Bill:
I can't speak for the other payors, but our Plan has been eager to see a national provider ID for some time now. We use multiple proprietary IDs and have wanted to consolidate onto one new number -- we even had a project to modify the provider ID fields in all of our systems. Unfortunately, the proposed National Provider ID has us afraid to re-enumerate providers on our own as we are sure the final Reg will come out the day after we are done, making us do it all over again. ;-) But seriously, multiple IDs is as much of a problem at our end as it is at the provider end. As for whether there is intelligence in the numbers, the answer is no and yes. The no is because there is no intelligence in the number itself. Rather the number is the intelligence. For example, if a provider has multiple locations, he or she will receive multiple ID numbers with each number corresponding to a location on our system. Because we started up new products in the mid-90's and took over an HMO at the same time, some providers received different ID numbers for different products. This is because those products or companies were supported on different systems than our traditional BCBS business, and those systems had different requirements for ID numbers. Regarding the information we will require on a claim, we will follow the same process as described by Doug Renshaw, except that we will not modify the NAIC numbers. Hope that helps. Ken Fody Independence Blue Cross -----Original Message----- From: William J. Kammerer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 11:47 AM To: WEDi/SNIP ID & Routing Subject: Payers sure do like proprietary provider IDs! Do providers feel the same way? Doug Renshaw was kind enough to respond to my pleas from 15 March for information on how folks currently (or will) handle the ISA and GS for routing standard transactions; he has graciously agreed to let me pass on Highmark's plans as grist for discussion. Other than Doug, only Tim Collins and John Bristor have responded. Tim divulged some information on how Kentucky Medicaid might be handling IDs, and John Bristor shared what appears to be some kind of Medicaid EOB with strange and wondrous proprietary IDs. At this rate, I don't have too much to work from: I hate to nag, but with the hundreds of people on this list, surely some more folks could throw information my way so Ron Bowron and I can do a "proper" requirements analysis. Doug said that Highmark will require that its NAIC code (54771) be submitted as the Receiver ID in the ISA. In the GS, he will require the NAIC of the payer that the transaction applies to, which could be that of Highmark or several other associated payers. NAIC codes are 5 characters, and the GS receiver ID can have a payer-defined 3 character suffix applied to the NAIC. In some cases, they will use a Highmark-assigned alpha suffix to manage internal routing requirements of stuff within the same payer. For the Sender ID in both the ISA and GS, Highmark requires the use of a proprietary trading partner ID. For transactions coming from a Clearinghouse, they'll have a trading partner ID for the clearinghouse which will be tied to individual providers. Also, Highmark requires a logon and password to connect to its network for sending and receiving EDI files. Highmark is considering use of the Internet to replace its dial-in network, but use of a logon and password would still be required. Highmark will only accept standard transactions, and only for a set list of payers who are in the Highmark "family". If a provider attempts to send transactions to payers not on Highmark's list, they will be rejected. Highmark is not attempting to offer providers a "portal" for submission of their claims to any and all payers - only a means of getting claims directly to itself and several of its subsidiaries. Doug does agree with my belief (by reading the NPRM) that payers will have to offer providers a direct "portal," or else will have to contract with a clearinghouse to collect standard transactions for them. As for Highmark's use of NAIC suffixes in the GS, they spell out some specific uses for particular transactions as required for internal routing and processing purposes. Specifically, Highmark will require a "V" on vision claims, and for institutional claims, they will require a "W" if the institution is in its Western Region and a "C" if in its Central Region. Doug recognizes that NAIC codes are not a solution that works for all health plans, and that Highmark may need to change its requirements if and when a national plan ID is established. Likewise, according to Tim Collins, Kentucky Medicaid now has plans to re-assign proprietary provider IDs in anticipation of HIPAA . These IDs are "intelligent," in that the 10-digit number used on the ISA denotes the type of submitter (e.g., Medical Practice, Software Vendor or Billing agent), further qualified by the type of institution on whose behalf the transaction is being submitted (e.g., Hospital, clinic, pharmacy, dental, etc.). Doug Renshaw didn't go into detail on how Highmark's provider IDs are generated, or whether they are "intelligent" or not. I guess that doesn't matter. What I do know now from these few "scenarios" - including the Medicaid sample from John Bristor - is that payers sure do like proprietary provider IDs! But do providers feel the same way? William J. Kammerer Novannet, LLC. +1 (614) 487-0320 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This E-Mail is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this communication in error, please do not distribute and delete the original message. Please notify the sender by E-Mail at the address shown. Thank you for your compliance.
