Janie, Are you talking about a HIPAA "companion document", or about a "transitional document" for implementation today?
For example, a lot of payers today still require the "Type of Service" in order to adjudicate the claim. I have seen documentation from payers and clearinghouses instructing the providers to send the TOS, even though the HIPAA guides say it is "not used". This is a transition issue. In effect, they are creating a proprietary transaction based on the HIPAA guides, but it is not a HIPAA transaction per s�. Sort of like having training wheels when you are learning to ride a bike. Is it a bike or a tricycle? The fact is that some of these transition issues will not be resolved until we get very close to the 10/16/03 deadline. By then all of these transition issues will have to be resolved. In the meantime, and as long as both trading partners agree to these additional requirements in order to both get their feet wet with HIPAA transactions AND still get paid for those claims, it is OK. But both parties must understand that these are not valid HIPAA "companion documents" at all, but a transitional implementation. For sure the GS08 should NOT have the HIPAA standard designator of 004010X098 but something else, so nobody gets confused. Have you seen the "HIPAA Helpful Hints" documents? They were released without fanfare on July 1st at //www.hipaa.org/hints/ The transition issues, among other, are addressed there. This is a very touchy subject. Some people "need" training wheels before they can learn to ride a bike. Other people consider that training wheels will make it more difficult to learn to ride a bike and will slow the process. Other people want to get from here to there and don't care whether they learn to ride the bike or not, that is not their goal. Having said all that... if they really intended to modify the HIPAA requirements by "requiring" something that is not used in the HIPAA guides even after 10/16/03, I am sure you can point to the Final Rule on transactions where it says that you cannot do that. Kepa On Thursday 11 July 2002 02:01 pm, Janie Miller wrote: > Probably ignorant questions, but I must clarify for my own sanity: > > In a companion document, is it HIPAA compliant for a covered entity to > "require" certain "situational" loops/segments/data elements of its trading > partner(s)? What about when the covered entity wants to "require" certain > specific data in "NOT USED" description fields? ********************************************************************** To be removed from this list, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that it may take up to 72 hours to process your request. =====================================================The WEDI SNIP listserv to which you are subscribed is not moderated. The discussions on this listserv therefore represent the views of the individual participants, and do not necessarily represent the views of the WEDI Board of Directors nor WEDI SNIP. If you wish to receive an official opinion, post your question to the WEDI SNIP Issues Database at http://snip.wedi.org/tracking/. Posting of advertisements or other commercial use of this listserv is specifically prohibited.
