This is what the X12 standards defines this data element to be: GS02 142 Application Sender’s Code Code identifying party sending transmission; codes agreed to by trading partners TYPE= AN MIN=2 MAX= 15 MANAGEMENT DATA ELEMENT - NOT INTENDED TO CONVEY DATA TO AN APPLICATION
GS03 124 Application Receiver’s Code Code identifying party receiving transmission. Codes agreed to by trading partners TYPE= AN MIN=2 MAX= 15 MANAGEMENT DATA ELEMENT - NOT INTENDED TO CONVEY DATA TO AN APPLICATION Note that the standards are silent on which party assigns the code and indicate only that the trading partners agree on the codes to be used. Rachel Foerster -----Original Message----- From: Hipaa Guru Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 5:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Fw: 276 routing question, esp. interested in Clearinghouse guru's opinion I believe I have interpreted the use of GS02 and GS03 in a different way. The IGs state that these data elements are to be used to identify the party sending/receiving the transmission. And that these codes are agreed to by the trading partners. I took this to mean that party 'A' (the Clearinghouse, Provider, etc.) would assign party 'B' (Payer) a unique ID and that party 'B' would assign party 'A' a unique ID (Note: by Unique ID I mean unique within the assigning party's system). These ID's would be exchanged when the Trading Partner agreement is established. Then if there was a need to differentiate transmissions sent using the same ISA ID (Fed. ID Nbr) but from different offices, departments, etc.; they would request to be assigned an additional ID for that use. >From the prior posts, it would appear that my view of the use of the GS02/03 elements is way off. Any thoughts on my interpretation are welcomed. Keith Reichert Senior Software Developer Premier Data Software Inc. ----- Original Message ----- From: "William J. Kammerer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WEDi/SNIP ID & Routing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 7:12 PM Subject: Re: 276 routing question, esp. interested in Clearinghouse guru's opinion > Though I'm sympathetic to Michael's subtle hint that ISA receiver IDs > not be used to route interchanges among different internal application > systems, I think we can accommodate Rachel's suggestion. Once the CPP > for the receiver has been located (using some unique ID from one of any > number of domains), it will be possible to specify what is to appear in > the ISA (or GS) receiver IDs depending on the particular Delivery > Channel selected. The receiver has every right to specify what goes in > the GS receiver ID. And with no more effort on our part, we can > likewise give her the capability to demand a particular ISA receiver ID > (and qualifier). > > The converse is neither possible nor desirable: the receiver has no > business - nor means within the CPP - to tell the sender what to use as > his ISA or GS sender codes. > > William J. Kammerer > Novannet, LLC. > Columbus, US-OH 43221-3859 > +1 (614) 487-0320 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Mattias/Tal Systems" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, 06 August, 2002 08:27 PM > Subject: Re: 276 routing question, esp. interested in Clearinghouse > guru's opinion > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rachel Foerster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 5:36 PM > Subject: RE: 276 routing question, esp. interested in Clearinghouse > guru's opinion > > > > Freida, > > > > There are a couple of other mechanisms that can be used by a payer to > route > > the various HIPAA transactions to the correct internal application > system. > > > > 1. The payer could elect to use a different ISA Receiver ID > > 2. The payer could elect to use a different GS Receiver Code > > Not the ISA ID!!! Do not do that! Bad, Bad Idea! > > OTOH, the GS ID was designed EXACTLY for this purpose - to identify the > correct applications party within the destination defined by > the Communications (ISA-IEA) envelope. > > Also, changing the ISA ID means THIS LISTSERVER GROUP would need to > allow for (are you ready for this?) "'multiple unique > identifiers" and senders (providers) would have to look up different > entries/establish separate "payer master records" for > different "claim types" supported by a payer. (You want to imagine where > that might go?) > > Let's nip this "additional ISA ID" idea in the bud! > > MCM > > > > discussions on this listserv therefore represent the views of the individual > participants, and do not necessarily represent the views of the WEDI Board of > Directors nor WEDI SNIP. If you wish to receive an official opinion, post > your question to the WEDI SNIP Issues Database at > http://snip.wedi.org/tracking/. > Posting of advertisements or other commercial use of this listserv is > specifically prohibited. > discussions on this listserv therefore represent the views of the individual participants, and do not necessarily represent the views of the WEDI Board of Directors nor WEDI SNIP. If you wish to receive an official opinion, post your question to the WEDI SNIP Issues Database at http://snip.wedi.org/tracking/. Posting of advertisements or other commercial use of this listserv is specifically prohibited. discussions on this listserv therefore represent the views of the individual participants, and do not necessarily represent the views of the WEDI Board of Directors nor WEDI SNIP. If you wish to receive an official opinion, post your question to the WEDI SNIP Issues Database at http://snip.wedi.org/tracking/. Posting of advertisements or other commercial use of this listserv is specifically prohibited.
