The code sets are industry wide - however the authors of the implementation guides chose subsets of the standard code sets for inclusion in their guides depending upon the business purpose of the IG and the applicability of the valid values (codes) that are relevant to the intended business use of a particular data element and segment.
And for the record, the approval of the transactions and implementation guides was accomplished through industry consensus which is required for ANSI accreditation of the X12 organization.
----- Original Message -----
From: Martin Scholl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 08:58:35 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Coverage Level Codes in 270 and 834
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Scholl Consulting Group, Inc.
301-924-5537 Tel
301-570-0139 Fax
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.SchollConsulting.com
------- Original Message -----From: Martin SchollSent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 8:32 AMSubject: Coverage Level Codes in 270 and 834The 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
_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
