<p> Financial Management Technical Committee Meeting Minutes HL7 Working Group Meeting January 24 – 28, 2005 Orlando, Florida</p><p>Co-Chairs: For more information on the Financial Management Technical Committee, please contact one of the co-chairs listed below:</p><p>Michael van Campen Kathleen Connor Gordon Point Informatics Ltd. Fox Systems Inc. 4568 Gordon Point Drive 6263 N. Scottsdale Road Victoria, BC V8N 6L3 Suite 200 Phone: 250.812.7858 Scottsdale, AZ 85250 Fax: 250.381-6108 Phone: 480.423.8184 Michael.vanCampen@GPinformatics Fax: 480.423.8108 .com [email protected]</p><p>Susan Lepping (Incoming) Siemens Medical Solutions 51 Valley Stream Parkway Malvern, PA 19355 Phone: 610.219.8673 Fax: 610.219.5849 [email protected]</p><p>Editors: Gaby Jewell, Editor Chapter 6 Beat Hegglii, Editor, Chapter 16 [email protected] [email protected]</p><p>Note: See template at end of document for attendance.</p><p>Monday, January 24, 2005 AM (Q1)</p><p>Welcome and Introductions</p><p>Kathleen welcomed the group to the meeting. Attendees introduced themselves.</p><p>Minutes</p><p>Minutes were distributed to the FM list server prior to the meeting.</p><p>Motion: By Beat Heggli to accept the meeting minutes from Atlanta September 2004. Second: Susan Lepping Result: 5-0-0. Motion passed.</p><p>Monday, May 3, 2004 PM (Q2) v2Ballot Reconciliation</p><p>Susan Lepping presided over reconciliation of v2 Ballot Reconciliation. See Ballot Reconciliation Spreadsheet http://www.hl7.org/ctl.cfm? action=ballots.home&ballot_cycle_id=503&ballot_voter_id=242 </p><p>Monday, May 3, 2004 PM (Q3)</p><p>Helen Drijfhout presented CMET ballot comments. </p><p>Valerie Kirk presented Oracle requests for changes in FICR Invoice Topic for a new release. See attached notes from Valerie. </p><p>5/7/2018 Page 1 of 16 Financial Management Technical Committee Meeting Minutes HL7 Working Group Meeting January 24 – 28, 2005 Orlando, Florida</p><p>Monday, May 3, 2004 PM (Q4)</p><p>Valerie Kirk continued discussion of Oracle requests. Discussion about the Payment Advice Topic and Oracle’s work will be deferred to interim calls and the next meeting.</p><p>Francine Kitchen presented on mapping v2 to v3 and to other standards such as X12 / NCPDP.</p><p>Kathleen discussed request from the Tooling TC for mapping tool requirements. These need to be collected and validated among FM participants. Several participants offered detailed suggestions that will be forwarded to Tooling. 1. Ability to map one to many – many to one 2. Ability to run queries to Identify gaps, for example a. Require in sender, not supported by receiver with ability to exclude segments, line items (e.g., header information not persisted by the receiver.) b. Differences in data type requirements: Check for all potential problems where a data type is optional for sender or not supported / required by receiver check all potential problematic instances. c. Gaps in length could lead to truncation, e.g., send 50 bytes, persist 25, resend back to original sender truncated values. 3. Ability to capture comments and/or issues at all levels (sequence, segment, and transactions using X12 terms. 4. Ability to compare messages / transactions 3 or 4 ways, e.g. 837, 835, CR, AB for for superset of required elements. 5. Ability to map vocabulary concepts to elements / fields / sequence 6. Mapping of fields needs to be separated from mapping coded values 7. Cascade mapping information into RMIM designer, excel, and tabular views. 8. Tooling should be able to segregate required elements that are not literals.</p><p>Tuesday, January 25, 2005 (Q1) FICR Ballot Reconciliation</p><p>Michael van Campen presided over reconciliation of v3 FICR. See Ballot Reconciliation Spreadsheet. http://www.hl7.org/ctl.cfm?action=ballots.home&ballot_cycle_id=503&ballot_voter_id=242 Tuesday, January 25, 2005 (Q2) Mapping</p><p>Michael van Campen presided over continuation of mapping v3 FICR to X12 837. See Francine mapping notes.</p><p>Tuesday, January 25, 2005 (Q3) v3 FICR Ballot Reconciliation and Mapping</p><p>Michael van Campen presided over reconciliation of v3 FICR. See Ballot Reconciliation Spreadsheet </p><p>Tuesday, January 25, 2005 (Q4) Joint with Med Info</p><p>Michael van Campen presided for FM in joint meeting with Med Info (RX). Crossover issues between claims and clinical content from Pharmacy SIG. Not clear that the most recent CMETs published, but still need alignment with Pharmacy SIG CMETs. See Med Info minutes.</p><p>Wednesday, January 26, 2005 (Q1) v2 Ballot Reconciliation</p><p>Susan Lepping presided over reconciliation of v2 Chapter 8 – Master File. See Ballot Reconciliation Ballot spreadsheet.</p><p>5/7/2018 Page 2 of 16 Financial Management Technical Committee Meeting Minutes HL7 Working Group Meeting January 24 – 28, 2005 Orlando, Florida</p><p>Wednesday, January 26, 2005 (Q2) v3 Ballot Reconciliation</p><p>Kathleen Connor presided over reconciliation of v3 FIAB – See Reconciliation Ballot Spreadsheet. http://www.hl7.org/ctl.cfm?action=ballots.home&ballot_cycle_id=503&ballot_voter_id=242 Wednesday, January 27, 2005 (Q3 & Q4) v2 Ballot Reconciliation</p><p>Susan Lepping presided over reconciliation of v2 Chapter 16 – Claims. See Ballot Reconciliation Spreadsheet.