HCFA Box 15

drgoody wrote on Friday, October 15, 2010:

I’m trying to add the date of Same or Similar Illness field Box 15 to satisfy initial treatment date. I’m using OEMR V 3.2 on the virtual appliance. Any thoughts how I can add this either to the HCFA or X12?
I did look at the Misc HCFA and I see other boxes, but not 15.
Thanks in advance, John

sunsetsystems wrote on Friday, October 15, 2010:

It’s not currently supported.  Someone would need to add a field and logic for it.  Not difficult, but requires programming knowledge.

Rod
www.sunsetsystems.com

drgoody wrote on Friday, October 15, 2010:

Is that something that will be supported in version 4.0?

visolveemr wrote on Monday, October 18, 2010:

Hi,

No. Currently OpenEMR-4.0.0 dev tip did not support Box-15(Patient has had Same or Similar Illness) for HCFA or X12.

Thanks
ViCarePlus Team,
www.vicareplus.com
services@vicareplus.com

sunsetsystems wrote on Friday, November 12, 2010:

This is to let folks know that I’ve been commissioned to take care of this.  There will be a fix for 3.2 as well as current code.

Rod
www.sunsetsystems.com

drholmes wrote on Wednesday, March 30, 2011:

Is box 15 the appropriate place for the HCFA-required DTP/454 Initial Treatment Date? Is the fix available? Thanks. Dr. Holmes (on 3/30/2011)

drholmes wrote on Wednesday, March 30, 2011:

Hi again, The ANSI v5010 requires the “Initial Treatment Data” as data related not to box 15 but to box 14 (loop 2300 or 2400, DTP/454, element 3. Box 15 is not used by Medicare. Google “dtp 1500 codes” to locate the Palmetto document explaining version 5010, “ANSI 837 v5010 to CMS-1500 Crosswalk.”

tmccormi wrote on Wednesday, August 10, 2011:

Rod - has the box 15 issue been taken care of yet?

2010-11-12 15:12:05 PST
This is to let folks know that I’ve been commissioned to take care of this. There will be a fix for 3.2 as well as current code. Rod

I don’t see it in the current code set for 4.1 (I’ve got a customer asking for this now too…)

-Tony

sunsetsystems wrote on Wednesday, August 10, 2011:

Hi Tony, the client got bogged down in testing and so testing was never completed and the push to SF was never done.  Would you like to test the 3.2 changes?  They are here:

https://github.com/sunsetsystems/openemr/tree/box15-320

If you think it’s OK then I’ll commit and port to current code.

Rod
www.sunsetsystems.com

stephen-smith wrote on Thursday, August 11, 2011:

Looks like a nice feature to have.  Here’s a spot code review though:
(0) builds a URL using PHP string substitution, probably should be an htmlspecialchars() there.
(1) directly writes out the result of xl(), there should be an htmlspecialchars() call there.
(2) If Rod (or anyone else) adds anything copyright-able this year, the copyright dates need to be updated.

None of this should prevent testing in an isolated installation.  Tony (or anyone else), could you please test and report back so Rod and I know if this is worth the back- and forward-porting effort?  Forward-porting to dev tip will take a little bit because a lot of the code needs to change to use the convenience functions added during 4.0 and later development.

stephen-smith wrote on Thursday, August 11, 2011:

FYI, the first commit that shows a conflict is 8d4acf253c4ed56f1bcc30254a6dd381fb96c0f1, about 500 commits before the 4.0 branch point, so there’s a lot of forward-porting to do if this patch is “worth it”.

sunsetsystems wrote on Thursday, August 11, 2011:

Stephen, thanks for the code comments.  The porting will be “manual” since it’s coming from 3.2.

Rod
www.sunsetsystems.com

stephen-smith wrote on Sunday, August 14, 2011:

I am not sure what you mean by “manual”.  If you mean that git will be unable to automatically resolve all the conflicts, that’s absolutely true.  If you mean that we are better off creating a new branch off of master, re-writing the code, but losing the history/dependency information, I disagree.

I say this having previously forward-ported some significant patches against 3.2 to master earlier this year.  (They were proprietary patches, so they didn’t land in master.)

tmccormi wrote on Sunday, August 14, 2011:

Rod,
  I don’t have anyone running 3.2 anymore so the timing to test may be long.  The solution you implemented looks like a good one ie: just what I was thinking :slight_smile: .  I think you should go ahead and bring the changes forward in to v41 and let’s test it there.
-Tony

tmccormi wrote on Sunday, August 14, 2011:

Stephen,
  Since Rod’s changes never made it into a release or release patch for 3.2 I see no reason not to just put these changes in as new to 4.1.  There is no history that is relevant, in my opinion.
-Tony

sunsetsystems wrote on Sunday, August 14, 2011:

OK that’s fine, I’ll go ahead and port it.

“Manual” means making equivalent changes to current code as if it were done that way in the first place.

Rod
www.sunsetsystems.com

tmccormi wrote on Tuesday, August 30, 2011:

Rod,
  have you made any progress on this?  will it be in the 4.1 release?
-Tony

sunsetsystems wrote on Tuesday, August 30, 2011:

Will try for this weekend but can’t promise… depends on client demands.

Rod
www.sunsetsystems.com

sunsetsystems wrote on Monday, September 05, 2011:

Hi Tony, would you please test this for me?  It’s mostly a cherry-pick from my old test branch.  Thanks.

https://github.com/sunsetsystems/openemr/tree/box15

Rod
www.sunsetsystems.com

tmccormi wrote on Tuesday, September 06, 2011:

Yes, thanks.  I’ll do that this afternoon.
-Tony