Re: Payers sure do like proprietary provider IDs! Do providers feel the same way?

[William J. Kammerer]

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 this morning, he can get his DUNS for free by
following the procedure I outlined.  I think you have to pay $.75 or
some other nominal charge to get the DUNS numbers of other organizations
(though I, too, have gotten those free when I said the numbers were for
"research" - I never pay retail).

In any event, you would rarely have to ask Dun & Bradstreet for the DUNS
of your trading partner;  more often is the case your trading partner
would give you his DUNS, telling you that's how he is addressed in the
ISA. Everyone knows his own DUNS or Federal Tax ID (by the way, the
Federal Tax ID is the same thing as the Federal Employer Identification
Number - EIN or FEIN) - which is "shorthand" for saying someone at his
own organization (say, the CFO) certainly knows these IDs.

Once you have a DUNS, enumerating the DUNS+4 is free, because you do it
yourself as described in my e-mail from last night.  As a matter of
fact, this is a good time for me to do the same.  Novannet's DUNS is
07-293-0527.  So I'm going to assign some DUNS+4 numbers simply by
making up internal 4-digit numbers and appending them to my DUNS:

   0729305270001 - Accounts Receivable
   0729305270002 - Accounts Payable
   0729305270003 - Programming department
   0729305270004 - Columbus warehouse (my garage and mud-room)
   0729305270005 - New Jersey Sales office, and
   0729305270006 - Novannet mascot: my cat, Snobol.

Being a small outfit, I probably won't require the fine-grained detail
of a DUNS+4 when asking others to address my EDI portal:  you'll just
need to put 072930527 in the receiver field (specifying the code for
"DUNS" in the Interchange ID Qualifier) and EDI data will get to me.
This assumes we have our recommendations in place for the CPP and
Registry, and that I've chosen to be identified by my DUNS.

By the way, how many other cats have their own DUNS+4 ID?

William J. Kammerer
Novannet, LLC.
+1 (614) 487-0320

- Original Message -
From: "David Frenkel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WEDi/SNIP ID & Routing'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, 28 March, 2002 12:44 PM
Subject: RE: Payers sure do like proprietary provider IDs! Do providers
feel the same way?


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 required you to have a DUNS number.


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 28, 2002 9:02 AM
To: David Frenkel; 'WEDi/SNIP ID & Routing'
Subject: RE: Payers sure do like proprietary provider IDs! Do providers
feel the same way?

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, however... preferring to have only one unique DUNS for each
identifiable business enterprise. But it doesn't sound like they really
support or even acknowledge the "DUNS+" hack either. The govt. could
render this moot by getting off its butt and creating a national
registry of (tax-paying) business organisms with some sort of unique
identifier.

Without the full cooperation of a company like D&B and an agreement to
support the ID-system the way people want to use it, it strikes me as
risky to recommend it as a primary communication identifier for
healthcare EDI. If we were going to lean on someone to help support a
national business ID registry, it may as well be the fed. govt.

-Chris

Update on CPP effort.

[Dick Brooks]

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 release of the specification, scheduled for June 2002.

I provided Dale with an overview of the groups requirements with regard to
trading partner profiles within the Interoperability and ID/Routing
projects. After hearing these requirements, including the October 2003
implementation deadline, he suggested that WEDi/AFEHCT consider using a "CPA
template" approach as opposed to the more complex negotiated CPP/CPA
process. He explained the CPA template is more "rigid" than the negotiated
CPP/CPA, however it is much "simpler" to implement.

I also described the current discovery models which have been discussed
(Kepa's DNS and ebXML registry/repository). Dale indicated that ebXML's CPP
specifications are designed to work with ebXML's registry/repository
solution. It may be possible to use DNS to "locate" a CPA document
containing trading partner information, however there would likely be a loss
of functionality, which the combined CPP/CPA and ebXML Registry Repository
provides (e.g. search for CPA's using keywords).

An ideal solution, I suspect, would combine the simplicity of the DNS
approach with the robust functionality of ebXML's registry repository.

Dale and I agreed to create a "white paper" describing an ebXML CPA template
approach to address the trading partner profile requirements identified by
the group. This paper would also clearly identify areas of the CPA template
where multiple options exist and decision are needed. In these cases an
analysis of the options will be provided (pros/cons).

The purpose of this paper is to provide the group with enough information to
decide whether or not, ebXML's CPA template approach is a viable solution to
exchange trading partner information.
The paper will remain neutral with regard to discovery approaches.

We have set a goal to create a draft version of this paper by May 18, 2002
and release a final version by the June trimester meeting of X12N in
Minneapolis.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions/comments regarding
this plan.

Thank you,

Dick Brooks
Systrends, Inc
7855 South River Parkway, Suite 111
Tempe, Arizona 85284
Web: www.systrends.com 
Phone:480.756.6777,Mobile:205-790-1542,eFax:240-352-0714

RE: Payers sure do like proprietary provider IDs! Do providers feel the same way?

[David Frenkel]

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 required you to have a DUNS number. 


