Cynthia I'm with you. The payers here in Utah who see a business advantage in the HIPAA transactions are going ahead with their original schedules for implementation by October 2002. The reality is that they may not make that deadline for all the transactions but they're certainly going to try.
We tend to get focused on the problems with HIPAA but in the larger scheme the HIPAA transactions, flawed as they are, make good business sense. All initial implementations are flawed but if we waited until they were perfect we'd never get anywhere! Jan Root Cynthia Korman wrote: > Major payers who are farther along in their preparations will not > necessarily want to delay. Or, their project plan for implementation > (required for the application to delay) could call for a phase-in of the > standards - they may want to stay "on schedule" with one or several large > providers with whom they have a good relationship and with whom they want to > start working directly rather than through a clearinghouse...or, they may > want to add support for a new transaction (Claim Status? 278?) as part of > an administrative cost-cutting plan, and so may want to stay "on-schedule" > with providers or clearinghouses who are also "on-schedule"... > > Individual "transaction senders" sharing with their big partner "transaction > receivers" information re: how they're addressing the delay option could > give logic to the whole thing...provide for good planning and execution... > > Cynthia Korman > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Scott Sallyards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 9:28 AM > Subject: Re: Transaction Delay Question > > > Can anyone tell me if they think that this issue is industry wide, now > that > > organizations can apply for a delay? Will the payors accommodate the needs > > of the providers (even though it is the providers responsibility). I am > > working with some providers and we trying to determine when will be the > best > > time to flip the (transaction) switch. > > > > Scott > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Christopher J. Feahr, OD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 10:12 AM > > Subject: Re: Transaction Delay Question > > > > > > > Until the deadline (any payor's deadline), that particular payor can > > > legally refuse to conduct a TX as standard even if the provider requests > > > that it do so. It certainly doesn't HAVE to refuse, but it can. So the > > > provider's options are exactly the same as they are today... figure out > > how > > > to create the format that the payor WILL accept directly or go through a > > > clearinghouse. The costs for both options would have to be borne by the > > > provider... right up until the Payor's compliance deadline. After that, > > if > > > that payor is still not ready and still requires a CH to translate std. > to > > > proprietary, then the PAYOR will have to pay for the provider's > > translation > > > service. > > > > > > (keeping track of this looks like a major pain for the CH) > > > -Chris > > > > > > At 08:22 PM 1/9/02 -0500, Paul Costello wrote: > > > > > > > > > >What are the business implications of the following scenario that > occurs > > > >on October 17, 2002: > > > > > > > >I am a health plan and I already filed for the extension (I only have > the > > > >capability to accept non-standard formats). > > > > > > > >One of my trading partners (Provider ABC) purchased a whole new health > > > >information system that is 100% HIPAA compliant and only has the > ability > > > >to conduct electronic transactions in the HIPAA standard format. > > > > > > > >Since I (as the health plan that filed for the extension) can not > accept > > > >standard transactions yet, and my trading partner (who just purchased a > > > >HIPAA-compliant HIS) can only send standard transactions, what happens? > > > > > > > >Am I, as the health plan who can not accept standard transactions, > > > >responsible for routing those transactions through a clearinghouse, or > is > > > >it the responsibility of the provider? What other solutions exist? > > > > > > > >It seems like this situation, and many variations like it, will become > > > >problematic after October 16, 2002. > > > > > > > >Any thoughts are appreciated. > > > > > > > >Thanks, > > > >Paul > > > > > > > >********************************************************************** > > > >To be removed from this list, go to: > > > >http://snip.wedi.org/unsubscribe.cfm?listsiness > > > >and enter your email address. > > > > > > Christopher J. Feahr, OD > > > http://visiondatastandard.org > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268 > > > > > > > > > ********************************************************************** > > > To be removed from this list, go to: > > http://snip.wedi.org/unsubscribe.cfm?list=business > > > and enter your email address. > > > > > > > > > > > > ********************************************************************** > > To be removed from this list, go to: > http://snip.wedi.org/unsubscribe.cfm?list=business > > and enter your email address. > > > > ********************************************************************** > To be removed from this list, go to: >http://snip.wedi.org/unsubscribe.cfm?list=business > and enter your email address. ********************************************************************** To be removed from this list, go to: http://snip.wedi.org/unsubscribe.cfm?list=business and enter your email address.
