The following details will be included in the Supplement until the next publication is published:

Section 2:

1. Systems Rules Release 3.1 Records Summary - the maximum SROI record length is now 19, 630; Number of SROI filler fields is reduced to 12


2. Record Layouts - 20 bytes of filler was removed from the SROI Narratives segment; length of the segment is now 500 as originally intended

Voting for IRR CLM873 completed on Thursday, April 12, 2018. The proposed resolution to remove filler in SROI narrative for claims segment was approved along with the implementation timeline.

A total of 38 responses were received consisting of 30 Yes votes, 1 No vote and 7 Abstentions. Per the requirements of the IRR process, a two-thirds majority is needed for an IRR to be considered approved. The outcome of this vote exceeded the two-thirds requirement with 97% in favor of the proposed resolution.

The voting period for this IRR has begun and will extend through 4/12/18. A ballot for this IRR was sent to the voting body via email on 3/23/18. The voting body is comprised of current IAIABC jurisdictional and EDI members in good standing. Each eligible organization is allowed one vote per IRR. It is the responsibility of the designated voter (or the alternate, if the designated voter is not available) to discuss the issue up for vote with all stakeholders within their organization and vote accordingly.

The final proposed resolution was unacceptable. This issue has been referred back to the Claims Committee for further discussion and final determination.

Sedgwick is going to have to object to this as a Clerical IRR.  This IRR involves a change to the flat file format and would set precedent for non-clerical changes to go through as clerical and require everyone to be able to make changes on a short (30 day) development cycle.  

Although EDI Council gave a thumbs up to allow some changes that aren’t necessarily clerical to be moved into the clerical process, myself included as a member of the EDI Council,  the impact on everyone in the process of coding Release 3.1 may not have been fully vetted.  The following should be reviewed:

·             1.  Cost of making changes on a short development cycle

·             2.  People missing substantive changes because they are marked as clerical and didn’t go through a voting process

·             3.  If non-clerical changes are allowed to go through the clerical process there needs to be some parameters around that including what type and for how long this can happen so that everyone can plan their resources accordingly 

Thanks,

Melinda

Posted By: Gregg Lutz

This is nothing new. Every year changes to standards become effective prior to the annual publication of the guide. These changes are reflected within the Supplement which is intended to be used in conjunction with the Implementation Guide. The timeline requirements and the annual publication of the Implementation Guide are independent of each other.

 Further concern regarding this matter should be brought to the attention of the EDI Council.

This is nothing new. Every year changes to standards become effective prior to the annual publication of the guide. These changes are reflected within the Supplement which is intended to be used in conjunction with the Implementation Guide. The timeline requirements and the annual publication of the Implementation Guide are independent of each other.

 Further concern regarding this matter should be brought to the attention of the EDI Council.

But could this (and any other) changes could be effective prior to 1/1/2019?

The 2018 Supplement will contain all approved changes and is available from the EDI Claims Standard page on the IAIABC website. The next scheduled publication of the Claims Release 3.1 Implementation Guide is January 1, 2019.

When will a new Guide be published with the changes?  As each clerical IRR's time runs out?

Although a specific time frame was not provided, the group's intent was temporary to address issues found with the early adoption states (OK, GA, IA).