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 28, 2002 9:02 AM
To: David Frenkel; 'WEDi/SNIP ID & Routing'
Subject: RE: Payers sure do like proprietary provider IDs! Do providers
feel the same way?

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, 
however... preferring to have only one unique DUNS for each identifiable

business enterprise.  But it doesn't sound like they really support or
even 
acknowledge the "DUNS+" hack either.  The govt. could render this moot
by 
getting off its butt and creating a national registry of (tax-paying) 
business organisms with some sort of unique identifier.

Without the full cooperation of a company like D&B and an agreement to 
support the ID-system the way people want to use it, it strikes me as
risky 
to recommend it as a primary communication identifier for healthcare 
EDI.  If we were going to lean on someone to help support a national 
business ID registry, it may as well be the fed. govt.

-Chris

At 08:15 AM 3/28/02 -0800, David Frenkel wrote:
>D&B use to have a free service you could look up a DUNS number but for
>some reason they discontinued this service.  I'm sure many of you are
>aware that there is what is called a DUNS+ number which is a DUNS
number
>with a suffix.  Some organizations have multiple DUNS+ numbers.  I
>worked for a large manufacturing organization that had a DUNS+ for
every
>door in their buildings.  You might discuss using DUNS vs DUNS+.
>
>Regards,
>
>David Frenkel
>Business Development
>GEFEG USA
>Global Leader in Ecommerce Tools
>www.gefeg.com
>425-260-5030
>
>-Original Message-
>From: William J. Kammerer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 4:11 AM
>To: WEDi/SNIP ID & Routing
>Subject: Re: Payers sure do like proprietary provider IDs! Do providers
>feel the same way?
>
>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/eupdate/update1.html to request an eUpdate
>logon (which is your DUNS) and password to review your company profile.
>
>William J. Kammerer
>Novannet, LLC.
>+1 (614) 487-0320
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Christopher J. Feahr, OD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "William J. Kammerer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WEDi/SNIP ID &
>Routing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Wednesday, 27 March, 2002 10:52 PM
>Subject: Re: Payers sure do like proprietary provider IDs! Do providers
>feel the same way?
>
>
>William,
>I did a little poking around on http://sbs.dnb.com/default.asp and I
see
>that "Christopher J. Feahr, OD" is listed in D&B''s database... even
>correctly listing my two partners, one of whom joined me only a year
>ago.  But I did not see my DUNS number.  How does one discover or get
>assigned a DUNS #?  I would think it's automatic if you are in the DB
as
>a "business".
>-Chris
>
>BTW: I do find it extremely annoying as a provider to have to maintain
>so many different IDs for myself for different payors.  WHAT THE HECK
IS
>THE HOLD-UP ON THESE NATIONAL IDENTIFIERS FOR BUSINESSES???  I don't
see
>how this could be controversial of very difficult to implement.
>
>Christopher J. Feahr, OD
>http://visiondatastandard.org
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268

Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268

RE: What's the focus?

[David Frenkel]

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 28, 2002 2:40 PM
To: William J. Kammerer; WEDi/SNIP ID & Routing
Subject: Re: What's the focus?

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.  As I
look 
down this list, the FTIN seems to be the only one reliably there 100% of

the time and one that virtually every business will know (about itself)
and 
have no qualms (and violate no user agreements) disclosing to "the
world".

-Chris

01 Duns (Dun & Bradstreet)
14 Duns Plus Suffix
20 Health Industry Number (HIN)
27 Carrier Identification Number as assigned by Health Care Financing
Administration (HCFA)
28 Fiscal Intermediary Identification Number as assigned by Health Care
Financing Administration (HCFA)
29 Medicare Provider and Supplier Identification Number as assigned by
Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA)
30 U.S. Federal Tax Identification Number
33 National Association of Insurance Commissioners Company Code (NAIC)
ZZ Mutually Defined


At 04:46 PM 3/28/02 -0500, William J. Kammerer wrote:
>as always, "[our] primary problem to solve is getting
>some consistent way of identifying providers as EDI participants - and
>getting everyone (including payers) to use that same ID for looking up
>providers' EDI addresses (inter alia) in the Healthcare registry."

Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268

Re: What's the focus?

[Christopher J. Feahr, OD]

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.  As I look 
down this list, the FTIN seems to be the only one reliably there 100% of 
the time and one that virtually every business will know (about itself) and 
have no qualms (and violate no user agreements) disclosing to "the world".

-Chris

01 Duns (Dun & Bradstreet)
14 Duns Plus Suffix
20 Health Industry Number (HIN)
27 Carrier Identification Number as assigned by Health Care Financing
Administration (HCFA)
28 Fiscal Intermediary Identification Number as assigned by Health Care
Financing Administration (HCFA)
29 Medicare Provider and Supplier Identification Number as assigned by
Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA)
30 U.S. Federal Tax Identification Number
33 National Association of Insurance Commissioners Company Code (NAIC)
ZZ Mutually Defined


At 04:46 PM 3/28/02 -0500, William J. Kammerer wrote:
>as always, "[our] primary problem to solve is getting
>some consistent way of identifying providers as EDI participants - and
>getting everyone (including payers) to use that same ID for looking up
>providers' EDI addresses (inter alia) in the Healthcare registry."

Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268

Re: What's the focus?

[William J. Kammerer]

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 participants, including payers,
Clearinghouses, Third Party Administrators, Re-pricers *and* Providers.
It should be clear from all my monologue over the last two or so months
that I understand we have to identify all players in order to access
CPPs in a Registry and address parties in the ISA.

But as it is, there doesn't seem to be much argument over how payers are
identified:  the NAIC seems to be relatively well standardized upon, and
for our purposes it's a perfect identifier.   You don't see providers
assigning proprietary provider-assigned payer IDs - instead we have a
common sensible and standard means of identifying payers (e.g., the NAIC
company code).

The big problem to solve, as I have oft-repeated, is to level the
playing field and have the payers extend the same courtesy to providers:
address them by their own "name," rather than forcing providers to
"memorize" a bunch of payer-assigned proprietary IDs (whether for the
ISA or within the application transaction).

William J. Kammerer
Novannet, LLC.
+1 (614) 487-0320

- Original Message -
From: "Rachel Foerster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WEDi/SNIP ID & Routing'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, 28 March, 2002 04:55 PM
Subject: RE: What's the focus?


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

RE: What's the focus?

[Rachel Foerster]

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 J. Kammerer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 3:46 PM
To: WEDi/SNIP ID & Routing
Subject: Re: What's the focus?


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 reminding us of this great posting,
Rachel.

As I indicated in my last e-mail, I acknowledged that "detailed
discussion of various identifiers and identification systems" might be a
little off track (because they're mostly relevant to the application
transaction sets): as always, "[our] primary problem to solve is getting
some consistent way of identifying providers as EDI participants - and
getting everyone (including payers) to use that same ID for looking up
providers' EDI addresses (inter alia) in the Healthcare registry."

Even before the NPI comes into being, I would hope we can get away from
proprietary payer-assigned provider identifiers in the ISA.  Then we can
seriously consider removing the ZZ (Mutually Defined) option in the
Interchange ID Qualifier.

William J. Kammerer
Novannet, LLC.
+1 (614) 487-0320

- Original Message -
From: "Rachel Foerster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WEDi/SNIP ID & Routing'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, 28 March, 2002 04:15 PM
Subject: What's the focus?


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 combination with the provider ID during its adjudication process.

Jan Root posted an excellent description of this original intent of the
Provider Taxonomy Code on another list, but unfortunately, I'm not able
to locate it quickly. If Jan is on this list, perhaps she could re-post
her description here as well.

It seems to me that a key goal is to determine how an identifier
(whether the provider's, payer's, clearinghouse's, or whatever)
appearing in the ISA Sender or Receiver ID field could be used to then
discover more complete information about that entity's EDI addressing
requirements...plus potentially other information about connectivity as
well.

Today the HIPAA IG's specify what coding systems are valid for use
within the ISA in HIPAA-Land:

01 Duns (Dun & Bradstreet)
14 Duns Plus Suffix
20 Health Industry Number (HIN)
27 Carrier Identification Number as assigned by Health Care Financing
Administration (HCFA)
28 Fiscal Intermediary Identification Number as assigned by Health Care
Financing Administration (HCFA)
29 Medicare Provider and Supplier Identification Number as assigned by
Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA)
30 U.S. Federal Tax Identification Number
33 National Association of Insurance Commissioners Company Code (NAIC)
ZZ Mutually Defined


(Just a side note to the discussion of the DUNS+4 topic: The +4 suffix
is not an official component of the DUNS assigned by D&Bit's
determined by the entity that the DUNS identifies. Thus, there is no
standardization to the +4 suffix. I would urge caution here is getting
too enamored of the DUNS+4.)

In the absence of the national identifiers, we are left to select from
one of these coding systems or to use the ZZ Mutually Defined. It's my
opinion that if the objective is to be able to use the identifier from
the ISA to discover more detailed EDI addressing information, then it's
irrelevant which coding system the ISA identifiers are based on. The
only requirement at the present time is that to be compliant with the
HIPAA specifications, one must choose one of the above.

Thus, I'm not sure that I understand the detailed discussion of various
identifiers and identification systems. Wouldn't it be more on point to
be examining how the ISA identifier would/could/should be used to link
to the EDI Addressing information?

Furthermore, when (notice that I'm the eternal optimist and didn't say
if) the national identifiers are finalized, then I would certainly
expect that the ZZ Mutually Defined option would go awayand even
perhaps the other choices in favor of the national identifiers. Thus, I
again reiterate that I think it's quite irrelevant to the goal of this
work group to get too wrapped around the axle about various
identification systems. Rather, shouldn't the focus be on the
"functional use" of the identifier in the ISA as the key to discovering
the detailed EDI addressing information?

Rachel Foerster
Principal
Rachel Foerste

Re: What's the focus?

