updating a broken example and clarifying documentation #896
Conversation
|
@shaselton-usds { |
@tdfow, I previously opened this issue regarding your scenario. #890 I propose changing schema to allow 0 EIN, to be used only when there is no NPI and no EIN. By allowing 0 EIN rather than NPI the Business Name requirement would apply. |
* updating table-of-contents documentation to match what is in the schema. This documentation was previously included, but was removed during the v2.0 merge. (#846) * fixing documentation bug (#878) * Removing minimum restrictions for allowed amounts file. (#877) * Documentation Fix (#847) * updating table-of-contents documentation to match what is in the schema. This documentation was previously included, but was removed during the v2.0 merge. (#846) * version bump * relaxing restrictions for the allow-amount file to remain empty if there is nothing to report. * removing old examples not relevant to 2.0 updates. * clarifying 'network_name' documentation for provider groups. (#884) * removing left over setting attribute in the allowed amount field (#885) * Fix README inconsistency and validator issue caused by upper-case plan_id_type vaues EIN and HIOS (#892) * README lower-case EIN and HIOS for in-network rates schema - Change plan_id_type values "EIN" and "HIOS" to lower case to be consistent with schema, Table of Contents, etc. #891 - Change type-o "tas" to "tax" in the Tax Identification object reference (#tas-identifier-object) * plan_id_type "EIN", "HIOS" in Readme should be lower case. Validator failure.Update allowed values in README for plan_id_type. Out of Network Out of Network Allowed Amount change, see in-network description here #891 * updating json examples to include 2.0.0 in the version attribute. (#894) * updating documentation with the removal of external provider references and capitalization consistencies (#895) * updating documentation with the removal of external provider references and capitalization consistencies * updating test cases to be more explicit * Fix validator issues with ein and service_code and oneOf:,const:, if: (#889) * Fix validator issues with ein and service_code and oneOf:,const:, if: Disallow CSTM-00 with POS codes Constrain valid EIN values Fix issue with missing anchor on the ein/tin validation pattern * Fix indentation in negotiated_price service_code * Fix JSON indentation & formatting in in-network-rates.json * Allow NPI Field to be [0] (a single entry containing zero) To handle : https://github.com/CMSgov/price-transparency-guide/tree/master/schemas/in-network-rates#additional-notes "In contractual arrangements that are only made at the TIN level, where NPIs are unknown or otherwise unavailable, the value "0" should be reported for the NPI field." This change does not permit a "0" value in the Tax "Tax Identifier Object's when type is "npi". Because npi does not require business name, I propose allowing a "0" type "ein" in the unusual scenario where a provider only has an SSN, along with requiring the business name. I posted an issue regarding this scenario here : #890 (comment) Tests are failing because they are out of date. Once merged, I'll fix whatever conflicts may result. * updating a broken example and clarifying documentation (#896) * removing optional language * version bump --------- Co-authored-by: Zako Bee <[email protected]>
|
@shaselton-usds can you please comment on why the 0 NPI is no longer allowed? Does CMS want to exclude this data from MRFs? If the change that was merged remains, it should be renamed as it no longer represents a NPI value of 0. This example now has a NPI value. Previously, the direction was if there is no NPI, then a single 0 was acceptable. price-transparency-guide/examples/in-network-rates |
3 participants
PR #889 added stricter validation patterns for the tin (Tax Identifier) object: