Who am I? Sender, Receiver, Intermediary, or just plain Chump?

2002-04-05 Thread William J. Kammerer
Unless an interchange is going through a pass-thru intermediary - a switch or a VAN - which delivers EDI for many entities, it probably really doesn't matter what's in the receiver field of the ISA, does it? If I deliver an interchange to Anthem, directly, doesn't it stand to reason that the inter

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

2002-04-05 Thread Rachel Foerster
Chris, This issue of defining who the "real" sender and receiver are was brought up early in this list's history. At that time I strongly recommended that a project glossary be developed so that, at least for discussion purposes here, we would have clear definitions of terms. Alas On the oth

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

2002-04-05 Thread Dave Minch
William, Youbetcha! If/when the NPID becomes real, and when payers all agree to apply for and get one, and then when they all agree to put the identifiers on the cards, we'll all be very happy. Ditto the Nat'l provider IDs for inclusion in the ISAs (are providers even required to apply for them?)

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

2002-04-05 Thread Michael Mattias/Tal Systems
- Original Message - From: William J. Kammerer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: 'WEDi/SNIP ID & Routing' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 4:19 PM Subject: Re: How can we treat real time as a secondary issue? > But should the provider have to > make the decisions to implement the

RE: Voice of Reason

2002-04-05 Thread Dave Minch
Mimi, No, you have a good point. What the Medicare Fiscal Intermediaries are being told regarding their DDE capabilities is that they cannot make the EDI process more burdensome or difficult to use than the existing capabilities, and that they cannot bias use of DDE over EDI by making the use of E

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

2002-04-05 Thread Dave Minch
Chris, Actually, that was also my impression. But Rachel & David Feinberg have been suggesting for the last couple of months (see their posts around 1/22/02) that it should be the endpoint receiver, and in William's discussion of the same title (posted 4/2/02): > > . . . . > >So we probably only

Re: Voice of Reason

2002-04-05 Thread Mimi Hart
I am impressed by your analysis...but I do have one area of disagreement. I I agree that payers provide many ways other then X12 transactions to access eligibility, claim status, etc..and that it would probably be easier for providers to continue using those services then make the time and financ