Mishra sez "If these [compliance] reports [from the various vendors]
differ at reporting 'the HIPAA Errors, with the standard 7 types defined
in the SNIP white paper' then This is alarming!"
It's not all that alarming. Reasonable folks can differ in handling
ambiguities, the tough calls, or just plain obscurities . You also have
to account for ordinary mortal mistakes - which vendors can commit also.
It's hard to say if a particular transaction is perfectly compliant;
even I have problems, sometimes (feigned vanity).
As I relayed to the WEDI SNIP Transactions Workgroup List on Friday, at
the Compliance and Testing vendor Bake-Off last Wednesday at the WEDI
HIPAA Summit in Phoenix, only one of the vendors wasn't caught off-guard
by a zip code with a dash: "55164-0179". This, after I went to all that
trouble to explain (on the WEDI SNIP Transactions Workgroup List, again)
last Monday that ZIP codes appearing in D.E. 116 (Postal Code) cannot
contain hyphens, because only upper case alphabetic characters and
numerics are allowed in an ID-type element (X12.6 � 3.5.1.3). This
should be a "fatal" error since a translator will generate a negative
997 for an mal-formed ID code. Only one vendor saw fit to accept my
freely-offered advice on implementing a simple technique to validate ZIP
codes and for correlating them with state codes.
None of the vendors warned of the lower-case characters in the
transactions; the HIPAA IGs require all upper-case characters. The
extended character set (which includes lower-case) may be used
supposedly only "by negotiation" between the two parties (� A.1.2.3 in
any of the HIPAA IGs). I think that requirement is bull - I've been
using lower case since 2nd grade; but, nonetheless, the requirement is
there, and the validators should have at least warned of the situation.
Speaking of ambiguous situations, two of the vendors saw fit to warn of
duplicate communication number qualifiers ("TE" for "Telephone") in the
PER segment within an 835. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with this - how
else would you convey both your local and your toll-free telephone
numbers unless you could use the same qualifier twice? It's not
forbidden in the HIPAA IG, nor is it an X12 violation. Perhaps the
overly "fastidious" vendors are confusing the communication number
qualifier with a segment qualifier (see X12.59).
Nobody likes surprises, or to be put on the spot - and I imagine vendors
don't either. Wouldn't it be simpler for WEDI/SNIP to put together a
repository of tough test cases that vendors can use as the "acid test"
of their respective products? In other words - a validation test suite.
These - perhaps live files, otherwise de-identified, which caused
conniptions to trading partners and/or their translators - can be
contributed and posted to a public place. A vendor then, in the privacy
of his own home, can ensure his product handles everything to his
satisfaction. This even gives him time to contract with me to give my
final okay, whereupon he'll feel comfortable posting his results to the
same site.
William J. Kammerer
Novannet, LLC.
Columbus, US-OH 43221-3859
+1 (614) 487-0320
----- Original Message -----
From: "Manohar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WEDI SNIP Testing Subworkgroup List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, 25 November, 2002 04:57 AM
Subject: Re: VALIDATION or Certification
Kepa,
"CERTIFICATION" Service is great.As I understand it makes sure that
"each and every type of scenario" file is submitted for testing.After
the user has got 0 errors in all lines of business in that file then it
is certified.
Testing as defined by other vendors is a process ( manual / semi
auomated) and you have packaged/automated that "entire process" as
certification. Certification uses testing.
But as far as "Testing" is concerned
>That is
>just fine, as there are many different approaches to putting a trading
>partner into production. We believe out test tools are better than our
>competitors', but I am sure they believe theirs are better. But
testing is
>only part of the picture.
Why does the industry not get this part of the picture clear and have an
unambiguous definition of a standard and then next Testing ?
A vendor consortium may help to lay down all the rules of Testing a
standard. Common interpretation of IGs is must. Given a hipaa file (A
single business unit : a claim) all vendors must report common /same
test result for that file.
> So as far as testing is concerned, Patrice showed that the three main
> contenders can test the files with some differences. However, had we
tested
> a different file, a more moderately sized file for example, we would
had
seen
> a number of significant differences in the quality and completeness of
the
> results.
If these reports differ at reporting "the HIPAA Errors, with the
standard 7 types defined in the SNIP white paper" then This is alarming!
Thank You,
Mishra.
---
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/. These listservs should not be used for
commercial marketing purposes or discussion of specific vendor products and services.
They also are not intended to be used as a forum for personal disagreements or
unprofessional communication at any time.
You are currently subscribed to wedi-testing as: [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this list, go to the Subscribe/Unsubscribe form at
http://subscribe.wedi.org or send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you need to unsubscribe but your current email address is not the same as the
address subscribed to the list, please use the Subscribe/Unsubscribe form at
http://subscribe.wedi.org
