On 02/17/13 09:00 AM, Ken Dibble wrote:
 From the report: "For example, many claims we reviewed were subjected
to the eMedNY edit "Medicare/MCO Payer Amounts Not Reasonable." However,
the edit was "set to pay" (as opposed to pend or deny) a questionable
claim. If this edit was set to pend or deny payment, eMedNY could have
prevented the aforementioned overpayment (totaling $6,171,957) when a
date was entered into the field designated for a copayment."

This certainly implies that the software had a user-configurable setting
for what happens when a questionable claim comes in. Let's ASSuME that's
true and not that the behavior was in fact hard-coded.

Why would such software be designed to automatically pay ANY invalid or
questionable claim without prompting a review by a human first? How is
that good design?


I think I'd tend to call that a failure of administration, rather than design. There's an option (provided in the design and implementation) to select the desired action when questionable input is detected. The system manager/administrator failed to set it according to the desired business rules. Not a 'design' problem, IMO, although I'm not sure I'd EVER provide the option to 'ignore' the problem!

What IS a design problem, IMO, is displaying a date as digits only for data entry. I might display '06/17/57' or '06/17/1957' (VFP is happy with either one), but never without the slashes. Asking people to enter a date into a box that says '06171957' is asking for trouble.

Dan

_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Reply via email to