Voting for IRR CLM952 completed on Thursday, January 8, 2026. The proposed resolution was APPROVED along with the implementation timeline.

A total of 20 responses were received consisting of 15 Yes Votes, 1 No Votes and 4 Abstentions. Per the requirements of the IRR process, a two-thirds majority is required for an IRR to be considered approved. The outcome of this vote exceeded the two-thirds requirement with 93.75% in favor of the proposed resolution. A detailed report of the voting results for CLM952 is attached.

The voting period for this IRR has begun and will extend through January 8, 2026. A ballot for this IRR was sent to the voting body via email on December 18, 2025. 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 14-day review period has begun for this IRR and will extend through December 16, 2025. Please respond with any final feedback or objections.

Please review this proposed resolution and comment if needed.  This IRR will move into the 14 day review period on 11/25/2025.

ATtached is the new proposed language for the IRR, which was decided at the Nov 13th Claims meeting.  Please review.

Thank you,

Stephen A. Mason wrote:

Spoke with GAIC, and ti was asked to added the changes represented in the attachment. 

Katia Woerner wrote:

Business Requirement / Issue:
Current 3.1/3.0 definitions for Benefit Payment Issue Date (DN0192) and Payment Issue Date (DN0195) do not accommodate payee driven digital payment workflows (e.g. One Inc., VPay, ePay, etc.), where the payee determines the method/timing of the payment.

Requester's Proposed Solution:
See attached. Definition updates to accommodate additional mode of payment. See attached. Definition updates to accommodate additional mode of payment.

Hello All,

 Spoke with Martha Luevano regarding changes that would work better, and the attached is what we came up with.  Please review and provide any feedback you may have.  We will also discuss briefly at the Nov. 13th Claims Committee Meeting.

Thank you,

 Steve

[/QUOTE]

Stephen A. Mason wrote:

Spoke with GAIC, and ti was asked to added the changes represented in the attachment. 

Katia Woerner wrote:

Business Requirement / Issue:
Current 3.1/3.0 definitions for Benefit Payment Issue Date (DN0192) and Payment Issue Date (DN0195) do not accommodate payee driven digital payment workflows (e.g. One Inc., VPay, ePay, etc.), where the payee determines the method/timing of the payment.

Requester's Proposed Solution:
See attached. Definition updates to accommodate additional mode of payment. See attached. Definition updates to accommodate additional mode of payment.

Hello All,

 Spoke with Martha Luevano regarding changes that would work better, and the attached is what we came up with.  Please review and provide any feedback you may have.  We will also discuss briefly at the Nov. 13th Claims Committee Meeting.

Thank you,

 Steve

Katia Woerner wrote:

Business Requirement / Issue:
Current 3.1/3.0 definitions for Benefit Payment Issue Date (DN0192) and Payment Issue Date (DN0195) do not accommodate payee driven digital payment workflows (e.g. One Inc., VPay, ePay, etc.), where the payee determines the method/timing of the payment.

Requester's Proposed Solution:
See attached. Definition updates to accommodate additional mode of payment. See attached. Definition updates to accommodate additional mode of payment.

Hello All,

 Spoke with Martha Luevano regarding changes that would work better, and the attached is what we came up with.  Please review and provide any feedback you may have.  We will also discuss briefly at the Nov. 13th Claims Committee Meeting.

Thank you,

 Steve

Stephen A. Mason wrote:

Should it read "The use of electronic funds transfers (EFTs), particularly through third-party payors, may be strictly limited by the jurisdiction and may not be allowed as the payment/benefit payment issue date." ?

Jon Brothen wrote:

Team,

With further review, I think the DP language needs additional context. Perhaps something like this:

The use of electronic funds transfers (EFTs), particularly through third-party payors, may be strictly limited by the jurisdiction and are not allowed as the payment/benefit payment issue date.

Jon, this is a good point.  Attached is an updated document.

Jon Brothen wrote:

Team,

With further review, I think the DP language needs additional context. Perhaps something like this:

The use of electronic funds transfers (EFTs), particularly through third-party payors, may be strictly limited by the jurisdiction and are not allowed as the payment/benefit payment issue date.

Jon, this is a good point.  Attached is an updated document.

Jon Brothen wrote:

Team,

With further review, I think the DP language needs additional context. Perhaps something like this:

The use of electronic funds transfers (EFTs), particularly through third-party payors, may be strictly limited by the jurisdiction and are not allowed as the payment/benefit payment issue date.

Jon,

 I agree. I will update the posting shortly.

Thank you,

Steve