[William J. Kammerer]

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 of the group are clearly enough delineated in my message,
though if you have suggestions on better organizing the ideas, I'm "all
ears."

Unfortunately, the 6320 EDI Addr Desc & Bus Case document has not
yet been updated to reflect our new direction and expanded scope.  I
expect that Peter Barry will have that document updated shortly and we
will be able to post it to the ID & Routing web page at
http://www.novannet.com/wedi/.

William J. Kammerer
Novannet, LLC.
+1 (614) 487-0320

- Original Message -
From: "Rachel Foerster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WEDi SNIP 4 (E-mail 3)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, 28 March, 2002 03:45 PM
Subject: What's the focus?

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 business case document for this work group developed by Peter
Barry, I believe the following sections should be front and foremost in
our efforts:

2.0 Objective of the EDI Address Project
This project is to define the syntax of a comprehensive, standard EDI
Address, including attributes such as described here, and to define the
associated code structure.  Its deliverable is intended to have
technicalspecificity.

7.0 The Proposed Work
This project will pursue the following:

*Write technical specifications for syntax and code structure for the
EDI Address including its associated attributes. The sequence is to
begin with the easier and continue to the more difficult.

*Define attribute code tables.

*Determine required changes, if any, in X12 and other standard
transactions.

*Coordinate with WEDI-AFEHCT Health Care Communications Security and
Interoperability project. Coordination between the two projects is
critical.

Have we lost focus? Or have we just not yet determined a focus? As I
said in a message in early March, " . . .any project must have a clearly
stated objective.thus far I'm not sure this group has such an
objective or reached consensus on an objective. The first question to be
answered, in my opinion is: Does this group wish to embark on a project
to develop a technical specification for a health care EDI Addressing
System? This is what was posed in Peter Barry's first draft document.
William talks about a white paper for EDI Addressing. These two things
are substantially different animals. Thus, is the goal of this group to
develop:

1. A technical specification for a health care EDI Addressing System
or
2. A white paper discussing issues, approaches, challenges for EDI
Addressing of EDI interchanges"

Folks, where are we on the objective for this work group? If the
objective is neither 1 or 2, then what is it?

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

Re: What's the focus?

[William J. Kammerer]

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 reminding us of this great posting,
Rachel.

As I indicated in my last e-mail, I acknowledged that "detailed
discussion of various identifiers and identification systems" might be a
little off track (because they're mostly relevant to the application
transaction sets): as always, "[our] primary problem to solve is getting
some consistent way of identifying providers as EDI participants - and
getting everyone (including payers) to use that same ID for looking up
providers' EDI addresses (inter alia) in the Healthcare registry."

Even before the NPI comes into being, I would hope we can get away from
proprietary payer-assigned provider identifiers in the ISA.  Then we can
seriously consider removing the ZZ (Mutually Defined) option in the
Interchange ID Qualifier.

William J. Kammerer
Novannet, LLC.
+1 (614) 487-0320

- Original Message -
From: "Rachel Foerster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WEDi/SNIP ID & Routing'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, 28 March, 2002 04:15 PM
Subject: What's the focus?


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 combination with the provider ID during its adjudication process.

Jan Root posted an excellent description of this original intent of the
Provider Taxonomy Code on another list, but unfortunately, I'm not able
to locate it quickly. If Jan is on this list, perhaps she could re-post
her description here as well.

It seems to me that a key goal is to determine how an identifier
(whether the provider's, payer's, clearinghouse's, or whatever)
appearing in the ISA Sender or Receiver ID field could be used to then
discover more complete information about that entity's EDI addressing
requirements...plus potentially other information about connectivity as
well.

Today the HIPAA IG's specify what coding systems are valid for use
within the ISA in HIPAA-Land:

01 Duns (Dun & Bradstreet)
14 Duns Plus Suffix
20 Health Industry Number (HIN)
27 Carrier Identification Number as assigned by Health Care Financing
Administration (HCFA)
28 Fiscal Intermediary Identification Number as assigned by Health Care
Financing Administration (HCFA)
29 Medicare Provider and Supplier Identification Number as assigned by
Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA)
30 U.S. Federal Tax Identification Number
33 National Association of Insurance Commissioners Company Code (NAIC)
ZZ Mutually Defined


(Just a side note to the discussion of the DUNS+4 topic: The +4 suffix
is not an official component of the DUNS assigned by D&Bit's
determined by the entity that the DUNS identifies. Thus, there is no
standardization to the +4 suffix. I would urge caution here is getting
too enamored of the DUNS+4.)

In the absence of the national identifiers, we are left to select from
one of these coding systems or to use the ZZ Mutually Defined. It's my
opinion that if the objective is to be able to use the identifier from
the ISA to discover more detailed EDI addressing information, then it's
irrelevant which coding system the ISA identifiers are based on. The
only requirement at the present time is that to be compliant with the
HIPAA specifications, one must choose one of the above.

Thus, I'm not sure that I understand the detailed discussion of various
identifiers and identification systems. Wouldn't it be more on point to
be examining how the ISA identifier would/could/should be used to link
to the EDI Addressing information?

