Rachel, Chris,
How about "HIPAA Supplemental Guide for ACME Health" ?
Kepa
Rachel Foerster wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
> You may have a point. My experience with "implementation" manuals is that
> they typically should contain everything one company needs to know in order
> to establish an electronic business message exchange with the company
> issuing the manual.
>
> I fear that calling such an implementation manual (which is a commonly
> understood term in every other industry which conducts EDI) an Electronic
> Transaction Guide would create confusion (and Lord knows there's enough of
> that already) between the official HIPAA Implementation Guides and this
> manual. Such a manual would NOT contain the HIPAA IGs, but rather would
> provide the necessary additional details needed for Company A and Company B
> to establish a successful interface.
>
> As a matter of fact, I'm working with a client right now (a major global
> financial services corporation) on their electronic payments customer
> implementation manual. The early table of contents includes such things as:
>
> 1) the client's internal process overview for its electronic portal to its
> customers who submit electronic payment orders
>
> 2) file formats (these of course for health care are the HIPAA IGs)
>
> 3) Message Choreography (this will describe the flow of messages, what comes
> first, what is returned, exception conditions and exception handling, etc.)
>
> 4) Data Definitions (again, for health care these are in the HIPAA IGs)
>
> 5) Business Rules (some are in the HIPAA IGs and some will not be)
>
> 6) Glossary
>
> 7) Security requirements (and don't be misled by the hype about how easy PKI
> is...there are many issues for certificate management)
>
> 8) Connectivity (which methods and modes of communication are supported,
> what are the requirements for each)
>
> 9) Implementation Process: testing, production rollover, production
>
> 10) Key Contacts (both business and technical)
>
> 11) Reference Documents
>
> just to name a few. Successfully establishing and supporting
> inter-enterprise integrated EDI interfaces is a major effort, requiring
> knowledgeable resources at both sides of the trading relationship. Without
> comprehensive guidance beyond just the mere specifications for a given
> transaction set, an implementation could take months if not longer. I've
> seen many such efforts totally abandonded in other industries and within the
> health care supply chain, simply due to the issues surrounding this effort.
> Company after company after company in many industries has consistently
> underestimated the magnitude of the effort required to achieve a successful
> interface. After all, it's actually a massive systems intregation effort -
> crossing organizational boundaries. Anyone who has been involved in an
> internal systems integration project knows painfully well the challenges and
> issues.
>
> Rachel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher J. Feahr, OD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 3:08 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Trading Partner Agreements
>
> If the "agreements" are, for the most part, going to be handed out by
> payors as "rules of engagement" manuals, then maybe we could call them
> "Electronic Transaction Guides"... or something else that is less
> contract-like. The term "implementation" sounds (to me, anyway) like a
> bunch of things you have to do at the outset, to get a system up and
> running. The totality of the "transaction protocol", however, is likely to
> be a living/changing thing, requiring regular, ongoing reference to some
> sort of current "transaction manual or guide" for Payor X. Presumably
> Payor X will be sending out manual updates (or posting them on a web site)
> as protocols or underlying standards change.
>
> -Chris
>
> At 01:57 PM 8/14/01 -0500, Rachel Foerster wrote:
> >Labeling this an "agreement" is in my
> >opinion, a misnomer, and rather, the document(s) should be more accurately
> >labeled HIPAA Transaction Set Implementation Manual with XYZ Company. This
> >then removes the perception of an "agreement" that requires "approval" and
> a
> >signature. My experience has been that when a document titled Trading
> >Partner Agreement arrives, the lawyers are involved.....introducing more
> >cost, delay, explanation, etc.
> >
> >Rachel Foerster
>
> 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.
**********************************************************************
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.
