Kim: You may have noticed by now that it takes a *real* long time for postings on the WEDi/SNIP ID & Routing listserve to be propagated. This is probably why I received 3 copies of your e-mail! - not having gotten any confirmation, you probably just re-sent, thinking the original was lost. It may take anywhere from a few minutes to 12 or more hours for e-mails to be propagated. I think there is serious constipation going on in the WEDI listservers which can in the way of fluid discussions.
Anyway, I have seen your message and, indeed, we are addressing this multiple-personality business. We want to get to the point where a provider (and anyone else, for that matter) chooses his own identifier(s) from any one of the valid HIPAA IG ISA sender ID domains. He shouldn't have to "remember" all the different "names" each payer has set up for him - i.e., no more payer-assigned ISA IDs for providers. On the other hand, our recommendations do allow a receiver (the payer, for example) to specify different ISA IDs for himself: the CPP could say, in effect, that when a provider sends real-time transactions she should send them to a particular EDI address using a payer-specified receiver ID; alternatively, for batch claims, they would be sent to a different EDI address using an altogether different ISA receiver ID. In summary, with the CPP electronic partner profile, *you* tell the world what names you have chosen to be known by. Of course, your ISA receiver ID may have been assigned to you by your own clearinghouse - that's a matter between you and the clearinghouse you freely chose to do business with. But when sending standard transactions, a provider shouldn't have to go through the rigmarole of using a sender "name" assigned by the payer. William J. Kammerer Novannet, LLC. Columbus, US-OH 43221-3859 +1 (614) 487-0320 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kim Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "'Christopher J. Feahr, OD'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'David Kibbe'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Ken Wood'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'WEDi SNIP 4 (E-mail 3)'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, 14 June, 2002 01:58 PM Subject: RE: HIPAA Privacy, Security and the Intersection with EDI The problem I see going forward is one of the many to many relationships which will have to be maintained by payers and providers as well as clearinghouses for the id's to connect the relationships. One provider will have to maintain one to many id's for each payer depending on how that payer determines to set up his communication process. If we don't have a process where there is one unique identifier for an entity, then a payer may set up one id for the online process and another id for the batch process so they can direct the transactions down different pipelines. They could even go so far as to assign different id's for each transaction within the environment (online vs batch). This is the main problem I feel would be addressed in this solution. It may not address HIPAA compliance in the near term, but if it is not practical to do electronic processing it is much less likely you will get the smaller submitters to comply. Kim
