Re: Coverage Level Codes in 270 and 834

[Martin Scholl]

I have to append my previous message. While it is true that the 270 transaction set has 9 Coverage Level Codes, the 271 response has only 8. The EMP code (Employee only) is missing. I ask myself, who signed off on these transactions. How do we get this fixed or am I the only one who sees this as a problem in need of attention?   Martin Scholl Scholl Consulting Group, Inc. 301-924-5537 Tel 301-570-0139 Fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.SchollConsulting.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Martin Scholl To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 8:32 AM Subject: Coverage Level Codes in 270 and 834 The Coverage Level codes in the 270 transaction contain 9 different codes. In the 834 transaction I have those and an additional 9 codes. Why should these sets be different? It make no sense to me to have code sets, that are not HIPAA wide but only valid for a single transaction. The goal of any standard should be to reduce the arbitrary elements to well defined sets, that can be implemented across the industry.  Now I have to create Coverage-Level-Codes-270 and Coverage-Level-Codes-834. I suggest strongly to agree on industry-wide standard code sets that are valid for all transaction sets.  This Balkanization of code sets for each transaction will further erode the confidence in the work of the standard body.   Martin Scholl Scholl Consulting Group, Inc. 301-924-5537 Tel 301-570-0139 Fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.SchollConsulting.com