Furthermore, when (notice that I'm the eternal optimist and didn't say
if) the national identifiers are finalized, then I would certainly
expect that the ZZ Mutually Defined option would go awayand even
perhaps the other choices in favor of the national identifiers. Thus, I
again reiterate that I think it's quite irrelevant to the goal of this
work group to get too wrapped around the axle about various
identification systems. Rather, shouldn't the focus be on the
"functional use" of the identifier in the ISA as the key to discovering
the detailed EDI addressing information?

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: William J. Kammerer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 2:43 PM
To: WEDi/SNIP ID & Routing
Subject: Re: Payers sure do like proprietary provider IDs! Do providers
feel the same way?


The National Provider ID (NPI) 

What's the focus?

[Rachel Foerster]

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
combination with the provider ID during its adjudication process.

Jan Root posted an excellent description of this original intent of the
Provider Taxonomy Code on another list, but unfortunately, I'm not able to
locate it quickly. If Jan is on this list, perhaps she could re-post her
description here as well.

It seems to me that a key goal is to determine how an identifier (whether
the provider's, payer's, clearinghouse's, or whatever) appearing in the ISA
Sender or Receiver ID field could be used to then discover more complete
information about that entity's EDI addressing requirements...plus
potentially other information about connectivity as well.

Today the HIPAA IG's specify what coding systems are valid for use within
the ISA in HIPAA-Land:

01 Duns (Dun & Bradstreet)
14 Duns Plus Suffix
20 Health Industry Number (HIN)
27 Carrier Identification Number as assigned by Health Care Financing
Administration (HCFA)
28 Fiscal Intermediary Identification Number as assigned by Health Care
Financing Administration (HCFA)
29 Medicare Provider and Supplier Identification Number as assigned by
Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA)
30 U.S. Federal Tax Identification Number
33 National Association of Insurance Commissioners Company Code (NAIC)
ZZ Mutually Defined

(Just a side note to the discussion of the DUNS+4 topic: The +4 suffix is
not an official component of the DUNS assigned by D&Bit's determined by
the entity that the DUNS identifies. Thus, there is no standardization to
the +4 suffix. I would urge caution here is getting too enamored of the
DUNS+4.)

In the absence of the national identifiers, we are left to select from one
of these coding systems or to use the ZZ Mutually Defined. It's my opinion
that if the objective is to be able to use the identifier from the ISA to
discover more detailed EDI addressing information, then it's irrelevant
which coding system the ISA identifiers are based on. The only requirement
at the present time is that to be compliant with the HIPAA specifications,
one must choose one of the above.

Thus, I'm not sure that I understand the detailed discussion of various
identifiers and identification systems. Wouldn't it be more on point to be
examining how the ISA identifier would/could/should be used to link to the
EDI Addressing information?

Furthermore, when (notice that I'm the eternal optimist and didn't say if)
the national identifiers are finalized, then I would certainly expect that
the ZZ Mutually Defined option would go awayand even perhaps the other
choices in favor of the national identifiers. Thus, I again reiterate that I
think it's quite irrelevant to the goal of this work group to get too
wrapped around the axle about various identification systems. Rather,
shouldn't the focus be on the "functional use" of the identifier in the ISA
as the key to discovering the detailed EDI addressing information?

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: William J. Kammerer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 2:43 PM
To: WEDi/SNIP ID & Routing
Subject: Re: Payers sure do like proprietary provider IDs! Do providers
feel the same way?


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 the NPI, D-U-N-S, DUNS+4, HIN, or Federal Tax ID to identify
providers, assignment of these IDs will necessarily be based on licensed
entity, individual, location or role - but never on the contract with
the particular payer.

RE: FYI - Statistical info

[David Frenkel]

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-
From: Rachel Foerster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 12:28 PM
To: 'WEDi/SNIP ID & Routing'
Subject: RE: FYI - Statistical info

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


-Original Message-
From: David Frenkel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 1:43 PM
To: 'WEDi/SNIP ID & Routing'
Subject: FYI - Statistical info


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 nation's largest
Medicare carriers says that it's beginning to reap a full return on its
investment and has saved an additional 40% on its hardware costs.

Wisconsin Physicians Service Insurance Corp. (WPS) processes about
369,000 claims each day for Medicare and military insurance accounts. In
recent years, the Madison, Wis.-based insurer has added Illinois,
Michigan and Minnesota to its Medicare rolls, which in turn has led to a
leap in annual claims, from the $840 million it was processing in 1997
to a little more than $7 billion last year.


Regards,

David Frenkel
Business Development
GEFEG USA
Global Leader in Ecommerce Tools
www.gefeg.com
425-260-5030

What's the focus?

