EESSI Business Use Case
EESSI Business Use Case
APPROVED
APPROVED
S_BUC_06
Necessary or Scheduled Treatment - Reimbursement Rates
S_BUC_06
Necessary or Scheduled Treatment - Reimbursement Rates
Table of Contents
Table of Contents 2
6.1. Issues 17
Document Control Information
Settings
Value
Document Title:
Business Use Case -
S_BUC_06 - Necessary or Scheduled Treatment - Reimbursement Rates
Project Title:
EESSI (Electronic Exchange of Social Security Information) Project
Document Author:
European Commission, DG EMPL F5
System Owner:
European Commission, DG EMPL D2
Doc. Version:
v4.1.0
Sensitivity:
Public
Date:
09/08/2018
Document history:
The Document Author is authorized to make the following types of changes to the document without requiring that the document be re- approved:
Editorial, formatting, and spelling
Clarification
To request a change to this document, contact the Document Author or Owner.
Revision
Date
Created by
Short Description of Changes
v0.1
12/10/2015
Carine Molle
First draft of the document
09/11/2015
Carine Molle
As decided during the Sickness AHG Meeting on 4/11/2015
Add call to sub-process Ad Hoc Information (H_BUC_01)
Delete "Claimant" information
6.1 Admin Process
This point has been added with all admin processes available and suggestions to use the "Forward" and "Reject" ones.
v0.2
11/12/2015
Carine Molle
The document has been updated with remarks and feedbacks received from AHG Members.
Section 4.1: RUP Table Representation
Step 8 is added
Branch 2: H_BUC_01 available for Case Owner
Branch 3: Forward is added for Counterparty
Section 4.4: RUP UC Diagram updated
Section 5.1 Case Owner and Counterparty BPMN diagram updated
Document has been updated in order to be in line with presentation and content as proposed for the approval by the Administrative Commission
Section 2.1: last sentence is removed
Section 2.2: minor updates
Section 4.2: Request – Reply SEDs added
Section 4.3: Attachments allowed added
Section 4.5: SED and Sub-process versioning added
Section 5.3 is removed
Section 6.1 is removed while replaced by section 4.5
v0.2.1
15/01/2016
Carine Molle
Document has been updated with remarks / questions and feedbacks received from Germany and Belgium.
Minor changes which do not impact the process itself have been implemented through the document.
Section 2.1 Detailed description
Some changes have been implemented.
Section 4.1 RUP Table Description
Reference to the "Member State of Residence" has been removed
Section 5.2 Called Sub Processes
Identify Participants has been updated.
Section 6.1:
Issue number 2: comment received from Belgium has been added.
Issue number 4, comment received from Belgium has been added. Need an answer.
Version number of the document has been changed to be in line with the convention M.m.p where:
- M = Major version (e.g. Approved by AC)
- m = Minor version (e.g. changes in the process)
- p = Patch version (e.g. wording…any changes without any impact on the process itself)
v0.2.2
09/02/2016
Carine Molle
Comments received from Germany have been implemented.
Section 2.1 is renamed
Section 3 Actors and Roles : Description of Case Owner is updated
Section 4 RUP Table description
Step 3 – last sentence is removed while duplicated with a special requirements
v0.3.0
21/06/2016
Valérie Banchereau
Alignment to the standard description and layout of the BUC.
v0.4.0
17/08/2016
Carine Molle
Comments received from AC review have been implemented.
Section 4.1 RUP Table Description
Post conditions is updated
v0.99.0
21/09/2016
Carine Molle
Candidate for AC approval.
Remaining AC comments will be discussed during the AHG meeting the 4th October 2016.
More details related to these comments can be found in section 6.1 of this document
v0.99.1
17/11/2016
Carine Molle
Last comments received from Germany and agreed by AHG members have been accepted in the document.
As agreed by AHG members
"Reminder" has been added for Case Owner and Counterparty.
Section 4.1 has been updated (Branch 4 and 5 added)
Section 4.4 has been updated (Reminder is added)
Section 4.5 SED and Sub-process Versioning (Reminder is added)
Submitted for AC Approval
v1.0.0
15/12/2016
Heidi Warson
AC Approved Version
v1.0.1
29/06/2017
Joël Fiora
-Included BPMN picture in section 5
-Correction in horizontal sub-process table in section 4.5.
