At the front of my mind always is the mess we have now with payer-assigned provider IDs. This is probably why I slipped and said "[our] primary problem to solve is getting some consistent way of identifying *providers* as EDI participants.." Indeed, we want consistent ways to identify all participants, including payers, Clearinghouses, Third Party Administrators, Re-pricers *and* Providers. It should be clear from all my monologue over the last two or so months that I understand we have to identify all players in order to access CPPs in a Registry and address parties in the ISA.
But as it is, there doesn't seem to be much argument over how payers are identified: the NAIC seems to be relatively well standardized upon, and for our purposes it's a perfect identifier. You don't see providers assigning proprietary provider-assigned payer IDs - instead we have a common sensible and standard means of identifying payers (e.g., the NAIC company code). The big problem to solve, as I have oft-repeated, is to level the playing field and have the payers extend the same courtesy to providers: address them by their own "name," rather than forcing providers to "memorize" a bunch of payer-assigned proprietary IDs (whether for the ISA or within the application transaction). William J. Kammerer Novannet, LLC. +1 (614) 487-0320 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rachel Foerster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WEDi/SNIP ID & Routing'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, 28 March, 2002 04:55 PM Subject: RE: What's the focus? I'm not sure I understand why the primary focus is only on identifying providers.....? I saw nothing in the original business case document that limited the effort to providers only. Rachel Foerster Rachel Foerster & Associates, Ltd. Phone: 847-872-8070