[Rachel Foerster]

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 business case document for this work group developed by Peter 
Barry, I believe the following sections should be front and foremost in our 
efforts:

2.0 Objective of the EDI 
Address Project
This project is to define the syntax of a comprehensive, 
standard EDI Address, including attributes such as described here, and to define 
the associated code structure.  Its 
deliverable is intended to have technical specificity.
7.0 
The Proposed Work
This project will pursue the following:
 
·   
Write technical specifications 
for syntax and code structure for the  
EDI Address including its associated attributes.  The sequence is to begin with the easier 
and continue to the more difficult.
·   
Define attribute code 
tables.
·   
Determine required changes, if 
any, in X12 and other standard transactions.
·   
Coordinate with WEDI-AFEHCT 
Health Care Communications Security and Interoperability project.  Coordination between the two projects is 
critical.
 
Have we lost focus? Or have we just not yet determined a focus?  As 
I said in a message in early March, " . . .any project must have a clearly 
stated objective.thus far I'm not sure this group has such an objective or 
reached consensus on an objective. The first question to be answered, in my 
opinion is: Does this group wish to embark on a project to develop a technical 
specification for a health care EDI Addressing System? This is what was posed in 
Peter Barry's first draft document. William talks about a white paper for EDI 
Addressing. These two things are substantially different animals. Thus, is the 
goal of this group to develop:
1. A technical 
specification for a health care EDI Addressing System
or
2. A 
white paper discussing issues, approaches, challenges for EDI Addressing of EDI 
interchanges"
 
Folks, where are we on the objective for this work 
group? If the objective is neither 1 or 2, then what is 
it?
 
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 

Re: Payers sure do like proprietary provider IDs! Do providers feel the same way?

[William J. Kammerer]

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 the NPI, D-U-N-S, DUNS+4, HIN, or Federal Tax ID to identify
providers, assignment of these IDs will necessarily be based on licensed
entity, individual, location or role - but never on the contract with
the particular payer.

Nonetheless, even though we're sometimes forced to discuss the general
notion of IDs as used in the application transaction sets, our primary
problem to solve is getting some consistent way of identifying providers
as EDI participants - and getting everyone (including payers) to use
that same ID for looking up providers' EDI addresses (inter alia) in the
Healthcare registry.  It will be a great step forward if our small group
gets all players singing from the same hymnal as far as ISA
identification goes;  it would be icing on the cake, indeed, if interim
application solutions to the lack of an NPI came out of our group, too!

It sounds like we're coming to some sort of agreement that not only
providers, but payers, too, find it cumbersome to deal with proprietary
payer-assigned IDs as EDI Identifiers on the ISA.  Are we getting closer
to being able to make some definitive statement whereby we recommend
that all providers' (or their agents') EDI portals be identified by
DUNS, DUNS+4, HIN or Tax ID (the only current relevant choices in the
Interchange ID Qualifier)?

William J. Kammerer
Novannet, LLC.
+1 (614) 487-0320

- Original Message -
From: "Dave Minch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, 28 March, 2002 12:43 PM
Subject: RE: Payers sure do like proprietary provider IDs! Do providers
feel the same way?


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 based on plan participation). In the predominance of cases,
however, the provider number distinction is made based on licensed
entity. Our MMG provider group, for example, does business from many
physical locations, and has multiple provider numbers, but usually only
one number per carrier (except where they participate in multiple plans,
and the carrier assigns based on plan). On the other hand, it is a
certainty that each of our 16 licensed entities has a unique provider
number for any given carrier.

Dave Minch
T&CS Project Manager
John Muir / Mt. Diablo Health System
Walnut Creek, CA
(925) 941-2240

RE: FYI - Statistical info

[Rachel Foerster]

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


-Original Message-
From: David Frenkel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 1:43 PM
To: 'WEDi/SNIP ID & Routing'
Subject: FYI - Statistical info


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 nation's largest
Medicare carriers says that it's beginning to reap a full return on its
investment and has saved an additional 40% on its hardware costs.

Wisconsin Physicians Service Insurance Corp. (WPS) processes about
369,000 claims each day for Medicare and military insurance accounts. In
recent years, the Madison, Wis.-based insurer has added Illinois,
Michigan and Minnesota to its Medicare rolls, which in turn has led to a
leap in annual claims, from the $840 million it was processing in 1997
to a little more than $7 billion last year.


Regards,

David Frenkel
Business Development
GEFEG USA
Global Leader in Ecommerce Tools
www.gefeg.com
425-260-5030

FYI - Statistical info

[David Frenkel]

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 nation's largest
Medicare carriers says that it's beginning to reap a full return on its
investment and has saved an additional 40% on its hardware costs.   
 
Wisconsin Physicians Service Insurance Corp. (WPS) processes about
369,000 claims each day for Medicare and military insurance accounts. In
recent years, the Madison, Wis.-based insurer has added Illinois,
Michigan and Minnesota to its Medicare rolls, which in turn has led to a
leap in annual claims, from the $840 million it was processing in 1997
to a little more than $7 billion last year. 


