Re: Dual 997's

[Glenn Smith]

Jim:   why just have a client/vendor send you data that you can not use?  The standards are great to start but everyone add to them for their own business needs.  Therefore you must ack the data for your use and not the standard.     Glenn K. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior EDI Systems Analyst Re:SOURCES EDI Department 248-458-8175 >>> "Jim Divoky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 5/17/01 2:00:52 PM >>> In twelve years in several industries at perhaps 50 clients, I have never seen a 997 that was based on an IG.  The 997 capability ships with commercial EDI translators and, while they may offer the capability of making the 997 conform to an IG, I have never seen it done. The sending and receiving of 997s is standard policy in the utility, retail, consumer electronics, automotive, and computer manufacturing industries with which I am familiar.  Now, what the practice is in the healthcare industry I cannot say. Since 997s are supported by commercial EDI translators there is little effort required in sending, receiving, and reconciling 997s.  Well, maybe a little.  It is commonly part of the Trading Partner Agreements. Jim Divoky, EC Solutions ----- Original Message ----- From: "Glenn Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 1:00 PM Subject: Re: Dual 997's In most cases the 997 is a result of the IG.  The 997 should be based on the map you use to translate the data.  I have never heard of sending 997's and would complain like hell if I had to do it or if I was asked to send or receive. Glenn K. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior EDI Systems Analyst Re:SOURCES EDI Department 248-458-8175 >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 5/17/01 12:33:00 PM >>> A topic came up in the course of conversation about whether 997's should reflect the Standard or the Imp Guide (IG)... to narrow it down a bit this would be for transactions that fall under HIPAA.  This means that the US Govt has built the IG's for a set of transactions and all parties using these transactions will all use the same IG. Now the questions... should the 997 reflect the Standard or the IG.  I believe that creating a 997 from the standard is not very useful when it comes to syntax checking... there could be a valid qualifier/element/segment but because it's not in the IG I can't use it and will error out the transaction because I can't map the data.  For example, if there were 5 relationship codes in the IG but the transaction being sent contains 6 (the 6th one valid according to the standard) but one not in the IG and therefore doesn't map. Second question.  Has anyone ever seen two 997's being sent.  The first one to reflect the standard and the second to reflect the IG.  I think this is a bad idea because if the first one says all syntax is correct and then the second one says there is a syntax error base on the IG.... the first one is of very little or no value. I have never seen this put in place but because I could have lived a sheltered life up to this point I thought I would ask the world of experts on EDI-L Thanks! Jonathan Showalter Omaha NE  USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] ======================================================================= To contact the list owner:  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/