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.
