All
I would second what Chris said. From the provider's perspective, DDE systems are
not a very good solution - better than paper yes, but a lot of work.  It's sort
of the electronic equivalent of having to deal with a proprietary form for each
payer, at least from the "I gotta handle each payer individually" perspective.
Provider like a 'one-stop'shopping' solution to submitting claims, eligibility,
etc and receiving RAs and other response transactions.

Jan Root


"Christopher J. Feahr, OD" wrote:

> Alan,
> Thank you for your comment.  I think you are absolutely correct about
> provider DDE systems (and everything else) eventually morphing into an XML
> version of "EDI".  Given the huge pent-up desire to implement XML and the
> interesting work that OASIS, X12, and others are doing today to create
> hybrids of XML and EDI message/transport structures... I think its very
> possible that most small providers will never actually see a classic EDI
> message inside their offices.  So, while I did suggest we "phase them all
> out"... I didn't REALLY think that anyone would try to kill DDE with a
> law.  By the time such a law became enforceable, we'd be ready to migrate
> from XML to the "next big thing"!
>
> My point, however, is that we should not make the mistake of thinking that
> DDE systems are very useful to the provider... THEY ARE LABOR-INTENSIVE,
> MANUAL SYSTEMS.  The "electronic" advantages of DDE are ALL on the payor
> end.  In the doctor's offices, they still have $20/hr. employees clicking
> around on websites with browsers and 33K dialup connections.  Doctors' idea
> of "automation" is to get a DSL line for the office!  HIPAA done entirely
> through a DDE interface doesn't improve doctors' live a bit (in my
> opinion), but it still allows payors to reduce the sizes of their call
> centers and eliminate many data-entry positions.
>
> Best regards,
> -Chris
>
> At 04:37 PM 5/8/02 -0400, Hirth, Alan wrote:
> >
> >I don't support the idea of phasing out DDE.  Forcing providers off of a
> >browser/web based eligibility inquiry, claim status inquiry, and/or claim
> >entry system and onto pure EDI is counter productive.  Encouraging DDE as a
> >supplement to EDI and working to merge the two by developing HIPAA XML seems
> >like a better long term strategy.
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Christopher J. Feahr, OD
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: 5/8/02 3:37 PM
> >Subject: RE: Data Downloads from DDE Applications
> >
> >Rachel,
> >I would agree with your interpretation of the conventional usage of
> >terms
> >like "print screen" and "download"... but I do not see clear support in
> >the
> >law for your definitions.  In order to display data on a provider's DDE
> >screen, I would argue that the payor is, in fact, "downloading" or
> >"transferring" data to the provider's system in a non-standard
> >format.  There seems to be a need to better define not only the details
> >of
> >this special type of transfer, but whether there are any restrictions on
> >
> >what the provider can legally do with the data after it is
> >transferred...
> >whether it even HAS to wind up on a "screen" or display device...
> >whether
> >data could be pushed out to a provider's screen under this exception
> >without the provider requesting it immediately beforehand, etc.
> >
> >My suggestion (which, of course, would be pretty difficult to implement)
> >is
> >that we tighten up the definition of "DDE" systems and then permit them
> >to
> >be used for another 2 or 3 year transition period... and then phase them
> >
> >all out!
> >
> >regards,
> >Chris
> >
> >At 04:04 PM 5/6/02 -0500, Rachel Foerster wrote:
> > >Kris,
> > >
> > >The core difference between a print screen and a file download is just
> > >that -- when someone prints a screen no data is being downloaded to the
> >
> > >local system for additional processing -- the screen (display) is
> >intended
> > >for a human-to-computer interface. On the other hand, a file download
> >is
> > >not intended for a human-to-computer interface, but rather, is intended
> >
> > >for automated processing or a computer-to-computer interface. Just
> >because
> > >there may be human intervention with a downloaded file, the data in the
> >
> > >file is intended to be input into another application and not viewable
> >"as
> > >is" by a human.
> > >
> > >Therefore, if a file of data is being downloaded, regardless of the
> > >transport mode, e.g., HTTP, ftp, or even attached to an email, and the
> > >data constitutes one of the covered HIPAA transactions, after either
> > >10/16/02 or 10/16/03, the format of the data and the data content must
> > >comply with the appropriate HIPAA implementation guide.
> > >
> > >Rachel
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Owens, Kris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > >Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 9:06 AM
> > >To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> > >Cc: Goulart, Cesar; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> > >Subject: RE: Data Downloads from DDE Applications
> > >
> > >Rachel,
> > >
> > >Thanks for the response, although it is not what I had hoped to hear.
> > >
> > >Another thought (yes, I am still trying to justify giving this ability
> >to
> > >the providers) how would this download be different (in concept) from
> >the
> > >provider using a print screen option in their operating system?
> > >
> > >Kris Owens
> > >923-8108
> > >
> > >"There is no meaning in isolation"
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Rachel Foerster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > >Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 1:15 PM
> > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >Subject: RE: Data Downloads from DDE Applications
> > >
> > >Kris,
> > >
