William,
Regarding, ZZ, may be a para as to what an entity risks to loose if it uses
ZZ may be provided.
EDI (traditionally) is conducted between 2 frequently communicating parties,
who establish their relationship offline. I do not see HIPAA being any
different from that, particularly in light of the scope provided by the
Guides for customization between 2 trading partners.
You wrote:
>I'm inclined to believe that addressing the receiver should be
independent of who the sender is. So I'm uncomfortable with your
suggestion to use the ISA SENDER ID and the GS SENDER ID for selecting
between alternate "EDI addresses."
I have provided "reason" for including ISA and GS Sender ID.
You have to see:
(1) If the reason ("load distribution") is to be considered or not.
(2) If yes, then alternatives to ISA/GS SENDER ID can be thought of .
Ajay
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
Of William J. Kammerer
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 11:27 PM
To: 'WEDi/SNIP ID & Routing'
Subject: Re: A proposed work plan for this group
Ajay:
I'm not (now) saying ZZ should be removed from the allowable list of
Interchange ID Qualifiers in the HIPAA IGs. But other than that,
there's really not too much we can say about ZZ, period. If you feel
otherwise, please feel free to cobble up a paragraph or two on its
proposed usage.
But a "mutually defined" ID is not necessarily unique (except within the
domain comprised by a particular payer or CH), you have no idea who
assigned it (just by looking at the ISA), and it cannot be used in a
National Healthcare directory. It has a meaning only in the context of
a particular payer or Clearinghouse. And if it's particular or
peculiar, it has no place, really, in our recommendations. I see no way
around this conundrum.
I'm inclined to believe that addressing the receiver should be
independent of who the sender is. So I'm uncomfortable with your
suggestion to use the ISA SENDER ID and the GS SENDER ID for selecting
between alternate "EDI addresses." I think the other items from the
ISA, GS and ST are acceptable for consideration in looking up EDI
addresses.
William J. Kammerer
Novannet, LLC.
+1 (614) 487-0320
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ajay K sanghi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "William J. Kammerer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'WEDi/SNIP ID &
Routing'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, 11 April, 2002 01:08 PM
Subject: RE: A proposed work plan for this group
William,
>(2) Agreement that the ZZ qualifier is not to be used on the ISA. This
necessarily eliminates the use of proprietary payer or CH assigned
provider IDs.
While it ok to "recommend" that ZZ qualifier not be used, I think there
has to be a plan to address ZZ as well since it's use is quite well
spread, in my opinion. May be somebody from VAN can provide some
statistics on percentage of ZZ users as opposed to non-ZZ users. I don't
think Payer's will be too fussy to use ZZ though.
>(3) And possibly, agreement on how the GS is to be used for internal
routing or selection between alternate "EDI addresses."
Use {ISA SENDER ID, ISA RECEIVER ID, GS SENDER ID, GS RECEIVER ID, GS
VERSION AND INDUSTRY CODE, ST MESSAGE ID} to index into the agreement
table and get routing information.
I have included GS VERSION AN INDUSTRY CODE to distinguish between
various 837(s) (Institutional (X096), Dental (X097), Professional
(X098)) since the same "may" be processed by different application
subsystems.
I have included ISA and GS SENDER ID, in case the Payer's application
system wish to "distribute" load onto different systems (PCs) for the
same type of transaction.
Looking at the diagram on Page 13 of 30 of the white paper "Transaction
Sequencing 2.0", I think the above information is enough for routing.
Ajay
Ajay K Sanghi
Managing Director
ABO Software Private Limited
B102 Gulmohar Park, New Delhi 110049
Tel: +91 11 6968976, 6512822 Fax: 6518873
Website: http://www.abosoftware.com
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
