type Leistung

[westnordost]

Issue

• the leistung field for the ELS segment should contain a completely different information depending on the type of Leistung, i.e. depending on the value of verguetungsart. This makes it to cite yourself "insanely complex"
• there is no documentation in PAID to help what kind of data is expected depending on the value of verguetungsart. As a user of this library, one would need to read through the GKV docs again to find out what one is expected to specify.
• the current Leistung type is in this regard misleading because it suggests that e.g. the Wegegeld or the Pflegehilfsmittel used is to be (or can be) specified in one Leistung together with e.g. a Leistung nach Zeitvergütung. This is not the case. To bill Zeitvergütung + Wegegeld + Pflegehilfsmittel, three Leistungen need to be billed, not one.

Solution

Just type it. A Leistung can be a "Wegegeld Leistung", a "Zeitvergütung Leistung", a "Pflegehilfsmittel Leistung" etc. Depending on the type of Leistung, different fields are mandatory and the fields are named and typed according to what should be filled in.

[westnordost]

In the implemented solution, leistungsBeginn and leistungsEnde is optional in all types of Leistung, even though leistungsBeginn is only mandatory for verguetungsart 04 and leistungsEnde is only mandatory for verguetungsart 01, 02, 03 or 04. I did this because you have some logic in index.ts that assumes that any Leistung potentially has these fields defined (for grouping and sorting Leistungen by time/date). I wasn't sure if you'd be okay with changing this logic. You might argue that for convenience/consistency reasons, you'd want the user in coop-care to always specify the start and end time of any Leistung in the UI even when it is not necessary for billing.

I can change this to be stricter, if you wish. I.e. e.g. leistungsBeginn would be a field in VollstationaerOderKurzzeitpflegeLeistung only.

[westnordost]

Review note: Look at types.ts first.

[westnordost]

It has been some time since I looked at it. But I think that's fair enough - if the type is removed, there should simply be a documentation comment that explains that hte optional field is actually mandatory if XYZ.

Do you expect me to change this or will you do it?

[michaelkamphausen]

I will take care of it.