Regards,

David Frenkel
Business Development
GEFEG USA
Global Leader in Ecommerce Tools
www.gefeg.com
425-260-5030

 

using DDE infrastructure as a formal transport mechanism for EDI messages

[Christopher J. Feahr, OD]

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 
more universal HIPAA (possibly, real-time) messaging system.  For example, 
we have 18,000 eye doctors and 350 laboratories currently submitting VSP 
claims by hand-typing information into 4 or 5 web browser screens (per 
claim) on VSP's portal site, Eyefinity.com.

If we are successful in fitting all the eyewear claim data into the 837, 
however, (getting close!), I would like to be able to soften the blow for 
VSP by recommending a specific strategy by which OD's OMS software could 
create the EDI messages... then SOMEHOW automatically upload them into a 
modified "front door" on eyefinity.com.

In other words, is there a way to convert this hand-keyed-DDE transport 
mechanism into a fully automated "transport protocol" for sending and 
receiving standard EDI messages?

Currently, all 18,000 docs and 350 labs have username/password access to 
the claim/order sections of eyefinity.com.  So there are no "discovery" or 
"CPA-negotiation" issues, because the providers are already credentialed 
and plugged in.  But I'm not clear on what the different options would be 
for the OMS developers, whose systems would have to transparently:

1. establish an SSL connection with the correct "port" on eyefinity.com.
2. send doc's UN/PW and acknowledge a "login"
3. locate the interchange file on the doctor's hard drive
4. upload the file to eyefinity.

For return traffic to the provider, I would suggest having the provider log 
in again (or just stay logged into the site all day... which is what 
doctors do today with a browser connection)... and (somehow) have the EDI 
messages auto-downloaded from eyefinity.com to a designated folder on the 
doctor's system.

Peter, have you worked out all the steps in this "dance"... has anyone 
actually implemented something like this?

Thanks,
Chris

Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268

RE: Payers sure do like proprietary provider IDs! Do providers feel the same way?

[Christopher J. Feahr, OD]

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, 
however... preferring to have only one unique DUNS for each identifiable 
business enterprise.  But it doesn't sound like they really support or even 
acknowledge the "DUNS+" hack either.  The govt. could render this moot by 
getting off its butt and creating a national registry of (tax-paying) 
business organisms with some sort of unique identifier.

Without the full cooperation of a company like D&B and an agreement to 
support the ID-system the way people want to use it, it strikes me as risky 
to recommend it as a primary communication identifier for healthcare 
EDI.  If we were going to lean on someone to help support a national 
business ID registry, it may as well be the fed. govt.

-Chris

At 08:15 AM 3/28/02 -0800, David Frenkel wrote:
>D&B use to have a free service you could look up a DUNS number but for
>some reason they discontinued this service.  I'm sure many of you are
>aware that there is what is called a DUNS+ number which is a DUNS number
>with a suffix.  Some organizations have multiple DUNS+ numbers.  I
>worked for a large manufacturing organization that had a DUNS+ for every
>door in their buildings.  You might discuss using DUNS vs DUNS+.
>
>Regards,
>
>David Frenkel
>Business Development
>GEFEG USA
>Global Leader in Ecommerce Tools
>www.gefeg.com
>425-260-5030
>
>-Original Message-
>From: William J. Kammerer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 4:11 AM
>To: WEDi/SNIP ID & Routing
>Subject: Re: Payers sure do like proprietary provider IDs! Do providers
>feel the same way?
>
>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/eupdate/update1.html to request an eUpdate
>logon (which is your DUNS) and password to review your company profile.
>
>William J. Kammerer
>Novannet, LLC.
>+1 (614) 487-0320
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Christopher J. Feahr, OD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "William J. Kammerer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WEDi/SNIP ID &
>Routing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Wednesday, 27 March, 2002 10:52 PM
>Subject: Re: Payers sure do like proprietary provider IDs! Do providers
>feel the same way?
>
>
>William,
>I did a little poking around on http://sbs.dnb.com/default.asp and I see
>that "Christopher J. Feahr, OD" is listed in D&B''s database... even
>correctly listing my two partners, one of whom joined me only a year
>ago.  But I did not see my DUNS number.  How does one discover or get
>assigned a DUNS #?  I would think it's automatic if you are in the DB as
>a "business".
>-Chris
>
>BTW: I do find it extremely annoying as a provider to have to maintain
>so many different IDs for myself for different payors.  WHAT THE HECK IS
>THE HOLD-UP ON THESE NATIONAL IDENTIFIERS FOR BUSINESSES???  I don't see
>how this could be controversial of very difficult to implement.
>
>Christopher J. Feahr, OD
>http://visiondatastandard.org
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268

Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268

RE: Payers sure do like proprietary provider IDs! Do providers feel the same way?

[Dave Minch]

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 based
on plan participation).  In the predominance of cases, however, the provider
number distinction is made based on licensed entity.  Our MMG provider
group, for example, does business from many physical locations, and has
multiple provider numbers, but usually only one number per carrier (except
where they participate in multiple plans, and the carrier assigns based on
plan).  On the other hand, it is a certainty that each of our 16 licensed
entities has a unique provider number for any given carrier.

