Re: How can we treat real time as a secondary issue?

2002-04-03 Thread joe mcverry
The service provider can offer both batch and real time services by pointing to the same or different addresses. Send any transaction to this address and my transaction processor will decide how to handle your request. -or- 270s are always sent to address A, 837s are sent to B, 276's and 277

RE: How can we treat real time as a secondary issue?

2002-04-03 Thread Fody, Kenneth W.
William: I will be surprised if this is a significant problem. That being said, I do not support your suggestion that this problem be laid at the doorstep of payers. I suspect it is true of most payers that they maintain eligibility on a different platform than claims. In fact, the data is pro

Re: How can we treat real time as a secondary issue?

2002-04-03 Thread William J. Kammerer
The Web Services "paradigm" is not exactly analogous to what we're grappling with here. But even if it were apt, shouldn't your conclusion be that the *submitter* (or requestor) do the splitting? - i.e., choose among the (possibly many) "addresses" to forward his interchange to? Yes, the payer -

Re: How can we treat real time as a secondary issue?

2002-04-03 Thread joe mcverry
With UDDI and EBXML registries the sender asks the receiver what the receiver can do. The receiver responds with a list of services and the addresses for each service. Hence, the burden is on the receiver in regards to splitting. > as a "secondary issue." Right at the start, won't these payer

RE: How can we treat real time as a secondary issue?

2002-04-03 Thread David Frenkel
I think for any high volume eligibility system providers and payers will have to maintain systems that are completely separated from their claims processing for response time issues. I realize transport issues are not part of this discussion. The State of WA has built a pilot application for real

How can we treat real time as a secondary issue?

2002-04-03 Thread William J. Kammerer
If there are payers out there who are "running eligibility on a separate system from their claims," then I don't know how we can treat real time as a "secondary issue." Right at the start, won't these payers demand some way to say eligibility requests go here, and claims go there? Or do these pa

Re: Are only 15 characters in the ISA receiver ID enough?

2002-04-03 Thread William J. Kammerer
X12 is meant to be independent of the transport method. The ISA only needs to hold "logical" identifiers that represent the sending and receiving entities - and 15 characters is more than enough for any conceivable identifier (e.g., DUNS, FEIN, HIN, NAIC, or even the National Plan ID and National