> > >My understanding of the DDE exception plus the HHS FAQs on the subject,
> >
> > >lead me to conclude that the download of the eligibility information
> >would
> > >be a covered transaction under the electronic transaction final rule,
> >and
> > >thus, must conform to the 271 specifications.
> > >
> > >Rachel Foerster
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Owens, Kris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > >Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 4:12 PM
> > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >Cc: Goulart, Cesar
> > >Subject: Data Downloads from DDE Applications
> > >
> > >We have a web application for our healthplan that supplies eligibility
> >and
> > >claims status information to providers.  Once a provider has displayed
> >the
> > >information, they have an option to "download" the information to their
> >
> > >PC.  My question - should we consider the download to be a covered
> > >transaction?
> > >I find the following in the regulations:
> > >
> > >160.103 Transaction means the exchange of information between two
> >parties
> > >to carry out financial or administrative activities related to health
> >care.
> > >162.923 (a) General rule. Except as otherwise provided in this part, if
> >a
> > >covered entity conducts with another covered entity (or within the same
> >
> > >covered entity), using electronic media, a transaction of which the
> > >Secretary has adopted a standard under this part, the covered entity
> >must
> > >conduct the transaction as a standard transaction.
> > >(b) Exception for Direct data entry transactions. A health care
> >provider
> > >electing to use direct data entry offered by a health plan to conduct a
> >
> > >transaction for which a standard has been adopted under this part must
> >use
> > >the applicable data content and data condition requirements of the
> > >standard when conducting the transaction.  The health care provider is
> >not
> > >required to use the format requirements of the standard.
> > >162.1201 Eligibility for a health plan transaction (a) An inquiry from
> >a
> > >health care provider to a health plan, or from one health plan to
> >another
> > >health plan to obtain...(1) Eligibility to receive health care under
> >the
> > >health plan. (2) Coverage of health care under the health plan.  (3)
> > >Benefits associated with the benefit plan.  (b) A response from a
> >health
> > >plan to a health care provider's (or another health plan's ) inquiry
> > >described in the paragraph(a) of this section.
> > >162.1402 Health care claims status transaction.  (a) An inquiry to
> > >determine the status of a health care claim.  (b) A response about the
> > >status of a health care claim.
> > >OK, so I read all this and it would seem that the downloads are to
> >carry
> > >out administrative activities, and they are eligibility responses, or
> > >claims status responses.  My only hope is that the web application has
> > >already done the request and response and that this is somehow after
> >the
> > >fact, and therefore not covered... or perhaps the fact that this is
> >from a
> > >DDE application gets us by the format requirements.    If these are in
> > >fact a covered transaction they become useless because the providers
> >that
> > >are utilizing these are doing so because they have no technical
> >facility
> > >to handle an X-12 format.
> > >Any thoughts?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Kris Owens
> > >Senior IS Project Manager - HIPAA Project
> > >Presbyterian Healthcare Services
> > >Albuquerque, NM
> > >505.923.8108
> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >"There is no meaning in isolation"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >--- PRESBYTERIAN HEALTHCARE SERVICES DISCLAIMER ---
> > >
> > >This message originates from Presbyterian Healthcare Services or one of
> >
> > >its affiliated organizations. It contains information, which may be
> > >confidential or privileged, and is intended only for the individual or
> > >entity named above. It is prohibited for anyone else to disclose, copy,
> >
> > >distribute or use the contents of this message. All personal messages
> > >express views solely of the sender, which are not to be attributed to
> > >Presbyterian Healthcare Services or any of its affiliated
> >organizations,
> > >and may not be distributed without this disclaimer. If you received
> >this
> > >message in error, please notify us immediately at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >--- PRESBYTERIAN HEALTHCARE SERVICES DISCLAIMER ---
> > >
> > >This message originates from Presbyterian Healthcare Services or one of
> >
> > >its affiliated organizations. It contains information, which may be
> > >confidential or privileged, and is intended only for the individual or
> > >entity named above. It is prohibited for anyone else to disclose, copy,
> >
> > >distribute or use the contents of this message. All personal messages
> > >express views solely of the sender, which are not to be attributed to
> > >Presbyterian Healthcare Services or any of its affiliated
> >organizations,
> > >and may not be distributed without this disclaimer. If you received
> >this
> > >message in error, please notify us immediately at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >Christopher J. Feahr, OD
> >http://visiondatastandard.org
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
> >
> >
> >
> >The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It
> >contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named
> >addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose
> >it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately
> >and then destroy it.
>
> Christopher J. Feahr, OD
> http://visiondatastandard.org
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268

Reply via email to