Well I read and reread the description of the element in question and I
think that the person that wrote this description should be a criminal
lawyer. It's the "with the relative
position of the component within the composite data structure" phrase that
seems meaningless in a situation where this AK04 01 element can not have
sub-elements.
-----Original Message-----
From: Beecher, Anthony [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 1:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: 997 AK401
Here is a fun semantics question:
"This is used to indicate the relative position of a simple data element, or
the relative position of a composite data structure with the relative
position of the component within the composite data structure, in error; in
the data segment the count starts with 1 for the simple data element or
composite data structure immediately following the segment ID."
I read this a meaning that a Composite should be counted a 1 element,
regardless of the count of sub elements.
So here is the example failing segment from HIPAA 837:
SV1*HC:99212*100*UN*1*11*1*1**N
I see that element 6 must not be used.
So, I believe the AK4 segment in the generated 997 should be:
AK4*6**3*1
My colleagues are saying that each sub element should be counted, thus:
AK4*7**3*1
Would anyone care to endorse either of us? My reasoning is that, because
AK401_02 is a place to indicate invalid subelements of composite elements,
the SV101 composite counts as one element, not two, thus the error is in
element position 6, not 7.
Anthony Beecher
EDI Consultant
=======================================================================
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
=======================================================================
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