</p><p>Thursday, January 27, 2005 (Q1, Q2, Q3, & Q4) Joint with PA The following are minutes and materials from the discussion with PA.</p><p>Guarantor and Coverage</p><p>PA and FM message overlap A01 messages within PA domain V2 world that overlaps with P01 FM messages Creation of account is the responsibility of FM. Currently this is not a widely used message and the A01 is often used to create the account.</p><p>There was a request to perhaps add the UB and other segments for financial information to the P03. The PA committee does not want to do this since the P03 is for changes in account information. </p><p>There is not a direct correlation between V2 and V3 and the committee does not want to add accounts from PA messages. It is within the scope of FM to create the billing accounts. PA made the decision to not add accounts. Although V2 A01 usually will create an account, these will not be the case in V3 AddPatient message. Intent is that these are modeled in the FM domain and referenced by PA via FM CMETS.</p><p>Guarantor and Coverage</p><p>Note: Covered Party/Patient is the scoper of this role, but is not necessary in this CMET R_Guarantor (universal) COCT_RM670000 v8.0 - 04 May 03 PersonalRelationship classCode*: <= PRS 1..1 personalRelationship * code: CS CNE [0..1] <= PersonalRelationshipRoleType</p><p>Update GuarantorPerson, GuarantorOrganization & related classes to make consistent with Account A_AccountGuarantor GuarantorChoice classCode*: <= ACCT moodCode*: <= DEF GuarantorPerson id: II [0..1] classCode*: <= PSN (e.g. Bank account, transit number, credit card, patient billing determinerCode*: <= INSTANCE account, etc.) 0..1 guarantorGuarantorChoice id: SET<II> [0..*] contractHeld 0..* account (Can be used to supply non-guarantor role ids such as SSN) name*: PN [0..1] Add time typeCode*: <= HLD time: IVL<TS> [0..1] (Effective time for guarantor for the account) GuarantorOrganization R_Guarantor universal classCode*: <= ORG ( COC T_RM6 70000) GuarantorRole determinerCode*: <= INSTANCE Used to identify the role of guarantor for a classCode*: <= GUAR id: SET<II> [0..*] particular person (patient). Note: Note: (Can be used to supply non-guarantor role ids such as TIN-tax id Guarantor takes id*: SET<II> [0..*] (guarantor identifier) Person (patient) is the scoper of negationInd: BL [0..1] number) financial responsibility the guarantor, but is not code*: CE CNE [0..1] <= EntityCode over the account addr: AD [0..1] required for this CMET. (Can be used to indicate where to mail the statement) name*: ON [0..1] telecom: TEL [0..1] (Can be used to indicate where to call regarding the satement) statusCode: CS CNE [0..1] <= RoleStatus GuarantorLanguage effectiveTime: IVL<TS> [0..1] (LanguageCommunication) languageCode*: CS CNE [1..1] <= HumanLanguage 0..* modeCode*: CS CNE [1..1] <= LanguageAbilityMode "RWR" guarantorLanguage (Received Written) Constraint: preferenceInd*: M ust s pecify on e of [ 1] Gu arantorRo le.id OR [ 2] Gu arantorPe rson.n ame and/o r Gua ranto rPers on.i d OR [ 3] Gu arantorOr ganiza tion.name and/ or Gu arant orOr ganiz ation .id</p><p>Add to Guarantor Role for R_Guarantor negationInd, statusCode & effectiveTime + relationship to patient</p><p>Review: Addr and telcom should be added at the GuarantorRole and a note added that this is the addr (where to mail the statement) and telcom (where to call regarding the statement) regarding the specific bill or statement. This has been updated but the CMETs were not balloted as of last ballot cycle. Question - Were they in the current ballot? </p><p>5/7/2018 Page 3 of 16 Financial Management Technical Committee Meeting Minutes HL7 Working Group Meeting January 24 – 28, 2005 Orlando, Florida</p><p>The addr and telcom attributes will be removed from the GuarantorPerson and GuarantorOrganization. There is further works required work to ripple these changes forward into the FM DMIM for this. Michael needs to determine the scope of this. Michael agreed to ripple this change through the FM DMIM and any RMIMs that require the updates. Question – Has this been done? </p><p>The addr and telecom attributes have been added at the role level in the R_Guarantor</p><p>Discussion about the consistency as to where the address and telecom attributes go – role or entity???</p><p>From certain perspectives – it is appropriate to have in the entity. In other instances - it is not. From MnM discussion: Use role attributes when entity is playing multiple roles and want to distinguish which addr, telecom, name, id to use for entity while playing a particular role.</p><p>We need to determine how the demographic attributes are communicated for the role of guarantor.</p><p>Options: If there is a registry of guarantors – only one record needs to be sent to update the guarantor role attributes</p><p>If send out 1 and the receiving system stores at the patient data level, the receiving system needs to determine all instances of the guarantor. How would the receiver handle this? </p><p>What is the difference here compared to multiple other role instances? When it s is a patient or a guarantor – it doesn’t make sense. Should the address be at the IdentifiedPerson class? This would not be in the GuarantorRole class. </p><p>Can we make the assumption that if there is an address at the entity level and at the role level, the role level attributes override the entity attributes? If so, then the person entity would have an address and there could be an address in the guarantor role class. If there is no address present at the role level, the entity address would be used for the guarantor.