I hate to be pedantic (but when I do it, I'm being "precise"), but if
you paid for a DUNS, you would pay Dun & Bradstreet, not "DUNS."
Aside from that, obtaining a DUNS for your own organization is free: I
didn't pay anything to get assigned a DUNS from D & B, and as I
explained to Chris Feahr th
This is a brief update on the progress to date on the ebXML CPP initiative.
I met with Dale Moberg, chair of the OASIS CPP TC, today to discuss the
potential use of ebXML's CPP to describe trading partner profile
information. We discussed the current CPP work at OASIS and timing for the
next rele
Chris,
You do pay DUNS for every DUNS number but I think the DUNS+4 is free or
at least less expensive. I was just making a point that there is more
to DUNS number. It would be more appropriate for the government to have
a registry but the last time I worked for a government contractor the
GSA r
An organization can have many FTIN's especially if they are multi-state.
Regards,
David Frenkel
Business Development
GEFEG USA
Global Leader in Ecommerce Tools
www.gefeg.com
425-260-5030
-Original Message-
From: Christopher J. Feahr, OD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March
if I understand this thread, we MUST choose one of the legal ISA
identifiers as a KEY to this (yet-to-be-defined) record that explains all
of the 'collaboration" details... including other ISA identifiers that
might be acceptable?
If so, I would vote for the Fed. Tax ID# for the registry key.
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 partic
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
-Original Message-
From: William
I gave an update on our objectives to the Business Issues workgroup two
weeks ago where I attempted to summarize the results and decisions made
on the teleconference and our progress to-date; see my message at
http://www.mail-archive.com/business%40wedi.org/msg00280.html. I think
the objectives o
Jan's e-mail re: the NPI and the Provider Taxonomy Code is at
http://www.mail-archive.com/transactions%40wedi.org/msg00706.html. It's
indeed relevant to our late discussion whereby identification of
providers should not be conflated with payer contracts - nor the
provider specialty. Thanks for r
The issue that Williams touches on in the first paragraph below was
intended, I believe, to be addressed by the use of the Provider Taxonomy
Code such that a provider would have only one provider ID, but would use the
taxonomy code to specify a specialty, etc. that the payer would then use in
comb
Rachel,
It was mainly just informational but large players often have unique
insights and it would be interesting to get their input in these
discussions.
Regards,
David Frenkel
Business Development
GEFEG USA
Global Leader in Ecommerce Tools
www.gefeg.com
425-260-5030
-Original Message-
There has been a wealth of information
posted to this list over the last several weeks. But, I'm beginning to be a bit
concerned, and possibly, confused (it wouldn't be the first time!) that perhaps
the discussion and information exchange has gone a bit off track. In looking at
the original
The National Provider ID (NPI) registrar will certainly not be assigning
IDs to providers based on "contract" number, so it's clear that payers
will already have to be working on separating the notion of contract
from that of provider ID in their HIPAA remediation efforts. So whether
payers used
David,
I too saw this article today, and it does have some interesting information.
However, I'm not at all clear on how you feel this article ties into the
focus for this list. Can you draw the link for me?
Thanks,
Rachel Foerster
Rachel Foerster & Associates, Ltd.
Phone: 847-872-8070
-
This is an article from Computerworld Magazine email. It would be
interesting to get this type of organization involved in these
discussions.
By LUCAS MEARIAN
(March 25, 2002)
Less than a year after it spent about $10 million to consolidate its
storage-area network infrastructure, one of the n
Peter Barry has suggested that payors with elaborate, web-based DDE
services could allow providers to upload standard X12 interchange messages
right into a field in the DDE system. This does sound like an attractive
option for such payors and a way to leverage a sizeable investment into a
mor
Dave,
I think I did see a little discussion of the "DINS+4", but it strikes me as
a partially "de-standardized" standard intended to accomplish what you
could also do by requesting a unique DUNS for every department, plan, or
incoming message portal in your company. D&B might not condone this,
William,
There is really no discernable pattern to when a provider gets assigned a
unique identifier, but physical location does not appear to have anything to
do with it -- it usually is more a matter of what plans a provider
participates in (e.g. a few payers assign different provider numbers ba
Chris:
D & B uses the "carrot" of the DUNS number get you to use their eUpdate
service to update your business profile. Since your company is listed,
but you do not know your DUNS. they tell you to call 888.814.1435
Monday-Friday 8:00AM-6:00PM local time, or go to
https://www.dnb.com/product/eup
19 matches
Mail list logo
