After all is said and done, more is said than done ;-)
---- "Dekker, Cory" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2) I completely agree that phrase "Third Party Assessment" would be
> a better substitute for the word "Certification" in the Testing White
> Paper, given the way we had to adjust the definition of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> certification. Is it to late to consider changing this?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Because of that, after all is said and done, a whole lot more is said
and very little done ;-)
IMHO the over all GOODNESS has suffered in the proccess.
At the end of the day, I mean summer, given that we started in Spring,
and during all these six months, we made the next version of a reasonably
lean, clean white paper very fatty by "adjusting" the definition of certification,
more along the lines of fine print in a seemingly great deal that is
not, by recommending an approach that is not at all sound.
The main purpose of this group, correct me if I am wrong, was (and is)
to come up with ways to help each other by sharing useful and usable
test cases, working around any logistics problems, but it 'had' to spend
time fattening a white paper whose recommended approach for testing in
three phases, is not good.
Most covered entities need help with phase I, the internal testing, even
if we go by the paper, before we go to the 2nd certification phase...
before the final phase of testin with TPs. The focus so far has been,
duirng the past six months, on phase 2, where in the new adjusted definition
makes is more vague. That has not definitely helped the over all goodness
of the industry (covered entities), IMHO.
This is not to belittle the time and effort of all the good people, who
contributed. This is more of a request to shift the focus onto the main
purpose of this group. I really appreciate the efforts of John, Sue
and others who did a grreat job moderating the conference calls. Especially
John and Sue who painstakingly edited and distribted many verions to
the group. All of that is lot of hard work.
Everybody can defend for hih/herself. Please stick to the issues before
us, whether you agree/disagree. Thanks.
> -Cory
Regards,
Rama.
--
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ramakrishna Pidaparti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 8:40 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Ramakrishna Pidaparti; Sunny Singh; 'Miriam Paramore';
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Certifications
>
>
> Kepa:
>
> 1. I am not a vendor neither in an individual capacity nor belong to
> any
> vendor org. So, I HAVE NO AGENDA!
>
> 2. Until lot of vendors and some people NOT belonging to any vendor,
> jumped
> in, and defined it as third party assessment, one vendor, you know
> who ;-),
> was pushing Certification through the white paper, going to the extreme
> of
> saying since there is no entity to certify the certifier, all the industry
> must go through this one vendor, you know who ;-), for certification.
> Many
> people are irked by this brazen push and advertisement using the WEDI
> SNIP.
> That's past now, as the white paper clearly defines Certification as
> Third
> Party Assessment(TPA), and NOT somthing thing to hang on the wall (this
> something to hang on the wall was both the popular perception and popular
> expectation). It should be fairly easy to replace the word Certification
> with TPA in the white paper. Proposal for vendor consortium is the
> natural
> consequence of not having any mechanism or entity to certify the certifier,
> but 'certification' as a word, is irrelevant with its new definition.
> So
> why not call it what it is, third party assessment (TPA)...
>
> 3. Like I said before, the three phase testing model of (i) internal
> testing, (ii) Third Party Assessment (formerly Certification), and
> lastly
> (iii) B2B - TPA testing, in that order, which the white paper recommemnds,
> due to one vendor's push;-), is still flawed IMHO. I say this because,
> people can and probably should use Third Party Tools/Services in phase
> (i),
> internal testing, itself. Many don't have a clue on how to get started
> with
> testing. They'll never get to the certificaton phase (ii). Some third
> party tools do offer automatic test case generation, which can and
> should
> be used for the internal testing. So a covered entity, payor or provider,
> using a translator or other software with HIPAA compliance checker
> and a
> third party tool/service for testing in phase (i) will not have to
> go
> through a phase called certification (ii), as recommended by the updated
> and
> previous versions of the white paper, before they do their B2B TP testing.
> They still will have to do some beta testing with some TPs before testing
> with more TPs and finally have what I call a good suite of smoke tests
> to
> test with all TPs to make sure they can do business together. An analogy
> for this last step is like sending a test email from a new account
> or
> between few new accounts. This is what many call different approaches
> to
> testing than what is recommended by the white paper.
>
> 4. I can see why a lot of vendors are irked and probably irritated
> by the
> word certification as it was being pushed through the white paper by
> one
> vendor, especially when certification is not mandated, and after it
> is
> defined as third party assessment. A certain approach being recommended
> through a WEDI-SNIP white paper when it is flawed in the light of the
> new
> and correct definition of ccertification as third party assessment
> is also
> irksome to these vendors.
>
> 5. Vendor consortiums have worked before and will work now.
>
> To summarise...
>
> A covered entity will definitely benefit a lot by using a third party
> tool
> or service for testing and this is NOT certification, as the word is
> used in
> general or it's popular perception, in different walks of life, but
> don't
> have to go through the 3 phases as suggested in the white paper but
> there
> are more phases actually and ... lastly vendor consortium is the only
> way to
> have a bunch of test cases pass compliance with most vendor tools.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rama.
> --
>
>
> ---- Kepa Zubeldia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Rama,
> >
> > Let me make some observations....
> >
> > The white paper describes testing in much more detail than
> > certification. It describes what kinds of tests should be done in
> a
> > detail that was never
> >
> > before described in this industry. The description of certification
>
> > as a third party assessment is as far as the white paper goes. So,
>
> > the emphasis
> > of the WHITE PAPER is on testing, not on certification.
> >
> > Given the number of trading partners that have to be compliant with
>
> > HIPAA, if each pair of trading partners is going to test with each
>
> > trading partner, we
> > will never be able to finish the testing task. As an analogy, if
> every
> > time
> > I go to a different gas station to fill up my tank I need to have
> the
> > gas
> > pump tested for accuracy, pumping gasoline will become a lot more
> expensive.