</p><p>Address and telecom should remain at the guarantor role class and also be added to the person entity class.</p><p>A motion was made and seconded to add the address and telecom attributes back to the Person Entity class</p><p>Affirm 12 Negative 0 Abstain 1</p><p>Gregg needs redo all relevant artifacts.</p><p>A motion was made to add the guarantor CMET to the PA encounters. Currently there is A_AccountGuarantor universal CMET. We need to remove A_Account CMET and replace with A_AccountGuarantor</p><p>Affirm 10 Negative 0 Abstain 2</p><p>5/7/2018 Page 4 of 16 Financial Management Technical Committee Meeting Minutes HL7 Working Group Meeting January 24 – 28, 2005 Orlando, Florida</p><p>New work: 1. Discuss possibility for a CMET that would deal with adding a guarantor. PA to replace the guarantor role in PA DMIMs with a CMET from AB. </p><p>FIAB has this CMET in the DMIM. We can use the message to define the guarantor relationship if that exists. </p><p>Discussion: Review RMIM for new patient. If creating a new patient include guarantor information in the Guarantor CMET. Would there be a guarantor role for a person or organization?</p><p>If we need the guarantor to be recorded as a person - we need to create the guarantor as a person first. If the person that is the guarantor exists as a person (in any role) we would find the person (or organization) and assign the role as guarantor. </p><p>There is not necessarily an account at this point in time.</p><p>Does the Guarantor CMET have enough information? Is the intent to be able to both add the guarantor as a person and/or associated that guarantor as data to the patient? We determined that we could have either of these scenarios.</p><p>We may need to add more attributes to the entities and additional information to this Guarantor CMET? Need to first identify the requirements for guarantor. This could be an add person (in role of guarantor)</p><p>Identify requirements for guarantor Guarantor person *Name *DOB *SSN *Gender *Address *Telecom (home, *ID *Mother Maiden name *Personal Relationship of guarantor to the patient Marital status</p><p>*denotes matching criteria attributes</p><p>Employer Employee ID Employer contact info Name of organization Address Telecom Contact person Language</p><p>Guarantor organization Name Address Contact person Telecom ID</p><p>5/7/2018 Page 5 of 16 Financial Management Technical Committee Meeting Minutes HL7 Working Group Meeting January 24 – 28, 2005 Orlando, Florida</p><p>2. Define the additional data elements that would be required or desired to fully identify or locate the guarantor in order to model correctly. These may possibly be a similar relationship as the PID/GT1 V2. See above</p><p>3. The Guarantor Role is to communicate who the guarantor is for the patient. Shouldn't the guarantor be associated with an encounter, or services, or an account and not the patient? Is this intended to be the association of "possible guarantors for a patient"? If so, is it necessary to communicate this information?</p><p>4. policy holder – constraints Seems that at least the name of the organization be required when specifying an organization policy holder? When the policy holder is a person requires name and birth time.</p><p>Insurance Coverage discussion There is a patient role with covered party participation to the A_Coverage.</p><p>We need to change the CMET for R_CoveredParty</p><p>Norman presented an idea that would use the same pattern for the patient level and the encounter level. If there is not an account – there will be a class with all optional attributes for the account so that if there is an entity person that has a Covered_Party role and act relationships to accounts and the coverage. This would use the same modeling pattern as claims currently use. </p><p>There will need a new CMET that will how does this relate to the encounter? Do we add another act to Encounter? Do we take out A_Coverage and R_CoveredParty participation?</p><p>There was no consensus of opinion about how to model the coverage correctly and/or differently than it currently is.</p><p>Michael is to discuss with MnM about how to model and implement the requirement that will register a person and indicate the multiple insurance policies with the priorities.</p><p>This discussion is tabled until the discussion with MnM.</p><p>What if a person changes insurance (person level)? How do we message this?</p><p>We reviewed the storyboards that Irma created for update/change insurance information. See Update insurance information below.</p><p>We discussed that the storyboard should change to another attribute (start date) instead of the insurance policy number. This is a revise transition. Need entry point into the Coverage act with the attributes that could potentially be changed. Do we need a specific message for Revise Insurance or do we want to update the insurance as an attribute of the Revise Person message?