Joanne, I don't believe I indicated that current states' prompt pay acts require the reimbursement for non-covered services on a clean claim. None of the states prompt pay acts that I know of even define a clean claim.
The AHA request seeks to define a "clean" claim as one that is HIPAA compliant. Since a HIPAA compliant claim could contain codes, etc. for non-covered services....if any law or regulation exacted with such ambiguous language as suggested by the AHA letter could in fact have the effect of requiring the payment of a clean HIPAA-compliant claim regardless of whether the services were covered or not. This was my point - not that any state laws require payment for non-covered services, since they don't even define a clean claim. Rachel -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 3:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: FW: Article I didn't get that from the request. The prompt pay requirements, to my knowledge, have always been "pay, pend or deny." I have never seen anything requiring a payor to pay a non-covered service just because the claim is "clean." If this closes some loopholes that have been used to delay paying legitimate claims, then so be it. Joanne Marquez Senior Director of Account Services BEECH STREET CORPORATION (949) 672-1519 phone (949) 458-5323 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] See what's new at the Beech! www.beechstreet.com <http://www.beechstreet.com/> � -----Original Message----- From: Rachel Foerster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 1:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'WEDi/SNIP ID & Routing' Subject: RE: FW: Article David, Interesting letter from the AHA to HHS. A thorough reading of the letter makes clear that what the AHA is asking HHS to do is declare a HIPAA-compliant claim as a "clean" claim and thereby kicking in many states' prompt payment acts for clean claims. To date none of the state prompt pay acts define what a clean claim is. My personal opinion is that this request has a snowball's chance of reaching any final rule status. If it were to do so, in effect the feds would be requiring payers to pay any HIPAA-compliant claim regardless of whether the services were covered services or not under the health plan contract - or potentially whether or not the individual to whom the services were rendered was even a current/eligible enrollee under a given health plan contract, or any other number of "business rules" that are applied during claims adjucation. This could be tantamount to the feds requiring a HIBCC-compliant 810 invoice must be paid, or even an AIAG compliant 810, or wouldn't this be loverly...an 810 received from a federal supplier which complied with the fed's 810 specification. Lastly, any potential HHS rule on this would most certainly have to supercede any state law, and this too makes problematic, in my opinion, that such a rule would reach final status. Rachel -----Original Message----- From: David Frenkel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 2:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'WEDi/SNIP ID & Routing' Subject: RE: FW: Article This is an interesting article from yesterday's AHA news. Regards, David Frenkel Business Development GEFEG USA Global Leader in Ecommerce Tools www.gefeg.com 425-260-5030 AHA urges HHS to require health plans to accept HIPAA claims AHA in a letter today urged HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson to adopt a rule or guidance requiring health plans to accept hospitals' claims compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. According to the letter, one of the major administrative costs and sources of frustration facing hospitals is frequent claim payment delays, particularly by private payers. The final HIPAA regulation on electronic formats and code sets established national standards for electronic submission of claims, and makes clear that health plans are not permitted to require additional elements that deviate from those specified, the letter adds. Plans can be somewhat arbitrary in processing, leaving providers facing payment delays and engaged in "wasteful" resubmissions and reconciliation. The letter asks HHS to clarify that plans must accept HIPAA-compliant claims for contractual provisions with other entities covered under HIPAA and for state and federal prompt pay requirements. The letter will be at <http://www.aha.org>. **************************************************************************** ********************************* Confidentiality Statement-This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited, and that you have received this e-mail and any accompanying files in error.You may not copy, publish or use them in any way and you should notify Beech Street Corporation immediately by replying to this message and deleting them from your system.Beech Street Corporation does not accept responsibility for changes to Emails that occur after they have been sent. **************************************************************************** *********************************
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
