I can agree with the proposed direction.
Bob
By the way, we do use the straight NAIC code at the ISA level. The NAIC
does support an optional payer assigned suffix. We may be using that
suffix at the GS and transaction levels.
"William J.
Kammerer" To: "WEDi/SNIP ID & Routing"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<wkammerer@nov cc:
annet.com> Subject: Common ID coding scheme
01/28/2002
09:58 AM
Doug Renshaw writes:
...it seems to me that the immediate need is to address a
common ID coding scheme. Without that, we are all left to
our own devices. For example, to satisfy our needs as a
payer, we will be requiring that submitters identify
themselves with a edi source number that we assign
internally, and that they identify the receiver and
destination payer with a NAIC based number, with some
modification per our definition. I agree that it would be
nice for submitters if there were national numbers that a
submitter could use, but there are not.
Common ID coding schemes (for the ISA sender and receiver) are
definitely at the core of this project. And it looks like I would be
"tilting at windmills" if I were to push for getting rid of the ZZ
(Mutually Defined) qualifier altogether. Can we compromise and somehow
say the ZZ can only be used in one or the other (the sender or the
receiver), and the value of the mutually defined address is defined and
determined by the entity explicitly identified (usually the payer) in
the other address? So in an interchange sent from provider to payer, if
the receiver were specified as the NAIC for the payer, it would be the
payer who would determine the value specified for a ZZ code as the
sender address.
Having at least one of the sender or receiver codes anchored with an
unambiguous address (e.g., NAIC, D-U-N-S, FEIN, National Plan ID, HCFA
Carrier, etc.), allows some scope to be assigned to the other code, even
if it were "mutually" defined. I'm looking further down the road to
tying the ISA sender and/or receiver addresses to CA-signed certificates
for authentication, encryption and non-repudiation.
This still begs the question whether one of the parties to a HIPAA
standard transaction can dictate to the other how he specifies his
address on the ISA, but nevertheless, allowing ZZ for payer-assigned
internal provider numbers should remove a roadblock to consensus.
Unfortunately, there's no Interchange ID Qualifier code meaning "NAIC
based number, with some modification per our definition." An address is
either the NAIC of the payer, or it isn't.
William J. Kammerer
Novannet, LLC.
+1 (614) 487-0320