</p><p>The Revised Patient RMIM the A_Coverage is included (currently the R_CoveredParty, but this is about to change). Does that mean that the insurance information can be changed in the Revised Patient message? We agreed to use a specific Revise Coverage message. Do we need to have multiple messages? We need to do petition FM to create this message. We need to discuss the requirements and create a sample as to what needs to be done for revise insurance coverage.</p><p>Change insurance information The change insurance message should include both the policy that is completed and the new policy for the patient. Irma had done a sample VISIO that we discussed.</p><p>We discussed that the entry points should be into policy with the new policy to succeed the old one. Need constraints on effective time for end time and start time of the new insurance. Irma to review suggested changes and incorporate into a new version</p><p>5/7/2018 Page 6 of 16 Financial Management Technical Committee Meeting Minutes HL7 Working Group Meeting January 24 – 28, 2005 Orlando, Florida</p><p>There was an assumption that the sequence numbers of both participations of the policy are supposed to reflect the same level. </p><p>Should this be two messages? One to include a complete of one or more policies and then to activate the new policies? We actually need three messages – complete, revise and create policy. </p><p>Storyboards for update/change insurance information</p><p>Update insurance information (status code is Active) Alex Jones has an appointment at the Good Health Hospital and on arrival he goes to the registration desk to state that he noticed the wrong insurance policy number on his registration. He gives the registration clerk his insurance card that has the correct number. The registration clerk changes the information in the registration system.</p><p>Change insurance information (status code changed to complete and new record of insurance policy is activated) Alexandra Smith is admitted in the hospital. She has coverage by her husband’s insurance policy. Her husband, Tom Smith, has started new employment during her admission. As a result of this, he has changed his healthcare insurance from Red Cross Insurance to Feel Good Insurance Lt.. Tom Smith gives his new insurance information to the ward secretary, who records the completion of the old policy and creates a new policy starting the date Mr. Jones started his new employment.</p><p>Message requirements Note: In de Revised Patient RMIM the A_Coverage is included (currently the R_CoveredParty, but this is about to change). Does that mean that the insurance information can be changed in the Revised Patient message? If so, it would support the first storyboard and not the second one.</p><p>Change insurance information The change insurance message should include both the policy that is completed and the new policy for the patient.</p><p>The presented Visio is a simplified model of how this message could look like.</p><p>Change Patient Insurance (UUDD_RMnnnnnn) Description This RMIM is used to report the ending of the current insurance policy and the start of a new insurance policy for a patient.</p><p>Patient 0..* scopedRoleName CompletedPolicyOrAccount classCode*: <= PAT classCode*: <= ACCT 0..1 id*: SET<II> [1..*] subjectOf2 moodCode*: <= EVN statusCode: CS CNE [0..1] <= active id*: [1..*] typeCode*: <= SBJ code: <= ActCode sequenceNumber: statusCode*: CS CNE [1..1] <= completed 1..1 completedPolicyOrAccount * effectiveTime:</p><p>1..1 carrierRole CarrierRole 0..1 0..* scopedRoleName NewPolicyOrAccount author classCode*: <= UNDWRT 0..1 classCode*: <= ACCT typeCode*: <= AUT 0..* playedRoleName subjectOf1 moodCode*: <= EVN id*: [1..*] typeCode*: <= SBJ 0..1 policyHolder code: <= ActCode 0..* scopedRoleName sequenceNumber: PolicyHolder 0..1 statusCode*: CS CNE [1..1] <= active holder 1..1 newPolicyOrAccount * classCode*: <= POLHOLD effectiveTime: typeCode*: <= HLD 0..1 0..* playedRoleName beneficiary 0..1 typeCode*: <= BEN</p><p>0..* playedRoleName 0..* coveredParty</p><p>CoveredParty 0..1 0..* scopedRoleName classCode*: <= COVPTY 0..1 0..* playedRoleName</p><p>The sequence numbers of both participations of the policy are supposed to reflect the same level. So you’re not supposed to complete the primary policy and create a secondary policy. </p><p>Friday, January 28, 2005 (Q1)</p><p>Action Item Review</p><p>5/7/2018 Page 7 of 16 Financial Management Technical Committee Meeting Minutes HL7 Working Group Meeting January 24 – 28, 2005 Orlando, Florida</p><p>Kathleen reviewed the action items, included in the Atlanta meeting minutes; updates have been noted in the final Action Item table on page 4. </p><p>Shubby led discussion about the business process model underlying FIAB and Accounting V2 messages. Shubby will submit a diagram of this.</p><p>Friday, January 28, 2005 (Q2)</p><p>Irma and Helen joined to discuss development of an Insurance Domain. Group identified major difference between requirements to support patient reported insurances versus eligibility verification information reported by payers.