Re: UN/CEFACT's Modeling Methodology (UMM)

Rachel: If you're willing to (start the) model, using the UML/UMM methodology, on something like Dave Minch's Information Flows (which I found readily understandable even if they weren't expressed in UML diagrams), then I'll pay attention. Someone has to get us started using the UMM, and it may

RE: Number of IDs assigned to a provider

Rachel, Yes. The prime example would be Medicare - each of our entities has a Medicare provider number, and yes, we must use that number when billing Medicare. Ditto MediCal. I inquired with a couple of our larger business offices, and their response was yes for many of the health plans, but not

SOAP, DIME, WS Referral and WS Routing

I'm not watching these particular efforts, but I am somewhat familiar with Web Services and SOAP - the latter being an XML'ized DCOM or CORBA. These technologies are ideal for gluing together disparate loosely coupled - intra or extra enterprise - applications on heterogeneous platforms. (See:

[no subject]

Dick Brooks wrote: So what's missing from this picture? All the nitty gritty details about how to conduct e-business with each of these companies. IMO, this is the real challenge; How to "automate" the trading partner setup process for such a large community. Perhaps this is the more important fun

RE: Requirements Gathering - Information Flows

Dave, Thanks. This is a good start to developing the various scenarios for which requirements must be developed for both EDI Addressing and Identifiers. Rachel Rachel Foerster Rachel Foerster & Associates, Ltd. Phone: 847-872-8070 -Original Message- From: Dave Minch [mailto:[EMAIL PROT

RE: UN/CEFACT's Modeling Methodology (UMM)

William, You're correct that these documents are available from the TMWG web site. However, everyone should know that these are still working documents. It's for this reason that I suggested taking a look at Chapter 1 only. I'm also quite dismayed and disappointed by your obvious disdain for a d

Requirement for Domain Name Service

Is there general consensus among the participants on this list that the creation of a Domain Name Service is a requirement for the EDI Addressing Specification? If yes, would someone take a stab at stating the requirement concisely, clearly and succinctly. Such a clearly stated requirement is ess

RE: Requirements Gathering - Information Flows

Here's a first cut at the paths we traverse today whether in paper form, phone, or electronically (I've probably missed a few - I'll keep checking): I'm going to use a coding scheme to make it quicker to do these: P=Provider A=pAyer (endpoint that creates the EOB) E=Employer T=Third party adminis

Requirement for Automated Trading Partner Setup

Dick, I would certainly not like to see this group reinvent that which already exists re your statement: "So what's missing from this picture? All the nitty gritty details about how to conduct e-business with each of these companies. IMO, this is the real challenge; How to "automate" the trading

Re: auto-discovery of the "return path" (In the Kepa-DNSmodel)

Kepa or William, Are either of you watching or aware of Microsofts efforts with regard to SOAP, DIME, WS Referal and WS Routing? Do you see these efforts impacting this group? http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dn_voices_webservice/html/service01152002.asp http://msdn.microsoft.com/librar

RE: clarification on the DNS model

Kepa, In any proposal to create a domain name service, whether distributed or centralized, there must be, at some level, a mandate to the effect that any entity who desires to be an "entry point", MUST register themselves (or should i say be registered). Somewhere in the regulations there needs to

Number of IDs assigned to a provider

I'm forwarding the message below to this list since it contains what I believe is extremely relevant information regarding identifiers, the number of identifiers a given provider may have with a given payer, and thus the implications for requirements/solutions for identifiers. I've deleted the no

Re: auto-discovery of the "return path" (In the Kepa-DNS model)

I wrote on Friday, 01 February, 2002 in "Using a hybrid DNS:" I would dispense with using DNS sub-domains [to describe the trading partner capabilities]: can't the 52345.NAIC.HIPAA.NET record itself just point - with a URL - to an XML document which has all information for Acme [who

UN/CEFACT's Modeling Methodology (UMM)

Fortunately, there's no need to post (parts of) the voluminous UMM - the UN/CEFACT Modeling Methodology (UMM) Release 10, of November 2001, is freely available at the UN/CEFACT TMWG site at http://www.gefeg.com/tmwg/n090r10.htm, the space sponsored by David Frenkel's new hang-out, Gefeg mbH, in be

What's so damn Special about the 835?

I keep seeing implications that the 835 is somehow special - or as "Church Lady" would say: "SPATIAL." Bob Poiesz has reminded us that "all of the HIPAA transactions to date except the 835 are provider initiated." That's a difference, but something that can be handily accommodated in our "directo

RE: auto-discovery of the "return path" (In the Kepa-DNS model)

Kepa, I've been thinking quite a bit about the discovery issue and was wondering if there is a trend toward standard naming conventions underway, which could provide an answer to "some" of the discovery issues in Healthcare. For example, it's common for companies to name their web sites www.whate