Dave Minch
T&CS Project Manager
John Muir / Mt. Diablo Health System
Walnut Creek, CA
(925) 941-2240


-Original Message-
From: William J. Kammerer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 5:44 PM
To: WEDi/SNIP ID & Routing
Subject: Re: Payers sure do like proprietary provider IDs! Do providers
feel the same way?


Ken:

Your comments are very helpful - thanks for writing in.  And it's good
to see even payers want a standard provider ID, rather than relying on
proprietary schemes.  Actually, our group is concerned mostly with the
provider ID as used in the sender ID on the ISA, but the same issues
probably arise for providers when they're forced to "memorize" a bunch
of payer-assigned proprietary IDs to use within the application
transaction set (in the NM1 and REF).

Is it safe to assume most payers assign proprietary IDs for each
provider location?  If so, that argues strongly for using the "DUNS+4"
system, which can be used to uniquely identify specific locations within
a particular company (provider, in our case).  The DUNS (Data Universal
Numbering System) number itself is assigned by Dun & Bradstreet,
described at http://www.dnb.com/dunsno/dunsno.htm.  Its advantage is
that it's *free* - as a matter of fact, you actually have to work to
avoid getting one of their numbers, as Dun & Bradstreet makes it their
business to mind everyone else' business:  practically every business in
the U.S. has one, whether they want it or not.

D&B assigns unique 9-digit DUNS numbers to all legal entities - it's a
pretty safe bet that every clinic, hospital and practice in the U.S. has
been enumerated by Dun & Bradstreet and has been assigned a DUNS number.
For example, in my e-mail from Tuesday, I showed the DUNS numbers for
two hospitals in my hometown, Columbus, Ohio: 04-643-0013 for Children's
Hospital, and 07-164-3589 for Riverside Methodist.  Its not even big
regional hospitals who have DUNS numbers:  even little Novannet has
one - 07-293-0527.  My doctor has one.  My dentist has one.  My kids'
pediatrician has one.  I assume anybody who does business has one.  So
the DUNS seems perfectly suitable as a unique provider ID - at least
until the National Provider ID is implemented.  Why do people fight it?

On the other hand, DUNS+4 is probably a figment of some EDI guy's
imagination.  It's nothing but the DUNS appended with an additional 4
characters - hence the "+4" - defined by the company for their internal
locations.  The DUNS+4 is basically a unique "cookie" for identifying
internal locations. A way was needed to describe retail store locations
which would remain unique even with mergers and acquisitions - so the
solution was to append a self-assigned 4-digit store (or dock or
building) number to the D & B assigned DUNS. The DUNS+4 is used a lot in
the grocery business:  see how Krogers and SuperValu use the DUNS+4 to
identify their  warehouses and stores at http://edi.kroger.com/ and
http://ec.supervalu.com/Wholesale/wholesale.htm.

The 816 Organizational Relationships Transaction Set can be used to tell
your trading partners (payers) which DUNS+4 corresponds to a particular
(provider) location (e.g., address).  You would think it would be
sufficient for the provider to enumerate his own locations, assigning
DUNS+4 IDs to each, and passing an 816 transaction set to the payer to
update the payer's files.  All payers would then be using the same
provider location number (the provider-assigned DUNS+4), and we should
all be happy!

Another favorite of mine, the Health Industry Number (HIN), at
http://www.hibcc.org/hin.htm, is an analogous attempt at coming up with
a uniform method of assigning IDs to specific locations.  One advantage
of the HIN is that location information is centrally managed at HIBCC,
so there's only one place you need to go to in order to obtain all HIN
numbers (as opposed to receiving 816s from each provider individually).

William J. Kammerer
Novannet, LLC.
+1 (614) 487-0320

- Original Message -
From: "Fody, Kenneth W." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WEDi/SNIP ID & Routing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March, 2002 11:03 AM
Subject: RE: Payers sure do like prop

Re: Payers sure do like proprietary provider IDs! Do providers feel the same way?

[William J. Kammerer]

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/eupdate/update1.html to request an eUpdate
logon (which is your DUNS) and password to review your company profile.

William J. Kammerer
Novannet, LLC.
+1 (614) 487-0320

- Original Message -
From: "Christopher J. Feahr, OD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "William J. Kammerer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WEDi/SNIP ID &
Routing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March, 2002 10:52 PM
Subject: Re: Payers sure do like proprietary provider IDs! Do providers
feel the same way?


William,
I did a little poking around on http://sbs.dnb.com/default.asp and I see
that "Christopher J. Feahr, OD" is listed in D&B''s database... even
correctly listing my two partners, one of whom joined me only a year
ago.  But I did not see my DUNS number.  How does one discover or get
assigned a DUNS #?  I would think it's automatic if you are in the DB as
a "business".
-Chris

BTW: I do find it extremely annoying as a provider to have to maintain
so many different IDs for myself for different payors.  WHAT THE HECK IS
THE HOLD-UP ON THESE NATIONAL IDENTIFIERS FOR BUSINESSES???  I don't see
how this could be controversial of very difficult to implement.

Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268