</p><p>PA collects patient reported insurance information in message New Patient RMIM. This maps to v2 A04. NL uses this only for the initial, life-time visit to a provider. It includes patient reported insurance information. Interactions include create, cancel, delete, revise and obsolete.</p><p>For subsequent admissions or provider visits, NL uses A01, which includes encounter information. US would use for each admission, NL only for subsequent admissions [create encounter RMIMs]</p><p>Update insurance message – focal class is A_Coverage is in FIAB. Problem is that one can’t change identifier in Act with revise message according to v3. Can’t proceed until Michael gets guidance from MnM about issue raised in PA.</p><p>Proposed Conference Call Schedule</p><p>Call Date Topic Organizer Call Info Agenda Call Time Cochair Secretary Thursday FMTC Kathleen Connor 913-643-5111 Work to satisfy the dispositions from the 3:30 – 4:30 February 17 236097# Jan05 Ballot. Continue new work in Eastern through April FIAB and FICR including mapping. 14 Review DMP amendments. V2 work may be scheduled. s</p><p>Financial Management Action Items</p><p># Resp. Action Due Completed 9 Michael Michael to model policy benefits and provide a new PA Monday (2004/0 CMET (if req’d) to PA Q4 1) 12 Garry, Garry & Michael to review change request mechanisms in Discussed in (2004/0 Michael v3. Currently, the ballot process is being used, but this is MnM ORC 1) not appropriate. San Antonio 2004/05 Action Items 4 Kathleen Kathleen to document the go forward plan to start to Inter Discuss Q4 (2004/0 harmonize the requirements of X12 with HL7 im Monday 5) ongoing 6 Gary Garry, as the only current member who is regularly Ongoing Cruickshank engaged in both groups agreed to act as a formal liaison between the two groups, especially with respect to Tues Q3 and structural differences. Also, Garry (FM Vocab Facilitator, 4 Med Info Julie (Med-Info Co-Chair and Vocabulary facilitator), Hosting Michael (FM Co-Chair and MnM Facilitator) and Hugh (Med-Info MnM Facilitator) will work more closely to align requirements 7 Scott Scott agreed to review the “Equivalence” section of the Tuesday Q3- Robertson Pharmacy DMIM and provide possible use cases to the 4</p><p>5/7/2018 Page 8 of 16 Financial Management Technical Committee Meeting Minutes HL7 Working Group Meeting January 24 – 28, 2005 Orlando, Florida</p><p># Resp. Action Due Completed group. MvC- Status?</p><p>Atlanta 2004/09 Action Items 1 Kathleen Kathleen to update DMP and post to the list server as v1.2 Inter Done – 9-27-04 Connor draft, for discussion and comment. im discussed on Proposed updated red-lined draft posted to listsserv 9-30- the call. 04. Need to schedule call to vote. {Since this has been Decision is finished – need new AI for sending out to list prior to to revise January for comment in anticipation of meeting) again and revisit in January 05 meeting See January AI 2 Kathleen Kathleen to update FIAB DMIM and RMIMs to Inter Completed 9-28-04 Connor incorporate San Antonio changes to R_Guarantor CMET. im {Discussed in Minutes on page 3 Kathleen Kathleen will model InvoiceElementGroup to FIAB Inter Completed 9-28-04 Connor DM000000 and RM020000 for possible inclusion in a new im release. 4 Irma Irma will provide use cases for need to update enrollment Inter Completed 9-28-04 Jongeneel information. im 5 Kathleen Consider whether to break out Enrollment and Eligibility Inter Pending 9-28-04 and Michael as separate domains in FM during development of FICR im Ongoing Release 4 Initiated as project in Orlando by modeling NL use case and by work on a more detailed mission and scope statement for FM 6 Kathleen The Financial Transaction ActCode Nov Withdrawn 9-30-04 10/16 cover ActFinancialTransactionCode list currently has only 18 pending sheet CHRG and REV – FM will request new code payment further 11/16 PAY and adjustment ADJ to cover ability to support development Harmonizati copays (with PAY) and non-total reversals of credits or of on Meeting debits with ADJ. Also redefines REV. vocabulary Notify Have Vocabulary review prior to harmonization. domains Balloters 7 Kathleen FM will request 2 changes to the abstract Nov Completed: 9-30-04 10/16 cover ActRelationshipPosts type code: remove CHRG (a 18 sA version sheet for relationship that providers an ability to associate a charge of this 11/16 to a clinical act) and COST (a relationship that providers proposal Harmonizati an ability to associate a cost to a clinical act) because these was on Meeting are not applicable to this act relationship. approved at Notify Have Vocabulary review prior to harmonization. harmonizati Balloters on in Houston fall 05 8 Kathleen Changed cardinality of GuarantorPerson name Inter Completed 9-30-04 Notify (BAG<EN>) from 1…5 to 1…* Done in im Balloters FIAB_DM000000 and FIAB_RM010000 Release 1 Membership Ballot2 9 Kathleen Ballot Item #1: RM02000 - Changed GTS to IL<TS> Inter Done – 9-30-04 Notify Done in FIAB_DM000000 and FIAB_RM010000 Release im approved as Balloters 1 Membership Ballot2. NOTE: ARB will need to review non because it is likely a substantive change. substantive by John Quinn 10 Kathleen Changed the cardinality of the ActRelationshipReason Inter Pending 9-30-04 Notify from 1…* to 0…* because there may be FinancialActs im FIAB </p><p>5/7/2018 Page 9 of 16 Financial Management Technical Committee Meeting Minutes HL7 Working Group Meeting January 24 – 28, 2005 Orlando, Florida</p><p># Resp. Action Due Completed Balloters that are not associated with invoice elements, e.g., payment Release 2 of a copay. 