Dale, Just as an update, we've proposed adding messages to the 997 that will address IG syntax. It seems to be getting quite a bit of support from all subcommittees at TAS at this point. Hopefully a new transaction will not be necessary, as it would only duplicate for the most part what the 997 is already doing. Adding messages to the 997 seems very workable.
Ruben Zagagi ASC X12N "dalegibbs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --------------------------------------------- > Attachment:� > MIME Type:�multipart/alternative > --------------------------------------------- Jim, Jan is correct but I have found that many translators permit implementation guides to be set-up like a standard so that 997's can be generated based on the IG. It is prevalent enough that ASC X12C is considering development (as of Feb. 2002 ASC meeting) of a new transaction set to address this issue. It will be an IG version of the 997. Originally, ASC X12C tried to modify the current 997 to include IG being used for syntax checking, but it ran into trouble with some industry groups. If you generate a transaction using an IG, it makes sense to syntax check that transaction using the same IG. The error messages generated should not confuse the sender if they are based on the same IG, but would certainly confuse them if based on the standard. It makes good business sense. Dale Gibbs E-COM Advisor (past chair ASC X12J Technical Assessment Subcommittee) -----Original Message----- From: Jan Root [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 10:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Qustion on the 997 Jim Good question. The 997 is only used to report against the standard (Mandatory, Optional, etc), not the implementation guide (Required, Situational). X12 has been developing the 277 Front-End Acknowledgement (for claims) and the 824 Application Advice to report against the implementation guide. However, they are not HIPAA mandated transactions (maybe just good business decisions). Jan Root Jim Phillips wrote: Hi, I'm new to the listserv, so if this happens to be the wrong location for my question I apologize. I am trying to get clarification on what the 997 reports against. I know that it reports on thesyntactical analysis of the document, but recently a question has been raised to me that hadmade me stop and rethink things. Does the 997 report on the syntactical analysis of the 837 Health Care Claim Professional mandatoryfields (as I assumed), or does it report on the ASC X12 837 standard mandatory fields? An example of my question: In the manual Loop: 1000AElement: PER02 The usage on this element says it is Required, while in the attributes it is defined as O (Optional).My original assumption was that the 997 would report on the usage requirement thus if thisfield was missing I would return an error for it. Is this correct, or would I not return an error as the ASC standards have this element defined asoptional? Thanks in advance for any help Jim ********************************************************************** 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. ====================================================== 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 list, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that it may take up to 72 hours to process your request. ====================================================== 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 list, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that it may take up to 72 hours to process your request. ====================================================== 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 list, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that it may take up to 72 hours to process your request. =====================================================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.
