 The Healthcare Hub blog focuses on how greater collaboration and visibility across the supply chain can improve both clinical and financial performance in healthcare. Working with hospitals, manufacturers, distributors and group purchasing organizations (GPOs) in North America and Europe, GHX provides a global perspective on issues such as healthcare reform, standards adoption, automation, e-commerce and demand planning, among others.  Karen Conway works with industry associations, standards bodies, government agencies, analyst firms, academic institutions and the media to identify opportunities for hospitals and suppliers to optimize supply chain operations and improve business and clinical performance. Karen was recently elected to a three-year term on the AHRMM board of directors, She also serves on the leadership council of the Arizona State University Health Sector Supply Chain Research Consortium and as co-chair of the HIMSS Supply Chain Special Interest Group. In addition, she is active in the Strategic Marketplace Initiative or SMI and serves on the editorial board of Healthcare Purchasing News. Conway’s work has been published in numerous trade publications as well as Redbook and Parent magazines. She was also a contributing writer to the book "e-Business in Healthcare" published in 2007.
|
Sep
16
Written by:
Karen Conway
9/16/2009 9:22 AM
Welcome to The Healthcare Hub, a new blog focused on the opportunities that can be created through greater collaboration and visibility in the healthcare supply chain. When I started working at GHX in 2000, the healthcare supply chain, for the most part, was viewed as a highly manual, error-ridden process and credited with doing little more than processing orders and moving boxes. Today, more and more hospital executives appreciate the role the supply chain can play in improving both business and clinical performance. Suppliers, meanwhile, see supply chain optimization as a way to create competitive advantage, improve customer satisfaction, meet regulatory requirements and control costs. Perhaps the most rewarding aspect of working at GHX has been the opportunity to watch the community that has grown up around a common interest in improving operational efficiencies through eBusiness. A lot has changed since the first hospital successfully sent an order electronically to a supplier through the exchange nearly nine years ago. I’m really proud of the software and technology platform we’ve built at GHX, but that’s nothing compared to what it’s been like to work with an ever-increasing number of individuals and organizations who are truly making a difference in the lives of patients – and the financial health of their organizations –through their commitment to supply chain excellence. Ten years ago, the majority of discussions between hospitals and suppliers were about price. That’s still a hot topic, of course, but more and more, hospitals and suppliers are talking about how to improve how they work together for their mutual benefit. And those discussions are the ones that can really make a difference when it comes to the overall cost of healthcare. We’ve created The Healthcare Hub to provide even more opportunities for those kinds of discussions. I hope you will become an active participant in the conversation, as we share the perspectives and insights gained from working with some of the most innovative and progressive leaders in the healthcare supply chain from around the world. What changes have you made in your organization that you’d like to share with others?
10 comment(s) so far...
I'd like to solicit some feedback on whether there are recognized standards for unit of measure abbreviations that should be used in communicating electronically? For example, a case could be CA or CS. Is there a standards list that states what is preferred/required, say w/ GHX transmissions? I'm thinking that GS1 may ultimately solve this issue but curious to know your thoughts at present time. Thanks!
By Dan Bissot on
9/22/2009 10:28 AM
|
Hi, Dan. Thanks for your comment and question. I have the content management, EDI and standards experts at GHX weighing in on your question. As I understand it, there are established ANSI standards for UOM for EDI communications. And according to those standards, case must always be abbreviated CA (CS stands for cassette). I am working on getting a copy of the ANSI standards to post and finding out more on this issue. Stay tuned. In the meantime, I certainly welcome more comments on this matter or others.
By Karen Conway on
9/22/2009 10:36 AM
|
I find the same problem from time to time regarding UOM standards. What one supplier requires can differer from the next. We have both CA and CS for case in our system and each one is accepted as a valid UOM for case depending on the supplier.
By Nancy on
9/22/2009 1:57 PM
|
We get this all the time due to SAP. If someone calls the end-user (customer service) and asks for the UOM - SAP reports will show their 2 character code for UOM . For Case it is CS.. If the customer asks the EDI person - they will give the EDI UOM .. or CA for Case.
By SCS Attendee on
9/23/2009 11:23 AM
|
We comply to ANSI standards which most vendors recognize or are willing to adapt to ( www.ansi.org/ ). A problem I run into from ti me to time though is the conversion factor to the lowest UOM.
By Russ Mullins on
9/23/2009 12:08 PM
|
Who and when did case get changed to ca. Have been in this business for 30+ years and it has always been cs. It appears to me someone not familiar with supplies decided to make this change. I also see this as a GHX issue and not a vendor one.
By Alex on
9/23/2009 12:08 PM
|
These problems stem primarily from the fact that there are two different UOM standards for EDI communications still in use in healthcare. One is administered by ANSI, and the other by ISO. The ANSI abbreviation for “case” is CA, while the ISO abbreviation has always been CS (which in the ANSI world means “cassette”). As you can imagine, this is an issue for suppliers who actually sell things by the “cassette.”
For this reason, GHX offers services, free to those connected to the GHX exchange, to convert from one standard to another if one trading partner is specific to either the ANSI or ISO standard for UOM. In other words, we accept both and will continue to set the value depending on trading partner needs.
Good news , I’m told, is that the two standards bodies (ANSI and ISO) have resolved the discrepancies in more recent versions of EDI, but not yet in the format primarily used in the healthcare vertical, EDI 4010. As such, we are committed to serve as a translation engine between trading partners until this issue is resolved industry wide.
I am doing some more research on this matter, but welcome further input and comment. Thanks, everyone, for a very good discussion.
By Karen Conway on
9/23/2009 12:09 PM
|
Could the concept of EDI be used for fairly smaller versions of Hospital such as a Dental Clinic?
I am a General Dental Practioner at Bangalore, India. I would like to bring a simple yet effective mode of Ordering the Medical equipments and Surgical Supply products which would require challenging strategies to bring various links of Healthacre SC together, where the awareness amongst them needs to be created from Manufacturers and Distributors who have learned quite a lot in rest of the world.
opinions - comments please...
By DR ANIL ARUNDI on
10/16/2009 12:00 PM
|
I've noticed that people often assume the UoM for carton is CA, when it should be CT.
By Roger Bledsoe on
10/16/2009 12:02 PM
|
Is anyone attending this years HIGPA International Expo in Washington D.C.? What should i expect as its my first year?
By ryan on
10/16/2009 11:58 AM
|
|
 -
2011 GS1 Global Healthcare Conference Highlights (11:05) -
Aberdeen Group on AP Optimization: Doing the right things more efficiently (10:16) -
FDA UDI Regulations: Now's the Time to Start Preparing (6:23)
|