11 Kathleen Addition of a constraint on the MO in the DMIM and Inter Done 9-30-04 Notify FIAB_RM020000 for the FinancialTransactionAct. im Balloters 12 Kathleen Changed FIAB_DM00000 and RM0200000 Inter Done 9-30-04 Notify FinancialTransactionAct type code diagram description to im Balloters reflect business usage and available type codes Change to FinancialTransaction type code: type of transaction e.g. a charge, reversal, payment, copayment, or adjustment Also made change to InvoiceElement code description: Fee code that supports the financial transaction e.g. CPT or CCI or ActInvoiceDetailGenericAdjudicatorCodes - COINS, DEDUCTIBLE or COPAYMENT 12 Kathleen Discuss adoption of MnM Activities and Cochair Inter Pending 9-30-04 responsibility spreadsheets as best practice im # Resp. Orlando Jan 05 Action Due Completed 1 MvCampen FIAB 4.2 links for CMETs are not correct - CMET 2/24 Sent to PUB hyperlinks should list parent committees - Tracked 2 Joe Estrada Statement for Charter about FM’s relation with relevant 2/17 SDOs 3 K Connor Draft restatement of DMP Section 6 2/17 Proposed changes in the minutes for interim vote 4 K Connor Follow up with CMET changes – set up interim meeting 2/17 Interim with Dale Nelson meeting discussion planned 5 K Connor Recommendation to Dale Nelson that CMETs develop a Statu Interim uniform nomenclature for CMET patterns: Define s meeting universal, enhanced, basic, minimal, identified, contact and 2/17 discussion others planned 6 K Connor Consider whether to change the effective time for R2 R_Covered Person effective time for the Participation 7 K Connor Draft Guidelines for use of Identifier/Name/Addr/Telecom/ 2/17 in Roles vs. Entities – TC members will send examples such as if id is ubiquitously assigned to the entity, then it should be attributed to the entity not the role – e.g. NPI (constant) is on the provider entity and Provider Taxonomy (variable) is role code. Otherwise, put demographic properties on the role 8 K Connor Protocol for noting mappings to other SDOs in the tooling 2/17 – e.g. use the Visio Comments 9 MvCampen Follow up with CQ about the Control Act Wrapper – need 2/24 values for Original and Resubmit.[MvC sent CQ list a follow up request 1/24] 10 Shubby Storyboards for Account Event and Account Post to resolve Negative Comments on the Jan 05 Ballot 11 Kathleen & FIAB interface diagram Shubby 12 Kathleen & Code Crosswalk – Facility Codes to Service Location Shubby Codes 13 Michael Ballot 9 does not reflect most recent FM CMETs – will move to membership in next cycle and expose any changes</p><p>5/7/2018 Page 10 of 16 Financial Management Technical Committee Meeting Minutes HL7 Working Group Meeting January 24 – 28, 2005 Orlando, Florida</p><p># Resp. Action Due Completed from old to current CMETs in Note to Balloters. 14 Kathleen Per change approved by Patient Administration TC, add addr = BAG<AD>[0…*] and telecom = BAG<TEL>[0… *] back into person and organization entity 15 Kathleen Add sequence to beneficiary participation in FIAB_010000. 16 Kathleen Future consideration: Change sequencenumber to priority and Michael in ActRelationship Coverage in FIAB_RM010000. Need to cascade to FICR as well. 17 Susan V2 to V3 mapping 18 Kathleen Discretion of v3 domain to list editors and contributors 19 Irma Write up message storyboards for FIAB_RM030000 20 Kathleen Create FIAB_RM030000 and HMDs / MTs for insurance storyboards from Irma 21 Kathleen Continue collecting mapping tool requirements for Tooling Submitted TC initial list on 2/18 22 Kathleen A_FinancialTransaction based on FICR that used by CareProvision should be replaced with a CMET from FIAB 23 Kathleen Need insurance industry definitions of Policy, Beneficiary and Covered Party. 24 MvC Follow up on Publishing issues pending 25 MvC Guidance from MnM about PA issues pending</p><p>Action Item # 3 Decision Making Practices Redraft</p><p>Orlando Action Item 3: Draft restatement of DMP Section 6</p><p>Guests are welcome to participate in the work of the committee and are recognized as either guests of HL7, e.g., not a member of HL7, or guests of the FM, e.g. a member of HL7 but not a declared member of the Financial Management. In keeping with ANSI openness policies, guests may declare their intent to vote or abstain on any voting non-binding matter at the discretion of the presiding chair. </p><p>Version (1) Voting on binding issues is limited to one vote per HL7 Member Company. [Modeled on International Affiliate DMP Section 6] Version (2) Voting on binding issues is limited to HL7 members.</p><p>Action Item # 5 Need a uniform nomenclature for CMET patterns</p><p>CMET Attribution Type Definition Where used Not exhaustive Attribution refers to the level of specificity of the CMET. As a CMET is implemented as a message type derived from an HMD and R-MIM in the same manner as all other message types, the message type may contain complete information about a concept, or minimal information about a concept. At the complete extreme, this is known as the universal level of attribution of the CMET. Typically, the other extreme is known as the identified level of attribution of the CMET, or universal and identified variants, respectively. The universal variant of a CMET is always present, and all other variants, if they exist, are derived by restriction from the universal variant. The common CMET variants are described below. Universal this variant includes all attributes and associations present A_Account in the R-MIM. Any of non-mandatory and non-required A_Account Payor attributes and/or associations may be present or absent, as A_AccountPayee permitted in the cardinality constraints. A_AccountGuarantor A_Coverage A_FinancialTransaction A_Billable A_BillableCinicalService A_BillablePharmacyEispense A_BillablePerferredAccomodations A_AdjudicationObservation A_BillableClinicalProduct A_BillableVisionDispense A_InvoiceCoordination A_BillableOralHealthService A_BillingSupportObservation A_Encounter</p><p>5/7/2018 Page 11 of 16 Financial Management Technical Committee Meeting Minutes HL7 Working Group Meeting January 24 – 28, 2005 Orlando, Florida</p><p>A_OralHealthObservation R_Covered Paraty R_Specimen A_Observation A_ObservationDx A_ObservationIntolerance A_ObervationGeneral E_LivingSubject E_MedicationPackUniversal E_Medication E_NonPersonLivingSubject E_Device A_Consent enhanced A-InvoiceCoordination contact provides sufficient information to allow the object A_AccountPayor identified to be contacted. This is likely to have the E_Person content of identified and confirmable plus telephone number.</p><p> contact attribution allows expressing an organization without a mandatory id – NOTE – this contradicts the previous definition. identifiable this variant is a proper subset of universal and is intended A_AccountPayee to provide sufficient information to identify the object(s) modeled by the CMET. This variant is only suitable for use within TIGHTLY COUPLED SYSTEMS ONLY. This variant provides ONLY the ID (and code where applicable) and Name. Other variants may not be substituted at runtime. identified/confirmable this extends the identified variant by adding just sufficient E_LivingSubject additional information to allow the identity of object E_NonPersonLivingSubject modeled to be confirmed by a number of corroborating items of data; for instance a patient's date of birth and current address. However, specific contact information, such as telephone number, are not viewed as confirming information. basic A_AccountPayee A_BillableClinicalService A-InvoiceCoordination minimal provides more than identified, but not as much as A_ObservationDx universal. There are not expected to be many of these. identifiedKind E_Medication identifiedInstance E_Medication referral A_BillableClinicalService noText A_DetectedMedicationIssue </p><p>Action Item # 24 Publishing Issues Helen,</p><p>Here is the list of other items we discussed today that relate to Publishing & FICR:</p><p> We will change “artefact" to “artifact” and follow US English (no change for Publishing)  The HMD is not included in Topic table of contents nor the Chapter table of contents, but they do appear in the navigation menu on the far left of the ballot. The Topic and Chapter TOCs are incorrect.</p><p>Here are some net-new items that we did not discuss, but need resolution by Publishing:</p><p> We have received a ballot comment indicating that elemental Application Roles (e.g. FICR_AR060001), shown in Display Order under FICR are not showing hyperlinks. In the other sort orders (e.g. Artifact Order), the elemental ARs have hyperlinks.  In AR sorting by Artifact Code, we notice that elemental ARs are not sorted by artifact code. Look under AR Artifact Code Order for Invoice Topic under FICR.  Is it possible to have the parent AR show first, before the elemental (child) ARs? Look under AR Display Order for Invoice Topic under FICR.</p><p>If you need additional info on these items, please let me know.</p><p>Thx, Michael…</p><p>Helen,</p><p>This email is a recap of our conversation today regarding ballot comments we received this cycle by Freida Hall and last cycle by Scott Robertson for including a statement in FICR domain indicating that implementation/use of these messages may be governed by HIPAA in the US. After discussion in the FM TC, we determined that this type of disclaimer is not appropriate in the FICR domain, as this is a generic comment that applies to any domain and to any implementation of HL7 v3 standards.</p><p>5/7/2018 Page 12 of 16 Financial Management Technical Committee Meeting Minutes HL7 Working Group Meeting January 24 – 28, 2005 Orlando, Florida</p><p>FYI, here is the ballot comment from Freida (Scott’s is similar) and disposition:</p><p>Ballot Comment Proposed Wording: The content of this document is not intended to be an alternative to or replacement for those ASC X12 standards mandated for use in this domain in the United States.</p><p>Comments: The statement added for Chpt. 16 also needs to be added for V3 ot insure there is no confusion with other SDOs (X12N or ADA, for example) that HL7 is promoting V3 in lieu of HIPAA mandates.