- removed Use Case diagram
v4.1.0
09/08/2018
Eric Briffoz
- Section 4.4: merged 2 tables (for SED & for Subprocesses) into 1 Artefact table.
- Version adaptations to release 4.1.0.
Introduction
Purpose
The purpose of this document is to construct an external view of the 'EESSI business system' as described in EC Regulations 883/2004 and 987/2009. The ‘EESSI Business System’ describes the business and expected business processes without consideration as to which part(s) may be realised by an IT System (i.e. the proposed EESSI IT System).
The external view comprises of models and descriptions of business use cases, the services of a business system offered to business actors: customers, business partners, or other business systems.
A business use case is described from an actor's perspective; it describes the interaction between an actor and the business system, meaning it describes the behaviours of the business system that the actor utilises. The Business Use Case includes Use Case Diagrams and Business Process Models.
Use case diagrams show actors, business use cases, and their relationships. Use case diagrams do not describe procedures. Alternative scenarios also remain hidden. These diagrams give a good overview of the behaviours of the EESSI business system which will direct and govern part of the expected behaviours and functionality delivered by the EESSI IT System.
Scope
This document is limited to the external view of the Sickness´ sector process concerning Necessary or Scheduled Treatment – Reimbursement Rates. The different elements like use case description, business actors, and business process as well as supporting UML diagrams and BPMN models pertaining to the Necessary or Scheduled Treatment – Reimbursement Rates.
Definitions, Acronyms and Abbreviations
Please see the EESSI Project Glossary here
References
#
Description
1
EC Regulation 883/2004
Regulation EC No 883- 2004.pdf
2
EC Regulation 987/2009
Regulation EC No 987-2009.pdf
3
UML 2.x
http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/
4
BPMN 2.0
http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/index.htm
5
UML 2.0 In Action
Henriette Baumann, Patrick Grassle & Philippe Baumann, 2005, ISBN 1904811558
6
RUP@EC standard 5.0
http://www.cc.cec/RUPatEC_Standard/
7
RUP op maat
http://www.rupopmaat.nl/
Overview
Chapter 1 introduces the external view on the business system under review and lists the elements of this specification.
Chapter 2 introduces the Necessary or Scheduled Treatment – Reimbursement Rates business process. This chapter gives a short and detailed description as well as a reference to the business process´ legal base.
Chapter 3 lists the actors involved in the Necessary or Scheduled Treatment – Reimbursement Rates business process.
Chapter 4 describes in the Necessary or Scheduled Treatment – Reimbursement Rates business process based on the RUP use case template, as well as the relationship to other use cases.
Chapter 5 describes the Necessary or Scheduled Treatment – Reimbursement Rates business process using business process modelling notation (BPMN).
Description
Business Scenario
As the regulation dictates (Art. 19 and 27 of 883/04 and Art. 25 of 987/09) the insured person and/or members of his family staying in a Member State other than the Competent Member State shall be entitled to the benefits in kind which become necessary on medical grounds during their stay, taking into account the nature of the benefits and the expected length of stay. These benefits shall be provided on behalf of
the competent institution by the institution of the place of stay.
The insured person who is authorised by the Competent Institution to go to another Member State to receive the treatment appropriate to his/ her condition shall receive the benefits in kind provided, on behalf of the competent institution, by the institution of the place of stay (Art. 26 of 987/09 and Art. 20 of 883/04).
If the insured person has borne the costs of all or part of the benefits in kind, he/she may request reimbursement to the institution of the place of stay. In this case, that institution shall reimburse directly to the insured person the amount of the costs corresponding to those benefits within the time-limit of and under the conditions of reimbursement rates under its own legislation.
This particular case deals with the situation where the insured person has not requested reimbursement of the costs directly from the institution of the place of stay. In this situation, the costs incurred shall be reimbursed to the insured person concerned by the Competent Institution in accordance with the reimbursement rates administrated by the institution of the place of stay.
The institution of place of stay shall provide the Competent Institution, upon request, with all necessary information about these rates or amounts.
Legal Base
This Business Use Case document's legal base is described in the following Regulations
Basic Regulation (EC) No 883/2004
Implementing Regulation (EC) No 987/2009
The following matrix specifies the SEDs that are used in this Business Use Case and documents the articles that provide the legal basis for each SED.
