Um, I'm not sure I want to do this, but another area of uncertainty has come
up. A few weeks ago there was a hot debate raging on whether the 997 was
the appropriate vehicle for reporting "syntactical" errors at the IG level
(such as exceeding a reduced number of loops as determined by the IG) or if
the 824 might be the better choice.
I just ran across a comment on the HIPAAlive list from Robert Barclay from
Wisconsin Medicaid to the affect that "The 4050 version of the 997 allows it
to report both standard and IG syntax errors."
I looked this up in the 4050 manual and discovered that, under the Comments
section, the comment attached to the AK3 segment reads as follows:
"The data segments of this standard are used to report the results
of the syntactical analysis of the functional groups of
transaction sets; they report the extent to which the syntax
complies with the standards or proper subsets of transaction
sets and functional groups. They do not report on the semantic
meaning of the transaction sets (for example, on the
ability of the receiver to comply with the request of the sender)."
This comment is subtly different from the same comment in 4010 which does
not include the expression "or proper subsets of transaction sets."
That leads me to ask a couple of (maybe important, maybe fatuous questions):
1. What exactly constitutes a "proper subset of a transaction set"? Do
HIPAA IGs qualify as "proper subsets?"
2. Is there any formal policy or convention that says though must only use
997s that match the originating group/transaction set versions?
3. If not, does this mean it would be possible to report HIPAA IG-specific
(currently based on X12 4010) syntax issues via the X12 4050 997?
I'd be interested to see where this might lead...
Best regards to all,
Bill Chessman
Peregrine Systems, Inc. (though the opinions expressed are my own)