</p><p>Disposition by FM Disposition: Not persuasive.</p><p>Disposition Comment: This comment was raised during the last ballot cycle with the following disposition:</p><p>This is a generic comment that can apply equally to any domain in HL7. HIPAA is an example of this. Suggest that a generic disclaimer indicating that rules and regulations may affect the use or non-use of any HL7 message be added to (a) every domain or (b) in the HL7 v3 intro (somewhere).</p><p>Jan 2005: Feedback from Publishing is that they will add a generic statement similar to above in the backbone. Therefore, this comment has been marked as non-persuasive by the FM committee and referred to Publishing.</p><p>During our conversation today, you indicated that you would be prepared to add a generic disclaimer to the V3 Backbone. By agreeing to do this, the FM TC has determined that the ballot comments for FM TC are Not Persuasive and that ballot submitters should be in a position to withdraw their negatives to FICR.</p><p>Helen, can you please confirm this and Scott/Freida, once you get confirmation from Helen (and sample wording), are you prepared to withdraw your negative ballots?</p><p>Thx, Michael…</p><p>1/24/05 Some FM Publishing comments</p><p>1. Links to the CMETs from domain content are not working properly. See section 4.2 FIAB for the reference COCT_MT030200, which goes to the CMET, but goes to the bottom of the CMET, not the beginning. 2. Suggestion for clarification: It is unclear which committee owns each CMET.</p><p>Action Item # 9 CQ Issues</p><p>From: "Michael van Campen" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Date: 1/24/05 8:08PM Subject: Requirement for Resubmit Indicator</p><p>CQ,</p><p>A while back, we proposed to add a capability to the Transmission Wrapper for a resubmit indicator. This is a critical element in X12 claims messages that is required for implementations that map X12 messages into HL7 v3. In our request, we provided some justification of the use case.</p><p>At our FM meeting this afternoon, we could not determine the status of this request (in other words, I couldn't find the request nor response in my email system).</p><p>Can you please indicate the status of this item? Thx, Michael.</p><p>Proposed NL May Agenda</p><p>5/7/2018 Page 13 of 16 Financial Management Technical Committee Meeting Minutes HL7 Working Group Meeting January 24 – 28, 2005 Orlando, Florida</p><p>Work with HL7 NL to conduct outreach and requirements gathering with International Affiliates that will focus on the insurance and financial artifact needs of EU health care.</p><p>5/7/2018 Page 14 of 16 Financial Management Technical Committee Meeting Minutes HL7 Working Group Meeting September 27 - 30, 2004 Atlanta, Georgia</p><p>FM Meeting Altanta 9-04 09/27/04 09/28/04 09/29/04 09/30/04 Name Affliliation E-mail Address M M M M Tu Tu Tu Tu W W W W Th Th Th Th Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 CMEt V3 FIAB Agenda FM V2 Interop Recon v3 CR Mapping V3CR Jnt RX v2 FIAB v2 v2 Jt PA Jt PA Jt PA Jnt PA Beat Heggli Heggli HL7 Switzerland [email protected] X X X X X X X Guilleeroro Reynoso Reynoso greynoso@in X X Frank Oemig Oemig HL7 Germany [email protected] X X Freida Hall Hall Oracle [email protected] X X Gaby Jewell Jewell Cerner [email protected] X X Helen Drijfhout Drijfhout NL [email protected] X Irma Jongeneel Jongeneel HL7 NL [email protected] X Joe Estada Estada Kaiser Permanente Joe.Estrada@kp-org X X X X X X X X X X X X X Kathleen Connor Connor Fox Systems [email protected] X X X X X X X X X X X X</p><p>Lowell Reid Reid McKesson [email protected] X X X Michael van van Gorden Point Campen Campen Informaticsl [email protected] X X X X X X X X Patrick Loyd Loyd Oracle [email protected] Sharon Moore Moore Infoway smoore@infowayca X Paul Knapp Knapp Continovation [email protected] X Shubhda.Roy Roy Siemens [email protected] x x x x X X X X X X X X X X Susan Lepping Lepping Siemens [email protected] X X X X X X X X X X X X Valerie Kirk Kirk Oracle [email protected] X X X X X X X X X X</p><p>5/7/2018 Page 15 of 16 Financial Management Technical Committee Meeting Minutes HL7 Working Group Meeting September 27 - 30, 2004 Atlanta, Georgia</p><p>FM Meeting Altanta 9-04 09/27/04 Name Affliliation E-mail Address F F F F Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4</p><p>Agenda FIAB FIAB Anne Belford Guinn Emergis [email protected] Beat Heggli Heggli HL7 Switzerland [email protected] Frank Oemig Oemig HL7 Germany [email protected] Freida Hall Hall Oracle [email protected] Gaby Jewell Jewell Cerner [email protected] Helen Drijfhout Drijfhout NL [email protected] X X Irma Jongeneel Jongeneel HL7 NL [email protected] X Joe Estada Estrada Kaiser Permanente Joe.Estrada@kp-org Joseph Baptist Bapist NICTIZ [email protected] Julie James James Blue Wave [email protected] Kathleen Connor Connor Fox Systems [email protected] X X Klaus Viel Viel HL7 Australia [email protected]</p><p>Michael van Campen van Campen Gorden Point Informaticsl [email protected] Patrick Loyd Loyd Oracle [email protected] Shubhda.Roy Roy Siemens [email protected] X X Susan Lepping Lepping Siemens [email protected] X X Valerie Kirk Kirk Oracle [email protected]</p><p>5/7/2018 Page 16 of 16 </p>