SED
Basic Reg (883/04)
Implementing Reg (987/09)
19
20
27
25
26
S067
S068
Table 1: SED – Legal base relationship matrix
Actors & Roles
This chapter captures details of the actors which are important to understand the different types of system users. An actor is anyone or anything that exchanges data with the business system. An actor can be a user, external hardware or another system.
The overarching description of each actor described in this Business Use Case can be found in the Glossary. Below you will find a short description which provides further clarity of this actor within the context of this Business Use Case.
Actor name
Description
Case Owner
In this BUC the Case Owner is in most cases the Competent Member State who receives the claim from the insured person to reimburse the costs that he/she incurred for a necessary or scheduled treatment in a Member State other than the Competent Member State. In a minority of cases, the case owner will be the country of residence. The institution of place of residence is considered to be the competent institution only for cases when insured person lives in MS listed in Annex 3 of Reg.987/2009 and only for scheduled treatment.
Counterparty
In this BUC the Counterparty is the Member State of the place of treatment where the insured person received necessary or scheduled treatment. This Member State can only be the Member State of Stay
Table 2: Actors & Roles
Use Case
RUP Table Representation
Use Case ID:
S_BUC_06
Use Case Name:
Necessary or Scheduled Treatment – Reimbursement Rates
Created By:
Carine Molle
Last Updated By:
Carine Molle
Date Created:
12/10/2015
Last Revision Date:
23/11/2016
Actors:
Case Owner
Counterparty
Description:
This case deals with a situation where an insured person has received necessary or scheduled treatment in another Member State other than the Competent Member State and, she/he has incurred the costs for received treatment in the Member State of Stay.
The insured person requests from her/his Competent Member State the
reimbursement for the costs they have incurred.
The Competent Institution requests from the Member State of Stay the information about the reimbursement rates to be reimbursed to the insured person.
Trigger:
The Competent Member State is requested by the insured person to establish the reimbursement rates that the insured person has incurred for all or parts of benefit in kind.
Preconditions:
The insured person received the necessary or scheduled treatment outside the Competent Member State.
The insured person has incurred costs in the Member State of Stay in which treatment was provided.
Post conditions:
The Competent Institution is informed about the reimbursement rate.
Main Scenario:
Identify Participants
The Case Owner (Institution in Competent Member State) identifies the Member State of Stay where the insured person has received the necessary or scheduled treatment;
The Case Owner then identifies the correct institution (Institution in Member State of Stay). There will be only one Counterparty. The Case Owner and the Counterparty are herein collectively referred to as the Participants.
Process to Request for reimbursement rates
The Case Owner fills in the Request for reimbursement rates (S067) by entering requested information;
The nature of treatment should be indicated by selecting the appropriate checkbox in the section 3.2 (necessary or scheduled treatment);
The receipt concerning the necessary or scheduled treatment should be provided as an attachment to the request. The Case Owner shall start S_BUC_06 for each case for which
he/she wishes information on reimbursement rates.
S067 can concern a family member and not necessarily the insured person;
The Case Owner sends the S067 to the Counterparty.
Process to Reply to reimbursement rates - Stay
The Counterparty receives the S067;
The Counterparty fills in the Reply reimbursement rates - stay (S068) with the required information to inform the Competent Member State about the applicable reimbursements;
Information about the total amount to be reimbursed can be indicated;
The Counterparty may indicate the amount for which no reimbursement is foreseen;
Some additional information in respect of reimbursement rates can be provided in section 3.5;
The Counterparty sends the S068 to the Case Owner;
The Case Owner receives the S068;
This use case ends here.
Alternative Scenarios:
The Following Branches Determine the use of Horizontally Defined Sub Processes within this Business Process
Between [step 5] and [step 6] the Counterparty may optionally choose to request AdHoc Information from Case Owner
The Counterparty executes business use case H_BUC_01 – Adhoc Exchange of Info;
[This Branch] Ends.
After [step 8] the Case Owner may optionally choose to request AdHoc Information from Counterparty
The Case Owner executes business use case H_BUC_01 – Adhoc Exchange of Info;
[This Branch] Ends.
The Following Branches Determine the use of Administrative Defined Sub Processes within this Business Process
At [step 5] the Counterparty may optionally choose to Forward this Business Process to another Competent Institution within its MS who assumes responsibility for handling it.
The Counterparty executes business use case AD_BUC_05 – Forward
Case;
[This Branch] Ends.
