Many of the changes are mandated by law -- including the effective date. Then CMS or whoever writes policy to implement the law which necessitates various coding to be adopted. Perhaps your efforts should be aimed at Congress rather than the organizations trying to respond to them. -----Original Message----- From: Rishel,Wes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 12:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: HIPAA code sets update synchronization
Appreciate your speaking up. Who is the announcer? NUCC, NUBC, X12N, someone else? I am sure this is a naive question, but shouldn't someone be working on these organizations to change their policy? Is this something that WEDI could somehow help with? -----Original Message----- From: Kepa Zubeldia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 8:32 AM To: Rishel,Wes; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: HIPAA code sets update synchronization Wes, Condition (1) is not true. Some code sets are effective the day they are announced (e.g. claim status, adjustment reason code) and some times, code sets are announced after the effective date and are applied retroactively. This is a sad state of affairs. In fact, some of these codes do not have effective and termination dates associated with them. You have to watch out for changes and do the best you can to accommodate. Sorry, but somebody had to speak up. Kepa On Thursday 23 May 2002 12:41 pm, Rishel,Wes wrote: > While not meaning to diminish the difficulty, I am wondering if the > following statements are true? If true, they would help. > > (1) code set changes are announced some months in advance of their > effective date > (2) code set editing applies to the date when the service is provided or > the encounter was closed (best--most stable) or date when the claim was > filed (better than having to change code sets in midstream) > > If (1) and some variant of (2) are true then Martin's description of the > requirement for dealing with codes is spot on. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 10:11 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: HIPAA code sets update synchronization > > > If your code tables include the effective and cancellation dates along with > the code itself, those values can be used to validate the code against the > service, onset or file creation dates. Occasionally, a code which was > previously cancelled is reactivated with a different description. This is > not a common occurrence, but does happen, usually with several years in a > cancelled status. If your table uses the date(s) as part of it's primary > key(instead of just the code itself) you can alleviate many of the issues > associated with this problem. > > _____ > > Martin A. Morrison > Project Management Consultant > HIPAA Implementation/Coordination > Blue Shield of California > 4203 Town Center Bl., Ste. D1 > El Dorado Hills, Ca 95762 > Ph: (916) 350-8808 > Fx: (916) 350-8623 > > This electronic message is intended only for the individual or entity to > which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential > and protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient of this > e-mail, you are cautioned that use of its contents in any way is > prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication > in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail or telephone > and return the original message by e-mail to the sender or to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> . We > will reimburse you for any cost you incur in notifying us of the errant > e-mail. > > Thank you. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dekker, Cory [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 12:13 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: HIPAA code sets update synchronization > > > Kumar raises some critical questions, but I'm concerned we might have an > iceberg here. > > On page 50370, the 8/17/2000 Federal Register, Subpart J (Code Sets), > (162.1000) states: > (a) Medical data codes sets [ must be validated as of ] the time the health > care is furnished. > (b) Non-medical data code sets [ must be validated as of ] the time the > transaction is initiated. > > Scenario: > John is treated by small-town Dr Fred on Tuesday, 9/30/03. After repeated > attempts and much training, Dr Fred's office manager (Mrs Fred) finally > successfully enters John's claim into their brand new HIPAA-compliant > computer system on Monday, 10/20/03, generating an 837 transaction. The > system and software came with the new clearing house service that they've > signed-up for, and every Saturday night, the system automatically (wow, > cool) bundles up the claims and sends them off via dial-up to the clearing > house. Sunday, 10/26/03, the CH gets the bundle. In turn, it's re-bundled > and scheduled for transmission to John's Health Insurance company. > However, the CH only sends to John's company on Saturday mornings at 1am. > Saturday morning, 11/1/03, John's Health Insurance company processes and > validates the transmission from the SFTP bundle that was uploaded. > > Now, if I understand everything above correctly, on November 1st, when the > payer validates their newest transmission, they must validate all > Non-medical codes against the valid code sets on October 20th, and all > Medical codes as of September 30th. > > So not only do we need to have the proper codesets, current (to different > months, in some cases), but we must maintain multiple versions of the > codesets, and validate each code against the appropriate version, based on > one of 2 different dates (the Date-of-Service date stamp for medical codes, > or the BHT date stamp for non-medicals)? > > Is this correct? Is it really this complicated? How are folks addressing > these issues? > > -Cory > > Cory Dekker > GWL-EBIS HIPAA Project Analyst > 303/737-2022 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kumar Sivaraman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 12:02 PM > To: 'Dhandapani, Palani (Cognizant)'; Winston, Mike K.; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: HIPAA code sets update synchronization > > > Hi All, > > On