Tallan's Blog

Tallan’s Experts Share Their Knowledge on Technology, Trends and Solutions to Business Challenges

Talk UX 2018 Recap

Talk UX is an annual design and technology conference hosted by Ladies that UX Boston (LTUX). LTUX is a global organization that has created an international community of supportive and inspiring women in design and technology.
This year’s conference was held at the beautiful Joseph B. Martin Conference Center at Harvard Medical School. There were roughly 500 people following a single stream of presentations and discussion panels by women in leadership. UX leaders, designers and researchers as well as professionals not actively working in UX attended this event.

The Talks
 
Building Bridges Through UX Research
Laura Granka – Director of UX Google
Slides | Video
Laura described some methods that Google uses to stay true to their user-centered strategy. One method she talked about was Google’s immersion studies, in which product teams go to the users. Per Laura’s suggestion, Google fashioned a 15 passenger van into a usability lab to…

Chatbots Get One Step Closer to Direct to Consumer with Google’s Adlingo

By now it should be readily apparent that Chatbots have become the new normal when it comes to must-have technologies for companies. From customer service to retail, Chatbots have been saturating every aspect of our business. One such area that has seen a huge uptick in activity has been in the area of digital advertising.
Companies such as Revlon and Coca-Cola have been tapping into the power of Chatbots in order to help create campaigns around new products. The advantages of this type of campaign are that companies are able to extract much more data from the consumer by utilizing a chat-like interface. This opens the door to a whole new area of analytics with things like keyword extraction and sentiment analysis. In addition, Chatbots are able to pivot the conversation around specific things that the consumer has said and thus…

Support is Ending! SQL and Windows 2008

Microsoft recently announced the end of support (EOS) for SQL and Windows 2008.   What does that mean for you?  Maybe nothing, but if your company is currently running either version you need to consider your options. There are two important dates to make note of – July 9th and January 14th. SQL Server 2008 support ends on July 9, 2019 and Windows Server 2008 support ends January 14, 2020.  Option 1 is to migrate to Azure.  When you’re ready to, you can modernize your applications.  Option 2 is to continue to run on 2008 until support ends and then decide.  We can help to weigh your options.
Are you ready to get started? We can help!

SNIP 6 – Line of Service or Product

What are HIPAA SNIP types? We get this question a lot, so we’ve been blogging about the different categories WEDI has defined to validate healthcare EDI transactions. Thus far, we’ve covered:

SNIP 1 & 2 Integrity and Requirement Testing
SNIP 3 Claim Balancing
SNIP 3 Remittance Advice Balancing
SNIP 4 Intersegment Situational Testing
SNIP 5 External Code Set Testing

These rules are sometimes referred to as SNIP levels – although that may wrongly imply that each type builds upon the previous category. In actuality, each SNIP type is a standalone set of validations rules.
In this article, we’ll focus on SNIP 6.
Type 6
SNIP 6 enforces situational rules specific to service lines and products. While SNIP 4 also focuses on situational rules that analyze the relationships between loops, segments and elements, SNIP 6 differs in that the rules apply to subsets within the transaction sets.
For example, within an 837…

SNIP 4 – EDI Intersegment Situational Rules

WEDI SNIP Types define sets of rules for validating EDI transactions such as 837 claims, 834 enrollments or 835 Remittance Advice.
Previously, we’ve blogged about:

SNIP 1 & 2 Integrity and Requirement Testing
SNIP 3 Claim Balancing
SNIP 3 Remittance Advice Balancing
SNIP 5 External Code Set Testing

This article focus on SNIP 4, which test situational rules spanning separate loops, segments, or elements. What differentiates these rules from Type 2 is that the situational tests span distinct segments, while Type 2 is considered intrasegment testing. Intrasegment tests validate the presence of elements within the same segment based on syntax rules.
Type 4
SNIP 4 situational rules break into two categories. Both categories consist of a condition statement, then a data item (loop, segment, or element) which should (or should not) be present based on the rule evaluation.
Category 1
The first category of situational rules specifies that sending the specified data item is up…

SNIP 5 – HIPAA External Code Set Testing

The HIPAA X12 EDI specification allows for the inclusion of code values that may be pertinent to the transaction set, such as a claim or encounter. These code values can represent a data point as widespread as a postal or zip code, or as complex as diagnosis and procedure codes.
WEDI describes seven types of validation, referred to as SNIP 1-7, as covered in some of our previous blog posts on SNIP 3 Balancing of Claims and Payments. SNIP 5 – HIPAA External Code Set Testing is the validation of code values against the external code sets they represent.
SNIP 5
As previously stated, SNIP 5 validates that code value exists within an external code list. For example, if a postal (zip) code is present in a subscriber’s address, then it should align with an actual postal code in as determined by the USPS, the…

Designing & Developing The Award-Winning malegislature.gov

At this year’s National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) Legislative Summit in Los Angeles, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts took home the NALIT/LINCS Online Democracy Award for the best legislative website in the country. Tallan has worked hand-in-hand with the Massachusetts General Court for the better part of a decade, and this is the second time we have helped them take home this prestigious award. This is, however, the first time we’ve done it with a complete website redesign from beginning to end. This will be an exploration of some components of the redesign, and what helped make it such a successful effort.

Accessibility First
A key component of any government website is accessibility. Designers and developers need to make sure that all information is available to all users through the same interface. With Massachusetts, we approached every feature or idea by asking…

Rapid EDI Trading Partner Onboarding with T-Connect

HIPAA X12 EDI transmission between the many entities in the HealthCare industry is performed using files conforming to ANSI X12 specifications. These Claim, Premium Payment and Remittance Advice EDI files may originate from payers, providers, clearinghouses, or third party administrators (TPAs). One prevalent hurdle in sending or receiving these EDI transactions is the often complex onboarding process of new trading partners.
HIPAA EDI files in X12 format may typically look similar to the sample below.

Submitting Workers Compensation Claims as 837s

Workers compensation claims contain a special set of requirements when submitted in the EDI 837 format. This article describes these specific characteristics.

In a standard 837, the 2000B loop always contains subscriber information (the primary insured individual). Claim level information (2300 loop) is nested beneath the 2000B loop in this scenario. The 2000C (Patient) loop is present in the case in which the claim is related to a dependent of the subscriber. In these cases, the 2300 loop is nested under 2000C. In workers comp claims, a 2000B and 2000C loop always exist, and their purposes are a bit different. Information related to the employer goes into the 2000B loop, while the 2000C loop is used for the claimant (the injured worker). The concept of a dependent doesn’t exist in workers comp claims.

The SBR segment present in 2000B is a required…

Why Insurers Should be Helping Their Customers Complain More

Here’s an interesting fact from a Forbes article published earlier this year, regarding end-consumers in the insurance industry:
“91% of non-complainers just leave”1
This tells us that there are two types of customers in the insurance world: complainers, and non-complainers.  Among non-complainers, more than nine out of ten actively choose to take their business to another company.  The insurer they leave behind must deal with the following consequences:

Loss of future revenue streams
Negative word-of-mouth
Lack of insight into why the customer chose to leave in the first place

The significance these metrics have on bottom line revenue can’t be understated.  These are customers that were already paying for a service – that had already gone through a decision-making process, chosen one insurer, and were so dismayed with some aspect of their service that they chose to begin this entire search process again.
But there’s a simple…

\\\