After Branch 1 [step 1] Counterparty may optionally choose to send a reminder in order to received answer to Ad Hoc Information expected and not yet received
The Counterparty executes business use case AD_BUC_07_ -_Reminder;
[This Branch] Ends
At any step after [step 4] Case Owner may optionally choose to send a reminder in order to received Information expected and not yet received
The Case Owner executes business use case AD_BUC_07_ -_Reminder;
[This Branch] Ends
Exceptions:
None
Includes:
See diagram at part 4.4
Special Requirements:
SR0: General Rule
As the BUC is individualized the case can concern only one person.
SR1: Rules about the invoking of Branches:
Horizontal
[Branch 1] – May be invoked more than once.
[Branch 2] – May be invoked more than once.
Administrative
[Branch 3] – May be invoked once only when the first SED is received by Counterparty and before sending the answer
[Branch 4] – May be invoked more than once.
[Branch 5] – May be invoked more than once.
Assumptions:
Notes and Issues:
Request – Reply SEDs
The following table specifies the SED that have a logical pairing to one another, usually this is known as a request-reply pair.
REQUEST SED
REPLY SED(s)
S067
S068
Attachments Allowed
The following table specifies whether attachments are permitted to be included when sending a SED type.
SED
Attachments
S067
Allowed
S068
Allowed
Artefacts used
The following table specifies the artefacts that are used in this Business Use Case.
Artefact name
Artefact type
S067
SED
S068
SED
H_BUC_01_Subprocess
BUC
AD_BUC_05_Subprocess – Forward Case
BUC
AD_BUC_07_Subprocess – Reminder
BUC
AD_BUC_11_Subprocess – Business Exception
BUC
AD_BUC_12_Subprocess – Change of Participant
BUC
Business Processes
This chapter describes the Business Use Case Necessary or Scheduled Treatment – Reimbursement Rates using BPMN 2.0.
Main Process
Figure 2: depicts the use case end-to-end for the Case Owner and Counterparty, from a high level.
Sub Processes
Not applicable.
Appendices
Issues
#
Issue date
Description
Replies
Action/Resolution
Close date
1
09/11/2015
Could the "Forward" option be used in this BUC after the counterparty has received the S067 in order to Forward the case to the right institution in his Member State
As agreed, Forward will be implemented for Counterparty at the beginning of the process
Document is updated
16/12/2015
2
09/11/2015
Could the "Reject" option be used in this BUC after the counterparty has received the S067 in order to Reject the case if the counterparty is not the competent institution which should handle the case?
We do not support this option, because this “rejection” SED in fact provides nothing more than horizontal information. H001 can serve the same purpose.
If the SED can be updated with additional codes to be used; there is no need to "invalidate" option.
Some codes should be added on the S068:
- No reimbursement
- Not competent
Comment received from Belgium:
Some other codes to be added to the S068 might be e.g.
*No annexes (= no annexes joint to S067, thus, no reimbursement)
* See comments on annexes.
SED S068 should be updated with additional codes.
16/12/2015
3
11/12/2015
Comment received from CZ :
It should be possible to start the horizontal process or sub process anytime throughout the whole BUC by every party. This allows counterparty to inform about its incompetence for proceeding of SED,
or about probably more suitable institution. No other admin messages are needed.
As agreed H_BUC_01 will be available for Case Owner after receiving S068
Document is updated
16/12/2015
4
11/12/2015
Main Scenario – step 6
Comment received from FR :
Currently when we send a S068 with only the amount it’s rejected by counterparties (UK for example). They ask all the time for a detailed answer. I mean for each treatment we have to indicate for them the reimbursement rate and if the treatment isn’t reimbursed, we have to specify the reason. Which mean that in the future the clerck will have to fill in some documents, to scan them and to attach them to S068. And what if we will be limited in the size of the attachment?
France suggests changing the SED
S067 and S068 by adding on each of them a section “Details of Reimbursement rates”. This section could be a table with the following columns (treatment, provider, amount, reimbursement rate, reason for non-reimbursement). The transposition of data will make easier the filling of S068 while the new section will avoid updating S067 attachments in order to provide detailed reimbursement rates.
Comment received from UK
If the answer to 3.2 is No I am presuming the reason for rejection will be given at 3.5 Additional information on reimbursement?
Comment received from Belgium
BE is opposed to adding new tables with detailed information on health services because
* from an administrative point of view very labour intensive and would make this e-process much “heavier” than the current process on paper ;
* raises the margin of errors (e.g. mistakes when copying data in a table, …).
