Depends on the version of X12 you are looking at whether or not AK4 01 is a
simple data element or a composite data structure. For 4010, If you look at the
definitions in C030 (which is AK4_01) and the component data elements, it is
fairly clear what they are to be used as. AK4_01_01 is the element position in
the segment, and this applies regardless of whether or not that element is a
simple element or a composite. So, I think Mr. Beecher's interpretation is
correct.
Of course, if you want or need a definitive answer, you may submit a formal
request for interpretation to X12 and we in X12C would be glad to look at it.
Dale Marthaller wrote:
> 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/
--
Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
www.rawlinsecconsulting.com
=======================================================================
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
