I guess the difference, in our form of looking at transactions, is that I have a completely competent computer "opening the envelope", with every known trading partner in it's databases. Instantaneous determination, rather than ending up in a waste basket because no one knew who to do what for. ------------------( Forwarded letter 1 follows )-------------------- Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 12:44:50 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Rachel.Foerster[rachelf]@ix.netcom.com.comp Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: TA1 responding to non-participating health care providers
Bruce, I agree that you most certainly don't want to respond to an eligbility inquiry without first authenticaing the information receiver. But, this has nothing at all to do with taking the EDI interchange into your electronic mailroom. There's a multi-step process here with various levels of validation and authentication required (that are different or similar) at each level. For example, if an envelope arrives at your company's mailroom, does the mailroom clerk look at the return address and the receiver's address and make a determination to throw it away or mark it return to sender? I bet not! That envelope is passed to another activity that performs certain levels of validation, like opening the envelope, examing the content, and making some determination as to what to do with the content. Rachel Rachel Foerster Principal Rachel Foerster & Associates, Ltd. Professionals in EDI & Electronic Commerce 39432 North Avenue Beach Park, IL 60099 Phone: 847-872-8070 Fax: 847-872-6860 http://www.rfa-edi.com -----Original Message----- From: Bruce T LeGrand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 9:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: WEDi/SNIP ID & Routing Subject: RE: TA1 responding to non-participating health care providers I agree, up to a point. But I still say that a form of pre-qualification must exist, at the trading partner level. The last thing I want to do, as a payer, is disclose eligibility data about one of my customers to someone not eligible to receive said data, also a clear violation of the only part of HIPAA with judicial recourse. And that puts us back to a trusted relationship with whomever is requesting the information.
