Re: The HIPAA Hoax

[Julie Thompson]

Valid points! Thanks, Skip.

Julie A. Thompson



From: "Rachel Foerster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "WEDI SNIP Testing Subworkgroup List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WEDI SNIP Testing Subworkgroup List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: The HIPAA Hoax
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 12:53:18 -0600

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


_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus


---
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: archive@mail-archive.com
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