 points]). About 2 years ago, we emphasized this issue, in addition to other criteria used in HAS-BLED scoring, in our article entitled “Should HAS-BLED scoring be revised for better risk estimation in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage?” In this article, we suggested that the type of stroke should be evaluated separately (as ischemic or hemorrhagic) for a better evaluation and estimation of recurrent intracerebral hemorrhage. In the study of Nielsen et al, recalibration of the HAS-BLED score (counting 2 points for a hemorrhagic stroke) resulted in improved accuracy of predicting major bleeding events, which supports our article and suggestions. Such an approach would result in a more accurate assessment of bleeding risk in patients with atrial fibrillation.