> >
> > The white paper points at the tremendous economies that the industry
>
> > will achieve by reducing the amount of one-on-one testing. Instead
> of
> > testing
> >
> > one-on-one among each pair of trading partners for all aspects of
>
> > HIPAA
> >
> > compliance, you can test for all the non-trading-partner-specific
>
> > aspects
> >
> > thoroughly once, and then only test for trading partner specific
>
> > aspects when you engage each trading partner. This reduces the amount
>
> > of testing that
> > needs to be repeated and minimizes waste.
> >
> > Of course the reduction of the amount of testing for the entire
> > industry also means that the market size for those of us that are
> in
> > the testing business
> > gets reduced. But the entire industry benefits from it.
> >
> > Certification of compliance of the HIPAA transactions is not an easy
>
> > process.
> > You not only need to have both the EDI expertise and the healthcare
> >
> > expertise, but you need to be able to produce a "provable" result
> and
> > stand behind it. This involves a very high liability.
> >
> > Any progress in the right direction is progress. The fact is that
> the
> > testimonials are starting to surface. Entities that have gone through
> >
> > thorough testing and a third party evaluation find that they can
>
> > implement
> >
> > their trading partners much more efficiently. Payers are seeing
> a
> >
> > difference. The providers that come already certified can be brought
>
> > into production MUCH quicker than the non certified. It only makes
>
> > sense. They
> > have done their homework.
> >
> > There is no incompatibility between testing and certification. One
>
> > does not replace the other. Even if you are certified, you are going
>
> > to have to do
> > some testing with your trading partner. However the expense, effort,
> > and time
> > of the trading partner testing is greatly reduced.
> >
> > I don't understand why the reluctance to do a third party assessment
>
> > of your transactions, especially if the price is right and you have
> a
> > choice of
> > third party assessors. Interestingly enough the objections that
> I
> > hear are
> > not coming from providers or payers, but from vendors, even vendors
> > of
> > testing products or services. Who are they speaking for? Somebody
> > is trying
> > to convince the industry that NOT obtaining third party certification
> > is
> > better than obtaining it. Does this make sense?
> >
> > Let the flames begin.
> >
> > Kepa
> >
> >
> > On Thursday 05 September 2002 09:09 am, Ramakrishna Pidaparti wrote:
> > > Hi All:
> > >
> > > I think the WEDI-SNIP white paper on testing and certification
> does
> > a
> > > good job on defining the "Types" (used to be "Levels") of tests
> from
> > > a HIPAA domain point of view.
> > >
> > > The push and shove for certification is not something many like
> at
> > this
> > > stage and rightly so. The focus should be on testing and not on
> >
> > certification
> > > but the emphasis is on certification in this whte paper.
> > >
> > > The model recommended in that white paper is, do your internal
>
> > > testing, go for certification (which is now defined to be third
>
> > > party assessment) before you do any B2B trading partner testing...
>
> > > to paraphrase.
> > >
> > > This is flawed in the sense an organisation using a translator
> with
> > a
> > > HIPAA compliance checker may still use a third party tools/service
> > during
> > > their internal testing phase to build an automated test suite for
> > example.
> > > Once they are confident, they can do some beta testig with some
> > TPs
> > > and then with more TPs when the interoperability confidence is
> even
> > higher.
> > > There is no need or room for certification here.
> > >
> > > The other important things missing from the white paper are, the
> > traditional
> > > Software Testing aspects of unit, system, integration, beta,
> > > acceptance, stress, load, performance and autoated testing that
>
> > > deserve a mention more than certification.
> > >
> > > Hopefully these are covered in the next verrion, with mroe emphasis
> > on
> > > testing and less on certification.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Rama.
> > > --
> > >
> > > ---- Sunny Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Miriam,
> > > >
> > > > The issue we need to think about is not "certification against
> > something"
> > > > but rather than "testing against something". Testing conceptually
>
> > > > can be implemented in a "nice to have", "imposes a good discipline
>
> > > > for
> > partners
> > > > to
> > > > do some homework of their own" types of concept - not
> > > > Certification. I agree something is better than nothing and the
>
> > > > concept of testing is
> > a
> > > > work-in-progress
> > > >
> > > > I would very much like to hear some arguments for the cause of
> > why
> > > > is a
> > > > white paper suggesting certification when it is not definitive
> > and
> > > > at the
> > > > same time is unclear in its very concept and additionally gives
> > no
> > > > clue to
> > > > the user how close do they get to the real thing. The perception
> > is
> > > > also
> > > > that Certification gets them quite a ways - again a wrong
> > > > perception.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Sunny
> > > > www.HIPAADesk.com - "Test your HIPAA Data Files in Real-Time"
>
> > > > www.edifecs.com
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Miriam Paramore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 7:41 PM
> > > > To: Sunny Singh; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
>
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
>
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Subject: RE: Certifications
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My 2 cents on this topic. The undeniable reality is that every
> > single
> > > > trading partner in healthcare today accepts the "good enough"
>
> > > > testing method. There are no exhaustive test plans on either
> side.
> > > > Until
> > now,
> > > > via
> > > > third parties, there has been no attempt at certification against
> > a
> > > > standard. We are making progress and it should be encouraged.
> > Perfection
> > > > is
> > > > a goal.
> > > >
> > > > To be removed from this listserv, please email
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <P>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 listserv, please email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <P>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 listserv, please email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <P>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 listserv, please email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<P>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.
