Absolutely! This is the message for all of us. We need to be working together in as many ways as possible.
Finally, a voice of reason... Thank you. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rachel Foerster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WEDI SNIP Testing Subworkgroup List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 12:53 PM Subject: The HIPAA Hoax > Applause!! Applause!! Applause!! and Bravo, Chris for this message. > > Rachel Foerster > > -----Original Message----- > From: Skip McKinstry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 12:42 PM > To: WEDI SNIP Testing Subworkgroup List > Subject: Re: The HIPAA Hoax > > > This message contains three things: > > First, I am going to vent a little about the level of noise and the absurd > animosities I have seen exhibited by some on this list. > > Second, I am going to reiterate a few things regarding Claredi positions > that I think have been very often misrepresented, intentionally or > otherwise. > > Third, despite the fact that I do not participate in the Testing white paper > workgroup (Claredi is already well-represented) I have a modest proposal for > a change to the white paper that should help refocus the debate toward > testing and away from certification. > > THE VENT > I am continually astonished at the level of animosity toward 'certification' > shown by a very small number of contributors to this list. It is also clear > that many if not most among that small number are affiliated with one of the > testing services. Perhaps in the interest of full disclosure we should ask > contributors to these threads to FULLY reveal their affiliations--for whom > they work, for whom they consult, and who they truly represent. > > It has become clear, at least to me, that the animus toward 'certification' > merely uses the word 'certification' or 'the only vendor who certifies' as a > placeholder for Claredi. That is the cost of leadership and we readily > accept that. Claredi, in particular Kepa Zubeldia and Larry Watkins, have > taken leadership roles in this industry by contributing literally over half > their time every week for the past 10+ years to a variety of healthcare > industry service organizations. It is not clear to me how anyone who has > been around this industry very long could seriously challenges these two > gentlemen's motives, altruism, expert status, or contribution to > healthcare/HIPAA EDI. > > Now that they have formed a company, working within the spirit of the free > enterprise system, to deliver a service which they are doubtless qualified > to provide they are accused of foisting a 'HIPAA Hoax' on the industry. In > the long run these attacks will do much more damage to the attackers than to > those they seek to malign, especially those attacks which are deliberate > misrepresentations of the truth. Is it possible that some of the noise on > this list is intended to confuse the issues in an attempt to gain market > share for the 'other' third-party services? > > Regardless, such direct attacks on Claredi are inappropriate for the WEDI > SNIP listservs, and must stop. > > > THE CLARIFICATION > All that aside I would like to address a number of glaring > misunderstandings. > > First, while we agree that there is a market desire for certification, > Claredi has never, not once, not ever, suggested that certification is > required under the law. And we never will, except in the very unlikely event > that the regulations change. > > Second, we do not presume to guarantee that an organization that has > achieved our certification will always and forever generate compliant > transactions. Of course no one can do that. We simply say that specific > transactions submitted to us for analysis have been demonstrated to by > compliant. One may easily challenge the value of that, but to suggest that > we have ever called certification anything other than that is to create a > straw man fallacy-- perhaps in the interest of market obfuscation. > > So what do we say is the value of that certification? Similar to what > everyone wants to ascribe to the term 'validation' we simply say that it > will reduce the amount of one-on-one testing you must do to achieve > interoperability with your trading partners. Does certification in and of > itself provide interoperability? Of course not. And once again, suggestions > that this is our claim may well be an intentional effort to confuse the > market. > > We also believe that some of the value of any certification is relative to > the extent that the 'certifier' is willing to stand behind it. We have > clearly stated what we will stand behind and are therefore comfortable with > calling it certification. I would hope that when any vendor uses the term > certification or even validation that they would define it clearly and be > willing to stand behind it on behalf of their customers. > > Claredi alone has fully disclosed what our certification means and what it > ought to mean. We completely agree that the definition within the white > paper is so vague as to be meaningless. However, some competing vendors, who > have thus far refused to explicitly state what their own definitions of > certification are (and they DO use that term in their marketing) forced the > watered-down version in the white paper. > > Third, Claredi has never stated and never will state that simply testing > with Claredi and achieving 'certification' is all that is necessary to > guarantee interoperability. Every health care organization has a > responsibility to do very extensive testing of all their systems. We > encourage all kinds of testing and have no problem with those who wish to > bring their years of EDI and QA experience in other industries to enlighten > the healthcare community about the very real needs in that area. We do not > feel that is incompatible with our model in any way. > > > THE MODEST PROPOSAL > In the interest of refocusing this entire debate onto the topic of testing > and away from certification, I would propose the following change to the > white paper: > > Because testing and certification are intimately linked, I still think > certification should be addressed within the white paper. But it does not > have to provide a definition. Let the market work that one out. And it will. > It has for almost every other certifying body I know of. > > In the interest of serving the industry, it is probably inappropriate for > WEDI to ignore the topic of certification. However, as long as it is > believed that any particular specific definition of certification serves > only the vendor who brings that definition forward, the white paper should > address the issue in an objective manner. > > The paper can state the obvious: that HHS has explicitly, in the > regulations, stated that it will not be getting into the certification. > However, they did recommend that the industry come up with some kind of > solution because it would be of value. > > WEDI could, therefore, in the spirit of objectivity and agreement with the > intent of the regulations, state that several solutions have arisen in the > marketplace to meet this challenge. > > I would still argue that it is appropriate for WEDI to state that > certification can help HCOs to achieve some reduction in the overall amount > of testing they must do to achieve interoperability but that no one should > consider that level of testing to be sufficient. > > Finally, the paper should recommend that anyone who is interested in > certification should ask any vendor they are considering for that service to > explicitly define what they mean by the term certification. > > > Maybe then we can get back to the namesake of this list and stop wasting > bandwidth on the certification sideshow. Testing is where the real issues > are and all the vendors can begin to differentiate themselves on the quality > of their testing services rather than taking potshots at one another. > > Hope this helps. > > Skip McKinstry > VP Marketing > CLaredi > > > --- > 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 --- 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
