PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11766443

Setting the standard.

A B Wachler·A K Fehn
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Beginning Oct. 16, 2002, hospitals will no longer be able to submit claims to third party payers electronically unless the claims are in standard format. As a result, claims formerly submitted in UB92 (currently the defacto institutional claims standard) or other traditional formats will need to be submitted in X12N 837, which is a standard developed by the Accredited Standards Committee of the American National Standards Institute. This requirement is yet another challenge for hospitals resulting from the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

Explore related subjects

Computer Communication NetworksComputer SecurityConfidentialityForms and Records ControlGuideline AdherenceHealth Insurance Portability and Accountability ActHospital Information SystemsInsurance Claim ReportingUnited StatesJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A B Wachler, A K Fehn. Setting the standard.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11766443/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2002

Prodding tardy reviewers: a randomized comparison of telephone, fax, and e-mail.

CONTEXT: To compare telephone, fax, and e-mail methods of prodding tardy reviewers. METHODS: Randomized trial conducted January 1998 through June 1999 at the main editorial office of Obstetrics & Gynecology. Reviewers who had failed to file reviews by 28 days after being sent manuscripts (7 days after deadline) were sent identical messages in oral (telephone) or written (fax and e-mail) form inquiring as to the status of review, asking for its completion as soon as possible, and requesting it be sent by fax or e-mail. RESULTS: Of 378 reviewers, proportions returning reviews within 7 days were essentially identical: telephone, 85 (68%) of 125; fax, 86 (67%) of 129; and e-mail, 84 (67%) of 124 (P =.59). In the two thirds who responded, the mean time to return reviews did not differ among the 3 groups. CONCLUSION: Contacting tardy reviewers resulted in a review being received within 7 days in about two thirds of cases, and it made no difference if the contact was made by telephone, fax, or e-mail.

Computer Communication Networks↗