Jennifer, It is up to the payer building the 835 to decide whether they are going to generate only one LX or more than one, and both are equally in compliance with the 835 guide. The provider receiving the 835 should accommodate the existence of either a single LX loop or multiple LX loops.
However, generating an LX for each CLP segment defeats the purpose of generating multiple LXs. The possibility of generating multiple LX is so you can group the claims being paid by one payment into different groups. But if you have one LX per CLP you end up having one payment with multiple "groups of one" which is the same as not having groups at all. A wasted effort. But nothing technically wrong with that. You may also end up repeating the TS3/TS2 segments over and over in each LX with the same information in them. More waste. But still technically correct. As you know, there are multiple solutions to these HIPAA implementations, and many of them are correct. However, after having said they are correct, I would still recommend to not waste your computer cycles in producing a separate LX per CLP, as it is of no particular use. I hope this helps. Kepa On Thursday 19 September 2002 08:36 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > According to the IG notes for the LX segment - "The LX segment is required > whenever any information in the LX loop is included in the transaction. In the > event that claim/service information must be sorted, the LX segment must > precede each series of claim level and service segments." > > We interpreted "series" to mean multiple Loop 2100/2110's. Therefore we were > only including one LX per 835. This approach was not questioned by the > validator we are using to test compliance of our files. > Our current testing partner says that they are used to seeing an LX segment > (Loop 2000) prior to each CLP segment (Loop 2100) so the number of LX segments > equals the number of claims included in the 835. > > The phrase "In the event that claim/service information must be sorted.." makes > it sound like the end user can decide if they need multiple LX. > Any comments to what is the correct interpretation or standard practice would > be appreciated. > > Thanks, > Jennifer Freehill > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > ********************************************************************** > 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. > > -- This email contains confidential information intended only for the named addressee(s). Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by any other person is strictly prohibited. ********************************************************************** 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.