BE proposals :
(i) could the problem mentioned by France not be solved by
* mentioning the total amount on the SED S068,
* and make use of Acrobat Writer to mention individual reimbursement amounts on the scanned document/invoices attached to the SED S067, and attached them again to the SED S068 ?
(ii) to meet the (apparent) need for more information when there is no reimbursement BE suggests to insert at the end of box 3 of SED S068, the mention of “Please fill in the following if "Information on reimbursement costs" = "NO" followed by different options such as private
During the Conf. call 11/12/2015 it has been decided that it is preferred to introduce the necessary information on the SED. It means that if a solution can be found on the SED level, the process will not change.
BUT if a solution cannot be found on the SED level, it could have an impact on the process.
Comment received from Germany
We agree with France that we need more pre-defined fields
in SED S068 so that one does not need to use free text under field Nr.
3.5. We shall discuss it in the AHG.
Some checks to do:
- verify if there is legal basis to put the global amount.
- verify if additional action are necessary in case of no reimbursement
Proposition to be done in order to update the SED according to the added information required.
5
11/12/2015
Comments received from FR :
Invalidate SED: " Yes, if the process owner sends the request to an incorrect institution and would like to withdraw it."
Reject SED: "OK for us"
See comments 2
16/12/2015
6
15/01/2016
Section 2.1 "Detailed Description"
Comment received from Belgium about the sentence beginning with "The
authorization is accorded…"
This restriction to the situation of “residence outside the CMS” is not correct because a prior authorisation can also be issued to an insured person residing in the CMS. The reference is the benefit package of the MS of Residence.
This remark will not be implemented due to the fact that all the sentence has been removed (see comment
received from Germany)
15/01/2016
7
15/01/2016
Section 3 "Actors and Roles"
Comment [cs3791-2] received from Belgium
" REMINDER: the concept of the Competent Member State (CMS) is slightly different in the situation of health care provided under an EHIC or a document S2:
* EHIC = CMS is the MS where the insured person is actually insured for his health care and which bears the cost of the treatment;
* S2 = CMS is the MS which bears the cost of the treatment and that is (i) the MS where the insured person is actually insured for his health care or (ii) the MSR if that MS is reimbursed on the basis of fixed amounts (= MS listed in Annex 3 of R.987/2009) by the “actual” CMS.
The Case Owner can be
* EHIC: the CMS in the situations where the insured person resides in the CMS or resides in MS other than the CMS if the MSR is reimbursed
on the basis of actual amounts; or
* S2: the (i) CMS in the situations where the insured person resides in the CMS or resides in a MS other than the CMS if that MSR is reimbursed on the basis of actual amounts, or (ii) the MSR if the insured person resides in MS other than the CMS if that MSR is reimbursed on the basis of fixed amounts (= MS listed in Annex 3 of R.987/2009) by the “actual” Competent State."
Comment received from Germany
Belgium raises here an important point but we do not entirely agree on the description
In our view, the counterparty is in BUC 06 always an institution of the MS of stay where the treatment was given. Only this institution can do the requested tarification.
The point Belgium stresses here seems to be a question of the case owner. As a rule this is the competent MS with only one exception: Insured person resides in another MS – cost settlement
via fixed amounts – the MS of residence has to bear the costs of a planned treatment in another MS.
We talked with Chris Segaert about this and he agreed.
8
15/01/2016
Section 3 : Actors and Roles
Belgium propose to update the definition of Counterparty as followed: " In this BUC the Counterparty is the Member State of the place of treatment where the insured person received necessary or scheduled treatment. This Member State can be either the Member State of
Residence Member State of Stay
Comment [cs3791-3] received from Belgium
BE believes that the MSR can never be a Counterparty because an insured person:
* either resides in the CMS, or
* if he resides outside the CMS, he is entitled to health care in his MSR on the basis of a document S1 (or SED S072/073) but not on the basis of an EHIC or S2.
The Counterparty can be:
* EHIC: the MS of Stay ;
* S2: (i) the MS of Stay, or (ii) the” actual” CMS in the situation where the insured person resides in a MS other than the CMS if that MS is reimbursed on the basis of fixed amounts (= MS listed in Annex 3 of R.987/2009) by the “actual” Competent State, and the “actual CMS” is not listed in Annex IV of R.883/2004 (more rights to pensioners).
