In a consensus document, a statement saying that the consensus group 'believes the industry would be best served by X but recommends Y' seems pretty highly nuanced. If that is actually the case, perhaps the document could benefit by a sentence or two more than is there now explaining why the belief is not carried forward into an actual recommendation. It may be as simple as saying that there is not enough time or no organization suitably positioned to make such a judgement.
It appears that 'validate' is sometimes used more broadly than compliance testing, as in "or the payer may choose to send their own test files through the Certification Service to validate the Services testing processes." All the uses that I saw seemed to be compatible with the one of the American Heritage Dictionary definitions, "To establish the soundness of; corroborate. See synonyms at confirm." Since testing and certification are tightly nailed down, the authors no doubt need some flexibility with the word "validate" to avoid very awkward constructs. -----Original Message----- From: Kepa Zubeldia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 11:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Updated testing white paper Alice, The paper now makes a clearer difference between compliance testing, business to business testing, and certification of compliance. The term "validation" in the paper seems to be used as equivalent to compliance testing. I can't tell the difference. Is there a difference? As for Subtopic 7, how to select a compliance testing system or service, it gives a selection process by which one of these compliance testing methods could be chosen by a trading partner. I don't see this promoting a monopoly in any way. In fact, it recognizes that there is a choice, and what the process should be to select one of the choices. If you are referring to the sentence that says "we believe that the industry would be best served by a single certification system while considering a variety of testing systems and services", that is commentary. If the workgroup members don't believe that to be the case, the sentence should be struck. If the "recommendation" from the white paper was to establish a single certification system, then I would be concerned about establishing a monopoly, even though, in this case, it may still be much better than having a dozen different certification systems. But the recommendation itself is to select "at least one" based on a well defined process that shows technical acceptance by the payer. Is this promoting a monopoly? Kepa On Friday 10 May 2002 11:32 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The paper does not explore the difference between certify and validate. > > New wording in Subtopic 7 obviously promotes a monopoly - is no one else > concerned about this? > > Alice L. Davis, CISA, CISSP > Information Security Manager - VCU Health Systems > Richmond, VA (804) 628-1144 > > > > Kepa Zubeldia > <Kepa.Zubeldia@cl To: > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] aredi.com> cc: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Updated testing white paper > 05/08/2002 01:40 > PM > Please respond to > Kepa.Zubeldia > > > > > > > John, > > I have taken the liberty to revise the white paper before the conference > call > tomorrow. As you can see I have made extensive additions and revisions > that, > I hope, help clarify many of the issues. I have also changed from "levels" > to "types" of testing. Of course all of this is still subject to comments, > changes, improvements, deletions, and other actions by the entire group, so > we end up with a better paper. I thought it would be best if we can > circulate this before the call, but it is still up to you to decide whether > you want to discuss this version for the call, or the one you sent on > Friday. > > Once concern that I have that needs to be addressed is the fact that only > Claredi is willing to post the pricing of the products or services. If the > table is going to be useful, everybody should post the pricing, or we > should > remove the column. > > And in the last HIPAA Summit there was a new testing product by a company > called ApplLabs. I don't have much information to contribute yet, other > that > they had a booth and some demo (I did not see it) in the HIPAA Summit. > Maybe > somebody else knows more and we can add them to the matrix. > > Kepa > > On Friday 03 May 2002 01:42 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > Attached is an updated version of the white paper for review on Thursday. > > Mark got some additional updates for the Appendix. Please review and be > > ready to discuss on Thursday. > > > > P.S. - Kristin...can you post a link to this new version also? Thanks!! > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > John Lilleston > > Technical Supervisor > > Verizon Information Technologies, Inc. > > Healthcare Solutions > > 813-979-3225 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://www.VerizonIT.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > > ----- Forwarded by John Lilleston/fltpa_prodsvcs/comsvc on 05/03/2002 > > 03:37 > > > PM ----- > > > > "McLaughlin, Mark" > > <Mark.McLaughlin@Mc To: John Lilleston > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kesson.com> Sue Ryder > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc: > > 05/01/2002 07:36 AM Subject: Updated > > testing > > > white paper > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, there were some minor changes to the EDIfec section so I didn't > > change > > > the date. Here is the latest paper. > > > > > > <<Testing_white paper 040802.DOC>> > > > > > > Mark > > > > > > Mark McLaughlin > > Regulatory Policy Analyst > > McKesson > > 700 Locust St. Suite 500 > > Mail stop IADU-7 > > Dubuque, IA 52001 > > (563) 557-3654 phone > > (563) 557-3334 fax > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any > > attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and > > may > > > contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized > > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are > > not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply > > e-mail > > > and destroy all copies of the original message. > > > > > > (See attached file: Testing_white paper 040802.DOC) > > > > > > > > > > ********************************************************************** > > 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. -- 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. ********************************************************************** 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.
