George
What would a TPA do here?

j

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>      Unless I'm mistaken, I thought this is the area where TPA's come into
> play.
>
> George Mueller
> IT Advisor
> Anthem West BCBS
> (303) 831-2402
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This email messsage, including any attachments, is
> for the sole use of the recipient(s), and may contain confidential and
> privileged information.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
> distribution is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please
> contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original
> message.
>
>
>                     "Rishel,Wes"
>                     <wes.rishel@ga        To:     "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" 
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>                     rtner.com>            cc:
>                                           Subject:     RE: Situational Data Elements
>                     09/07/2001
>                     01:58 PM
>                     Please respond
>                     to
>                     transactions
>
>
>
> It sounds like what you are saying is that payers need to release an
> implementation guide for the implementation guide.
>
> Do you think a lot of payers have done so?
>
> Has UHIN prepared this (and similar) guidance or is it specific to a payer?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Root [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 7:53 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Situational Data Elements
>
> Candice
> For things like secondary patient identification numbers (actually any
> secondary/additional identification numbers), yes, payers may require that
> the provider submit that information (hopefully you've got some easy way
> for the provider to get that information in the first place!). The
> requirement here is not a syntax requirement (these secondary ID REFs are
> situational as you point out).  The requirement here is a business
> requirement.  Secondary ID REFs are situational in the imp guide because
> not all payers use more than one ID.  Payers may require this information
> as a business decision if they need it to find the patient in their
> adjudication/eligibility/whatever files.  This is one of the key pieces of
> information that payers should be telling providers: "Put this number in
> the NM109 and this other number in the REF using (you pick) qualifier."
> The guide is meant to encompass many different situations.  In many ways it
> is a floor upon which you build your business decisions.
>
> [Also, remember, the primary patient identification number goes in
> NM108/09.  The REF is only used if you require more than one number to
> identify the patient (recalling that Plan/Group Name/Number are carried in
> SBR03 & 04).]
>
> I always like to think of implementation has having three levels of control
>
> 1: Imp guide syntax: this varies from guide to guide, but generally
> speaking, if an element is required, then it must be sent.  If there is a
> syntax problem with a transaction, then it can be rejected on those
> grounds.  Basically, this means that if something is required then it is
> sent (realizing that it's not always easy to figure out when an element is
> required).
> 2. Business decisions: If you need 2 numbers to identify a patient or a
> provider, then you can make a business decision to require two numbers in
> your adjudication process.  There is usually room in the 837 (and other
> transactions) for more than one identifier for many entities.  Here, if a
> transaction comes in with only one number and you need two, then it can be
> rejected as not meeting your business needs (you can't locate the patient).
> Just make sure your provider base knows which two numbers you need and
> where to put them in the imp guide (and which qualifier(s) you prefer)
>      The guide does limit the scope of certain business decisions.  For
> example your system might be able to handle 100 lines on a professional
> claim.  The 837P is limited to 50 lines.  Hence, all your 100 line claims
> will now come in on two claims.  You are not allowed to make a business
> decision to accept 100 line claims.  However, you can still make the
> business decision that "these services must be split out this way and these
> other services must be split out another way, and these must be lumped,
> etc., etc.".
> 3. Customary practices.  These are of necessity vague and vary from region
> to region, but they still exist and most contracts have something in them
> about following customary billing practices.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> j
>
> Candice Craig wrote:
>      The 837 Professional IG states (page 49) if no rule appears in the
>      notes for
>      a situational element, the item should be sent if available to the
>      sender.
>      As a payer (receiver) can we require the provider (sender) to collect
>      and
>      therefore transmit the information?  For example, using Loop 2010CA -
>      Patient Secondary Identification (page 166).  This loop is situational
>      if
>      additional information is required to adjudicate the claim/encounter.
>      If we
>      require social security numbers for reporting to the state, can we
>      require
>      that this loop be always used to collect social security numbers?  It
>      is not
>      necessary to process the claim, but we must use it when reporting
>      encounters
>      to the state.
>
>      Thanks for any input!
>
>      Candice Craig
>      GUI Designer/HIPAA Implementation Team
>      Kent County Community Mental Health
>      [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>      This message has been prepared on resources owned by Kent County, MI.
>      It is
>      subject to the Acceptable Use Policy of Kent County.  Candice Craig,
>      CMH,
>      616-336-8930.
>
>      **********************************************************************
>
>      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.
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
> for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
> and privileged information.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
> distribution is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please
> contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original
> message.
>
> **********************************************************************
> 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.
begin:vcard 
n:Root;Jan
tel;fax:801-466-7169
tel;work:801-466-7705 x202
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Utah Health Information Network
version:2.1
title:Standards Manager
adr;quoted-printable:;;1939 South  300 West=0D=0ASuite 186-11;Salt Lake City;Ut;84115;
x-mozilla-cpt:;21136
fn:Jan Root, Ph.D.
end:vcard



**********************************************************************
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.

Reply via email to