I made the following statement in an earlier posting:
The 270-271 IG is clear that if a patient can be uniquely identified
to an information source, that patient's information should be passed at
the subscriber hierarchical level, "whether he or she is a child, spouse, or
the actual subscriber to the plan" . (pg 13).
We now have a client (an information source) who wants to use the subscriber
loop for the actual subscriber, and the dependent loop for dependents,
despite the fact that this client uses unique identifiers for each patient.
We can certainly write the code to handle this, but I'd like some feedback
the following questions:
1) Is my earlier statement (which is my own interpretation of the IG)
correct?
2) If so, is there any need/value in encouraging our client to adopt this
interpretation rather than their own? The transaction set can handle doing
it their way, even if it's arguably incorrect.
**********************************************************************
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.