the subject of HIPAA code sets I wish to request your comments on the > following. > > Problem statement > ----------------- > HIPAA mandates that in order for a transaction to be HIPAA-compliant, the > value of certain data items must be validated to be contained in an > instance of a code set that was "valid within the dates specified by the > organization responsible for maintaining that code set". > > An "instance" of a code set contains the set of all valid values for a > specific data item at a specific point in time - for example, the set of > all valid zip codes for the US as at 1-Jan-2000 is contained in the code > set instance published by the issuing authority for zip codes with an > applicable date of 1-Jan-2000. > > The authorized issuing authority for a specific code set is responsible for > making new instances of that code set available to parties which require to > validate against that code set. > > There is necessarily a delay between the actual publication date of a new > instance of a code set, and the installation of that code set instance on a > specific computer system ready for use validating transaction data values. > > This gives rise to the likelihood of the following problem occurring > regularly in operational systems: > > 1. A transaction set is originated in trading partner A (TP-A). 2. A data > value in that transaction set is validated by TP-A to be correct, as it is > contained in the current code set instance in use by that trading partner. > 3. TP-A transmits the transaction set to TP-B. 4. TP-B validates the same > data value, which fails validation because a different code set instance is > in use by TP-B. > > Questions > --------- > a) How does the healthcare industry address this issue? > b) Do code set issuing authority indicate any time frame by which a new > code set (or a new value in a code set) becomes effective and ready for use > in transactions? > c) The magnitude of this is much bigger for clearinghouses. How would they > address this? > > Thanks, > Kumar Sivaraman > Business Analyst - Standards > SeeBeyond Technology Corp. > > |-----Original Message----- > |From: Dhandapani, Palani (Cognizant) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > |Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 11:06 AM > |To: Winston, Mike K.; Dhandapani, Palani (Cognizant); > |[EMAIL PROTECTED]; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > |Subject: RE: Date of service > | > | > |Interesting. > | > |Coming to claims that are already in the system/application > |prior to HIPAA > |switch being turned on, we may not be able to apply HIPAA edits for two > |reasons : 1. Claims may have non standard code sets that may not pass > |Level-5 HIPAA edits (code set validation) 2. The claim may be > |have come in > |the non-standard format, so there is no need to apply Level-1 > |to Level-6 > |edits. Folks, please correct me if I am wrong. > | > |Now, I have one question to the Group: > | > |What are the different scenarios for processing claims after > |Oct 2003? I > |have listed here some of them. Please add if I have missed > |anything or if I > |am wrong. > | > |Scenario-1 : Claims with standard code sets in X12 4010 format > | > |Option : No problem as the HIPAA compliant application will be able to > |handle it happily. > | > |Scenario-2 : Claims with Standard codes in Paper format > | > |Option-1: Accept, adjudicate and send Paper EOB. Only Level-5 > |HIPAA Edit in > |the application. > |Option-2: Send 835 ERA, if provider requests. (Make sure all minimum > |required information is available for generating 835 as > |response to Paper > |claim). Level-5 edit in the application and other HIPAA edits > |for 835 at the > |outbound side. > | > |Scenario-3 : Claims with non-standard codes in Paper format. > | > |Option-1: Accept, cross walk, adjudicate and send paper EOB. > |Option-2: Notify providers to stop sending claims with > |non-standard codes > |from a cut-off date prior to HIPAA compliance date. > | > |Am I missing anything ? > | > |Thanks > |Palani > |Cognizant Technology Solutions > |201-678-2772 > | > |-----Original Message----- > |From: Winston, Mike K. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > |Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 7:46 AM > |To: 'Dhandapani, Palani (Cognizant)'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > |'[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > |Subject: RE: Date of service > | > | > |Thanks, > | I do not see how Hipaa can expect edits to be applied to a > |claim adjustment > |when the original claim was processed before the edits were > |established. > |Does Claim generation refer to the date the claim was generated by the > |provider, if so then claims already in our system prior to the > |Hipaa switch > |being turned on do not have to meet the Hipaa edits. Correct? > | > | > |Mike Winston > |Business Systems Analyst > |Trigon ISD > |Ph (804) 354-4521 > |Fx (804) 678-0452 > |[EMAIL PROTECTED] > | > |This message, including files attached to it, may contain confidential > |information that is intended only for the use of the ADDRESSEE(S) named > |above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified > |that any dissemination or copying of the information is strictly > |prohibited. If > |you have received this message in error, please notify the sender > |immediately and delete the message from your system. Thank you. > | > |> -----Original Message----- > |> From: Dhandapani, Palani (Cognizant) > | > |[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > | > |> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 10:15 AM > |> To: Winston, Mike K.; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > |> Subject: RE: Date of service > |> > |> There are two components here. Medical code sets and > | > |NonMedical code sets. > | > |> For Non-medical code sets, the Data of service is the > | > |reference. So we > | > |> should use the medical codes that are valid on the date of service. > |> > |> For Non-medical code sets, the date of Claim generation is > | > |the reference. > | > |> Please refer to the following regulation: > |> > |> 162.1000 > |> > |> (a) Medical data code sets: Use the applicable medical data code sets > |> described in section 162.1002 as specified in the implementation > |> specification adopted under this part that are valid at the time the > |> health care is furnished. > |> > |> (b) NonMedical data code sets: Use the non medical data code sets as > |> described in the implementation specifications adopted under > | > |this part > | > |> that > |> are valid at the time the transaction is initiated. > |> > |> Hope this helps. > |> > |> Thanks > |> Palani > |> Cognizant Technology Solutions > |> 201-678-2772 > |> > |> > |> -----Original Message----- > |> From: Winston, Mike K. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > |> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 6:37 AM > |> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > |> Subject: Date of service > |> > |> > |> I know this was discussed, but I want to confirm that > | > |opinions have not > | > |> changed. When Hipaa is in effect we are planning on using > | > |the claims Date > | > |> of > |> Service to determine if the claim needs to be fully compliant or not, > |> example: Claim was submitted prior to Hipaa live date with > | > |a "Homegrown > | > |> code" the 835 goes out after Hipaa is implemented with the > | > |non-compliant > | > |> code. or Claims that were not subject to any crossfoot edits prior to > |> hipaa if adjusted will be sent out on the 835 but will not > |> crossfoot. > |> > |> We are making the logic based on the claims date of service not the > |> processed date. Any thoughts? > |> > |> Mike Winston > |> Business Systems Analyst > |> Trigon ISD > |> Ph (804) 354-4521 > |> Fx (804) 678-0452 > |> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > |> > |> This message, including files attached to it, may contain > | > |confidential > | > |> information that is intended only for the use of the > | > |ADDRESSEE(S) named > | > |> above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are > | > |hereby notified > | > |> that > |> any dissemination or copying of the information is strictly > | > |prohibited. > | > |> If > |> you have received this message in error, please notify the sender > |> immediately and delete the message from your system. Thank you. > |> > |> > |> > |> > |> > |> << File: InterScan_Disclaimer.txt >> > > To be removed from this list, go to: > http://snip.wedi.org/unsubscribe.cfm?list=business > and enter your email address. > > The WEDI SNIP listserv to which you are subscribed is not moderated. The > discussions on this listserv therefore represent the views of the > individual participants, and do not necessarily represent the views of the > WEDI Board of Directors nor WEDI SNIP. If you wish to receive an official > opinion, post your question to the WEDI SNIP Issues Database at > http://snip.wedi.org/tracking/. > Posting of advertisements or other commercial use of this listserv is > specifically prohibited. > > To be removed from this list, go to: > http://snip.wedi.org/unsubscribe.cfm?list=codeset > and enter your email address. > > The WEDI SNIP listserv to which you are subscribed is not moderated. The > discussions on this listserv therefore represent the views of the > individual participants, and do not necessarily represent the views of the > WEDI Board of Directors nor WEDI SNIP. If you wish to receive an official > opinion, post your question to the WEDI SNIP Issues Database at > http://snip.wedi.org/tracking/. > Posting of advertisements or other commercial use of this listserv is > specifically prohibited. > > To be removed from this list, go to: > http://snip.wedi.org/unsubscribe.cfm?list=codeset > and enter your email address. > > The WEDI SNIP listserv to which you are subscribed is not moderated. The > discussions on this listserv therefore represent the views of the > individual participants, and do not necessarily represent the views of the > WEDI Board of Directors nor WEDI SNIP. If you wish to receive an official > opinion, post your question to the WEDI SNIP Issues Database at > http://snip.wedi.org/tracking/. > Posting of advertisements or other commercial use of this listserv is > specifically prohibited. > > To be removed from this list, go to: > http://snip.wedi.org/unsubscribe.cfm?listÍeset and enter your email > address. > > The WEDI SNIP listserv to which you are subscribed is not moderated. The > discussions on this listserv therefore represent the views of the > individual participants, and do not necessarily represent the views of the > WEDI Board of Directors nor WEDI SNIP. If you wish to receive an official > opinion, post your question to the WEDI SNIP Issues Database at > http://snip.wedi.org/tracking/. Posting of advertisements or other > commercial use of this listserv is specifically prohibited. -- This email contains confidential information intended only for the named addressee(s). Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by any other person is strictly prohibited. To be removed from this list, go to: http://snip.wedi.org/unsubscribe.cfm?list=codeset and enter your email address. The WEDI SNIP listserv to which you are subscribed is not moderated. The discussions on this listserv therefore represent the views of the individual participants, and do not necessarily represent the views of the WEDI Board of Directors nor WEDI SNIP. If you wish to receive an official opinion, post your question to the WEDI SNIP Issues Database at http://snip.wedi.org/tracking/. Posting of advertisements or other commercial use of this listserv is specifically prohibited. To be removed from this list, go to: http://snip.wedi.org/unsubscribe.cfm?list=codeset and enter your email address. The WEDI SNIP listserv to which you are subscribed is not moderated. The discussions on this listserv therefore represent the views of the individual participants, and do not necessarily represent the views of the WEDI Board of Directors nor WEDI SNIP. If you wish to receive an official opinion, post your question to the WEDI SNIP Issues Database at http://snip.wedi.org/tracking/. Posting of advertisements or other commercial use of this listserv is specifically prohibited.