Proposal: delete mention of “the Member State of Residence”.
"Member State of Residence" has been deleted as proposed also by Germany.
15/01/2016
9
15/01/2016
Section 3 : Actors and Roles
Belgium propose to update the definition of Counterparty as followed:"
In this BUC the Counterparty is the Member State of the place of treatment where the insured person received necessary or scheduled treatment. This Member State can be either the Member State of Residence Member State of Stay or – in the case of planned healthcare – the Competent Member State which has to bear the cost of health care of the insured in the Member State of Residence when the Member State of Residence is reimbursed on the basis of fixed amounts (= listed in Annex 3 of Regulation (EC) 987/2009) and the
Competent Member State is not listed in Annex IV of Regulation (EC) 883/2004.
Cf. comments [cs3791-2] and [cs3791-3].
Consideration/proposal: given that the both the Case Owner and the Counterparty are not necessarily the same institutions in the situation of an EHIC and an S2, BE would recommend that – for reasons of clarity – this BUC be split up in a S_BUC_06a (EHIC) and S_BUC_06b (S2). This does not affect the SEDs S067 and 068.
What do you think about the proposition to split the BUC in 2 others?
Answer received from Germany
For the reasons mentioned above, an additional BUC doesn’t seem to be necessary. Belgium agrees.
10
21/06/2016
BPMN diagram must be split into Case Owner and Counterparty separate diagrams.
Scheduled for update.
11
21/09/2016
P. 11/ 4.1 / Main Scenario
There should be foreseen the possibility to send S068 SED concerning the same case more than once (not update but to add a loop). It is quite common in paper exchange (E126) that the reimbursement rate indicated on E126 form is subject to correction. Mostly it is because, e.g.:
- MS of stay does not refer to all receipts attached to E126 form.
- The reimbursement rate indicated on E126 form is not equivalent to the sum of reimbursement rates indicated on attached receipts.
- The reimbursement rate indicated on E126 is higher than the insured person had paid.
Business use case S_BUC_06 does not foresee sending S068 more than once.
From AHG members point of view, there is no need to send S068 more than once :
- either the Counterparty waits till the complete information can be sent;
- either if incomplete information has been received, Case Owner sends H001 in order to request the additional / missing information
- either the Case Owner starts
a new case by requesting missing information
No change
23/11/2016
12
21/09/2016
p. 10 and 11 / 4.1 / Main scenario - step 3 and 6
The described process is based on the invoices which are to be attached both to the request and reply. The significant number of attached PDF which are sent between the MS will be a burden for the system and might cause an efficiency problems. The same problem is with the AWOD BUC for reimbursement rates (AW_BUC_03). Perhaphs this process should be modified to include typing in the data in the SED instead of attaching the files. It is important to inform Competent Instituton about reimbursement rates for each receipt separately. It is quite common that insured person requests a specifics when the reimbursement rate is lower than she or he paid.
Currently, AHG members does not support this possibility to include the data in the SED.
No change
23/11/2016
13
21/09/2016
p. 11 / 4.1 / Alternative scenarios
Process does not allow informing the Case Owner that the receiver of the message (S067) is not the competent one (incorrect receiver). The only possible action is to reply with S068 which only allows indicating the reimbursement rates. Even if the amount will zero, there is no possibility to inform that the zero is due to the lack of competence and not because there is no reimbursement. AD_BUC_09_Subprocess – Reject SED is necessary.
AHG members suggest adding information "Member State cannot answer" to the SED. By adding a negative answer, there is no need to use Admin BUC "Reject".
No change in the document.
23/11/2016
14
21/09/2016
11/Branch 2
H_BUC_01 can only be invoked after step 8. In the other BUCs we have reviewed it has been moved to the beginning of the process for the case owner to be able to utilise H_BUC_01 at any point after they have sent the initial SED. We feel this should be replicated in the BUC.
If the case owner decides to query the reimbursement amount using H_BUC_01 after step 8 there is no way for the counterparty to supply an updated S068 to advise if a further
reimbursement is appropriate. This is ok if the counterparty is allowed to make a reimbursement on the strength of the reply to H_BUC_01 but if a further S068 is needed what is the solution?
AHG members agreed on your suggestion.
The last version of the document has been updated according to your suggestion.
23/11/2016
15
23/11/2016
BPMN diagrams will be updated.
"Reminder" will be added for Case Owner and Counterparty
Scheduled for update