This clerical IRR is now APPROVED following the final 14-day review period without objection.

Hi Kim,

Thank you for the response.  Actually, both documents serve as the final resolution as the Excel spreadsheet that was added along with the Word document provides only for the updates to the DP rules we've made changes to but the information reflecting changes to the ERT captured on page 10 serves as the other part.  I hope that helps! 

Thanks,

Candace

Kim Smith wrote:

Please note that the ERT changes on page 10 from the August 11 and August 22 workgroup notes are not included in the final resolution.   Will this be updated ?   Thanks.

Please note that the ERT changes on page 10 from the August 11 and August 22 workgroup notes are not included in the final resolution.   Will this be updated ?   Thanks.

The Final 14 Day Review period for this IRR has begun and will extend through Monday, October 31, 2022.

Upon completion of this review period, this clerical IRR will be considered "Approved" if there are no concerns or objections.

Good afternoon all,

Please see the attached proposed resolution which includes changes to the 3.1 FROI ERT, Change Log, and DP Rules related to addresses, all of which are captured between the two attached documents:

• Word document labeled IRR926 Workgroup_20220907_final resolution - page 10 which reflects the exact changes made to the ERT and Change Log
• Excel document labeled IRR CLM926 Final Resolution which is a spreadsheet that contains all 16 of the following Data Elements which require a change to meet the needs of this IRR  
  • DP rules that required no change are included in column D of the spreadsheet but have been filtered out 

Thanks to all that participated in the workgroup as well as the Systems Committee for their assistance.  

~Candace Gray

Gregg Lutz wrote:

Issue / Business Requirement: We need to see if we can standardize how states take foreign addresses. The format does not match the US format and jurisdictions are sometimes requesting a state when this does not apply.

Requester's Proposed Resolution: Make what we send to the jurisdictions consistent so we can format our system to get them what they need.

[/QUOTE]

Hi all,

I was just made aware that the spreadsheet I mentioned was not included on the original post.  Please see attached.  

Thanks!

Candace

Candace Gray wrote:

Good afternoon/evening,

The workgroup met this past Monday, July 18th.  During this meeting, we believe we have made all the necessary updates to DP rules of address-related data elements that will help to standardize foreign and domestic addresses.  We plan to present the attached to the Claims Committee during the 7/20/2022 meeting.  If all agree, our next step is to write up a proposal to the Systems Committee to include the recommended changes to DP rules as well as request to update the ERT to limit the following data elements to MC (vs blank which allows for state codes to be set to mandatory even with country addresses where state codes don't apply):

o    Accident Site State Code (DN0123)

o    Employee Mailing State Code (DN0049)

o    Employer Mailing State Code (DN0170)

o     Employer Physical State Code (DN0022)

o   Claim Administrator State Code (DN0013)

A few notes related to the attached spreadsheet:

     
• The 1st tab (orange) basically provides for a timeline of when each Data Element/DP Rule was worked on and any cells in green are final agreed-upon rules. 
     
• I’ve created a 2nd tab (green) that shows the Current DP rules (if any) and the final recommended DP Rule (if any) to make it easier to compare side by side.

Thanks to everyone that has assisted on the work that's been completed thus far and for all that take time to review to provide feedback.  

Candace

Candace Gray wrote:

Good evening,

The workgroup met this past Monday following a request from another jurisdiction to take a look at the current DP rules for DN0165 (Employer Mailing City) and DN0048 (Employee Mailing City) due to receiving some unexpected A/N for those fields such as SSNs, commas, quotations, or zip codes.  The group will continue this discussion next Monday, July 18, 2022 at 11am-12pm EST and welcomes all to review the notes as attached and/or provide any feedback you may have.  Updates will also be provided at the next Claims Committee Meeting scheduled for July 20th. 

Thanks,

Candace Gray

Gregg Lutz wrote:

Issue / Business Requirement: We need to see if we can standardize how states take foreign addresses. The format does not match the US format and jurisdictions are sometimes requesting a state when this does not apply.

Requester's Proposed Resolution: Make what we send to the jurisdictions consistent so we can format our system to get them what they need.

Good afternoon/evening,

The workgroup met this past Monday, July 18th.  During this meeting, we believe we have made all the necessary updates to DP rules of address-related data elements that will help to standardize foreign and domestic addresses.  We plan to present the attached to the Claims Committee during the 7/20/2022 meeting.  If all agree, our next step is to write up a proposal to the Systems Committee to include the recommended changes to DP rules as well as request to update the ERT to limit the following data elements to MC (vs blank which allows for state codes to be set to mandatory even with country addresses where state codes don't apply):

o   Accident Site State Code (DN0123)

o   Employee Mailing State Code (DN0049)

o   Employer Mailing State Code (DN0170)

o   Employer Physical State Code (DN0022)

o  Claim Administrator State Code (DN0013)

A few notes related to the attached spreadsheet:

• The 1^st tab (orange) basically provides for a timeline of when each Data Element/DP Rule was worked on and any cells in green are final agreed-upon rules. 
• I’ve created a 2^nd tab (green) that shows the Current DP rules (if any) and the final recommended DP Rule (if any) to make it easier to compare side by side.

Thanks to everyone that has assisted on the work that's been completed thus far and for all that take time to review to provide feedback.  

Candace

Candace Gray wrote:

Good evening,

The workgroup met this past Monday following a request from another jurisdiction to take a look at the current DP rules for DN0165 (Employer Mailing City) and DN0048 (Employee Mailing City) due to receiving some unexpected A/N for those fields such as SSNs, commas, quotations, or zip codes.  The group will continue this discussion next Monday, July 18, 2022 at 11am-12pm EST and welcomes all to review the notes as attached and/or provide any feedback you may have.  Updates will also be provided at the next Claims Committee Meeting scheduled for July 20th. 

Thanks,

Candace Gray

Gregg Lutz wrote:

Issue / Business Requirement: We need to see if we can standardize how states take foreign addresses. The format does not match the US format and jurisdictions are sometimes requesting a state when this does not apply.

Requester's Proposed Resolution: Make what we send to the jurisdictions consistent so we can format our system to get them what they need.

Good evening,

The workgroup met this past Monday following a request from another jurisdiction to take a look at the current DP rules for DN0165 (Employer Mailing City) and DN0048 (Employee Mailing City) due to receiving some unexpected A/N for those fields such as SSNs, commas, quotations, or zip codes.  The group will continue this discussion next Monday, July 18, 2022 at 11am-12pm EST and welcomes all to review the notes as attached and/or provide any feedback you may have.  Updates will also be provided at the next Claims Committee Meeting scheduled for July 20th. 

Thanks,

Candace Gray

Candace Gray wrote:

Good afternoon all,

Today's workgroup meeting was short but productive.  Attached are the notes as well as an updated spreadsheet which contains all the data elements related to the addresses as well as DP rules we have either drafted proposed changes to or recommend no changes.  Please take a moment to review all and provide any feedback you may have.  Our next meeting is not scheduled until July 11, 2022 at 11am-12pm EST. 

Thank you to all involved and those that take the time to review and provide feedback.  

Candace Gray

Gregg Lutz wrote:

Issue / Business Requirement: We need to see if we can standardize how states take foreign addresses. The format does not match the US format and jurisdictions are sometimes requesting a state when this does not apply.

Requester's Proposed Resolution: Make what we send to the jurisdictions consistent so we can format our system to get them what they need.

Good afternoon all,

Today's workgroup meeting was short but productive.  Attached are the notes as well as an updated spreadsheet which contains all the data elements related to the addresses as well as DP rules we have either drafted proposed changes to or recommend no changes.  Please take a moment to review all and provide any feedback you may have.  Our next meeting is not scheduled until July 11, 2022 at 11am-12pm EST. 

Thank you to all involved and those that take the time to review and provide feedback.  

Candace Gray

Candace Gray wrote:

Hi all!

Since next Monday is a holiday, the next date for us to meet has been scheduled for Friday, June 24 from 12pm-1pm EST.  If you'd like to join us for this meeting, please feel free to reach out to myself or Gregg Lutz.

Thanks!

Candace Gray

Gregg Lutz wrote:

Issue / Business Requirement: We need to see if we can standardize how states take foreign addresses. The format does not match the US format and jurisdictions are sometimes requesting a state when this does not apply.

Requester's Proposed Resolution: Make what we send to the jurisdictions consistent so we can format our system to get them what they need.

Hi all!

Since next Monday is a holiday, the next date for us to meet has been scheduled for Friday, June 24 from 12pm-1pm EST.  If you'd like to join us for this meeting, please feel free to reach out to myself or Gregg Lutz.

Thanks!

Candace Gray

Candace Gray wrote:

Good morning everyone,

The workgroup met this past Monday (6/13) to continue the discussion around consistency within the DP rules for data elements related to addresses, specifically working this week on data elements related to Accident Site, State, and Postal codes.  We revisited notes from two previous IRR's to make sure we continued to respect language deemed necessary, specifically to recent IRR902 as it related to changes made to Accident Site DN's.  In the attached notes, I have included the drafted proposals for an additional 10 data elements, some with changes and some recommended to have no changes, and welcome all to review to ensure that others agree.  The group is looking to maintain consistency while also clearly defining the expectation for that data element.  Since next Monday is a federal holiday, we will not be able to meet on Monday, June 20th but the group has agreed to look at meeting on another date within that same week.  I will provide an update within this community thread when that date is determined.  We continue to welcome all to review the attached notes as well as provide feedback and/or participate in the discussion.  

Thank again to all involved,

Candace

Candace Gray wrote:

Gregg Lutz wrote:

Issue / Business Requirement: We need to see if we can standardize how states take foreign addresses. The format does not match the US format and jurisdictions are sometimes requesting a state when this does not apply.

Requester's Proposed Resolution: Make what we send to the jurisdictions consistent so we can format our system to get them what they need.