Tallan's Blog

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

Posts Tagged "claims"

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…

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…

Edit and Resubmit X12 HIPAA EDI with the T-Connect Management Suite

An EDI software’s ability to identify and respond to invalid X12 HIPAA EDI transactions is a major contributor to the effectiveness of EDI dependent organizations. Many healthcare companies appoint a business unit as stewards of the tens of thousands of transactions that are transmitted between payers, providers, and trading partners providing auxiliary services. These business units are often hard-pressed to respond to the quantity of incorrect claims, enrollments and payments received within their current EDI solutions or products.
The T-Connect EDI Management Suite is Tallan’s healthcare EDI product, providing actionable insight, alerting, and painless mechanisms to respond to invalid X12 EDI transactions flowing in and out of the organization. The following is a brief introduction into some of these capabilities.
The EDI solution consists of several components working in unison to introduce, augment or replace an EDI processing system.
· The T-Connect Management Portal,…

All-Payer Claims Database Submission – Common Data Layout and PACDR X12

As we strike out into 2018, the implementation of All-Payer Claims Databases (APCD) across states remains variable and dynamic. Massachusetts maintains a comprehensive implementation, aggregating data feeds from over 80 public and private payers.  Massachusetts has leveraged their APCD to create a state-specific risk adjustment model to meet the ACA provision which balances funds from healthier populations to higher risk pools. Late in 2016, Minnesota concluded a feasibility study which determined their APCD could significantly improve risk adjustment vs. the federal model.
On the other hand, West Virginia and Tennessee have put APCD development on hold. California payers optionally submit claims and encounters to a public benefit corporation. Legal, fiscal and political concerns guarantee a fluid situation for insurers.
This blog post is focused on the technical obstacles that health plans face in states requiring APCD submission. Since these databases have phased in over the last decade through both voluntary and legislated…

\\\