|
[EDI-L Mailing List Archive Home]
[Message List]
[Reply To This Message]
RE: HIPAA Article
If we just used XML instead of EDI in the
implemenation of HIPAA there would be no issues.
Grinning, ducking and running very very fast.
Cheers,
Stanley Pool
Spool Consulting L.L.C.
--- Peter Olivola < wrote:
> Michael and list,
>
> Much like the 856, the issues with HIPAA and the 837
> are largely application
> related. As you said, the underlying application is
> much more complex than
> a product PO or invoice. I don't think too many EDI
> professionals would
> have a problem implementing the 837 provided the
> application interface is
> properly defined, but there's the rub. Again, just
> as the 856 is
> complicated by its options, so, too, the 837 by the
> legacy applications it
> serves which do not have as much recent development
> as an SAP or JDE which
> have been working with the issue for a much longer
> time.
>
> Then, too, the organizations needing to implement
> HIPAA are notoriously
> tight when it comes to systems expenditures. That's
> why there's been so
> little applications evolution to begin with.
>
> Long story short, there is a huge mismatch between
> existing applications and
> HIPAA, especially the 837. Whole secondary systems
> are commonly being
> created as intermediaries, which only serves to
> further discourage much
> needed infrastructure investment from the affected
> players.
>
> I'm sure the government will be blamed for this when
> in reality it's more a
> function of problems within the private sector that
> is built on serving the
> healthcare industry.
>
> Peter Olivola (
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael Mattias
> [mailto:
> >
> > You know, this whole thread -dealing with "how
> difficult the EDI
> > healthcare
> > transaction sets are to implement" and their
> relative difficulty
> > versus the
> > sets used in the manufacturing/distribution
> industry - has hit a
> > sore spot with
> > me.
> >
> > First, the only reason the health care transaction
> sets are so
> > difficult is
> > because the underlying application is more
> complex. There's a lot more
> > involved in a health care claim than quantity,
> part number and
> > unit price, so
> > why should anyone be surprised that the 837 is
> more difficult to
> > implement than
> > the 810 or 811? (Duh!). (Frankly, I think the
> code-set
> > standardization is a
> > far greater technical challenge than the ANSI ASC
> X12 format).
> >
> > Second, I have no - that's zero, none, nada, zip,
> squat -
> > sympathy for anyone
> > who was not prepared to use "HIPAA-standard"
> transaction sets as
> > originally
> > scheduled. The HIPAA was passed in 1996; everyone
> in the industry
> > should have
> > been watching for the regulations, and anyone who
> WAS watching
> > certainly should
> > have been clued in that the standard transactions
> were going to
> > be defined as
> > ANSI ASC X12 EDI. The actual regulations and
> specifications for
> > the claim came
> > out in August, 2000 with more than TWO WHOLE
> YEARS to implement
> > by the original
> > date of October, 2002.
> >
> > Tell me truthfully: do you really want someone who
> couldn't get
> > ready in more
> > than six years standing over you with a scalpel?
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
> Message Identifiers: <SALES>, <JOBS>, <LIST>,
> <TECH>, <MISC>, <EVENT>, <OFF-TOPIC>
> Access the list online at:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EDI-L
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
|
|
Subscribe in XML format
| RSS 2.0 |
|
| Atom 0.3 |
|
|
Cart
