Chris,
While your response was informative relative to the transmission of a
disclaimer statement within the 271, it did not address what I believe is
William's core question. That is, the apparent recommendation in all of the
IG's themselves that trading partner agreements be entered into to address
certain business rules, and the fact that it most likely is not feasible nor
reasonable to expect providers and payers to enter into such trading partner
agreements on any mass scale.
As a matter of fact, the federal government, when it first transitioned to
EDI from their proprietary ways in the early-middle 1990's initially
required a trading partner agreement be entered into between the contracting
office and the potential supplier. This requirement all but killed the
federal government's (I believe it was actually the DOD) EDI effort and they
quickly (within 6 months) killed the use of trading partner agreements.
Other industries have long since recognized that trading partner agreements
are the deal breakers when two enterprises trying to establish EDI
interfaces between their respective systems and have long since discarded
them in favor of implementation manuals that don't have the aura of legal
requirements that gets the lawyers involved.
Rachel Foerster
Principal
Rachel Foerster & Associates, Ltd.
Strategies for Electronic Commerce
39432 North Avenue
Beach Park, IL 60099
Phone: 847-872-8070
Fax: 847-872-6860
http://www.rfa-edi.com <http://www.rfa-edi.com>
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher J. Feahr, OD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 5:36 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 271 Transaction Disclaimer
William,
I think the original question was regarding the best place to insert
disclaimer text in the 271, stating that the response was not a guarantee
of payment. Someone did suggest a suitable field for it, but it seems
unlikely that a provider (human) would ever see it there... unless they had
specifically programmed the receiving system to capture that text and
display or print it.
Disclaimers should be reserved for the truly unsophisticated user...
someone who is actually *likely* to make the error out of ignorance or
misunderstanding. A patient might make this mistake, and since the patient
is not a covered entity, you would have great flexibility with the
disclaimer text placement. (I recommend not bugging the doctors with this
stuff.)
Regards,
-Chris
At 07:01 PM 8/10/01 -0400, you wrote:
>Sandy Young, Joey Lawhorn and Christopher J. Feahr all tell Dana Grant
>that "section 1.3.10 [in the HIPAA IG ASC X12N 270/271 004010X092]
>encourages disclaimers to be outlined in the trading partner agreement."
>
>A na�ve question: how does every payer in the country maintain a trading
>partner agreement with potentially every provider they'll ever deal
>with?
>
>TPAs....oops, "companion documents" ... "should not be required for
>acceptance of a transaction as valid." The payer "may not reject the
>transaction merely because they cannot process an explicit request."
>
>William J. Kammerer
>Rachel Foerster & Associates, Ltd.
>
>
>
>
>**********************************************************************
>To be removed from this list, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Please note that it may take up to 72 hours to process your request.
Christopher J. Feahr, OD Vision Data Standards Council
Executive Director http://visiondatastandard.org
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**********************************************************************
To be removed from this list, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please note that it may take up to 72 hours to process your request.
**********************************************************************
To be removed from this list, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please note that it may take up to 72 hours to process your request.
