at returns all the parameters for a
> > > trading partner relationship, but I can as well call and have them fax
> > me or
> > > email me a fact sheet on trading relationships. I don't believe there
> will
> > > be automated and instant trading partne
use.
> >
>
>
>
>
>discussions on this listserv therefore represent the views of the individual
>participants, and do not necessarily represent the views of the WEDI Board of
>Directors nor WEDI SNIP. If you wish to receive an official opinion, post
>your question to the WEDI S
the protocols needed for all transaction routing variants.
>
>Dave Minch
>T&CS Project Manager
>John Muir / Mt. Diablo Health System
>Walnut Creek, CA
>(925) 941-2240
>
>discussions on this listserv therefore represent the views of the individual
>participants, and do
to the sort key).
>
>Michael Mattias
>Tal Systems, Inc.
>Racine WI
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>discussions on this listserv therefore represent the views of the
>individual
>participants, and do not necessarily represent the views
at would remove some of the liability.
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Christopher J. Feahr, OD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 3:58 PM
>To: William J. Kammerer; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: The "Mao Zedong" PKI Model
>
>
>William,
>Tha
dividual
>participants, and do not necessarily represent the views of the WEDI Board of
>Directors nor WEDI SNIP. If you wish to receive an official opinion, post
>your question to the WEDI SNIP Issues Database at
>http://snip.wedi.org/tracking/.
>Posting of advertisements or othe
recipient or
> > >an
> > >agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are
> > >hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that
> > >any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action based
> > >o
y providers were taking this kind of
>approach with trading partners and if so, what you experience has been.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Christine Jensen
>HIPAA Project Manager
>Denver Health
>303.436.7942
>
>
>
>
>discussions on this listserv therefore represent the views of the ind
; >
> > *
> >
> >This message and accompanying documents are covered by the Electronic
> >Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. ยงยง 2510-2521, and contain
> >information intended for the specified individual(s)
you are not the intended recipient or an
>agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are
>hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any
>review, dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action based on the
>contents of this info
official opinion, post
>your question to the WEDI SNIP Issues Database at
>http://snip.wedi.org/tracking/.
>Posting of advertisements or other commercial use of this listserv is
>specifically prohibited.
Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager
t;more efficiently automated to gain administrative simplification. Our major
>obstacle has not been technology, but the lack of such standard data
>content.
>
>Larry
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Christopher J. Feahr, OD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Friday, July 12
shown.
>Thank you for your compliance.
>
>discussions on this listserv therefore represent the views of the individual
>participants, and do not necessarily represent the views of the WEDI Board of
>Directors nor WEDI SNIP. If you wish to receive an official opinion, post
>your question t
on to the WEDI SNIP Issues Database at
>http://snip.wedi.org/tracking/.
>Posting of advertisements or other commercial use of this listserv is
>specifically prohibited.
>
>
>discussions on this listserv therefore represent the views of the individual
>participants, and do not necessar
equire a lot of analysis/discussion, but rather
>be put in a "parking lot" for future work effort?
Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
discussions on this listserv therefore represent the views of the individual
basic issues of
> > > EDI. All this talk about CPP and ebXML makes my head spin; and to be
> > > honest, having my hands full with transaction sets, I don't see myself
> > > studying now XML too.
> > >
> > > Why don't we use email as the preferred mode of routing?
> > >
> > > This would solve most problems.
> > > a.. email is secure. Encrypting email with PGP, Pretty Good
> > > Privacy is cheap, proven and common place
> > > b.. Attachments can be relatively large, mega bytes if need be and
> > > numerous too
> > > c.. routing of email is long solved and works great as we all know
> > > d.. Identifiers are left between you and your trading partner. We
> > > don't have to invent or find a unique ID as long it is 15 digits long.
> > > e.. virus filters and such are widely available and HIPAA Security
> > > can be attained at low costs
> > > f.. By having a robot check the inbox every minute or so,
> > > "realtime" or something reasonably close to that can be achieved.
> > > g.. TA1, 997,271,277 . are send back as an attachment
> > > h.. You can also send back the detailed analysis information. EDI
> > > compliance checker software produces verbose output and when you send
> > > that back in the body of the email to the message provider, you can give
> > > near instant feedback and go through the training and testing phase
> > > faster.
> > > i.. Off course, if you need to submit 10gig of EDI to CMS, this
> > > does not work, but for the traffic between providers and payers, email
> > > would solve the routing question
> > > I just started to test my payer oriented software with a provider
> > > software house in India. We tried ftp and were frustrated. We were
> > > fighting firewall issues, I had power outages and my server was down, my
> > > IP lease expired and India is about 12 hours ahead of me so that we
> > > could never communicate in real time. Moving the communications over to
> > > email solved all these problems and now we can concentrate on
> > > transaction set issues.
> > >
> > > My 2cents
> > >
> > > Martin Scholl
> > > Scholl Consulting Group, Inc.
> > > 301-924-5537 Tel
> > > 301-570-0139 Fax
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > www.SchollConsulting.com
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
aller
>submitters to comply.
>
>Kim
>
>
>
>
> "Rachel
>
> Foerster"To: "'Christopher J.
> Feahr, OD'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
ned as part of a requirements analysis and management
>effort.
>
>I was identifying critical timelines by which the health care industry
>must comply with various aspects of HIPAA and trying to determine how
>any of these proposed working papers either facilitate the industry
>achieving these critical milestones and/or remove barriers and obstacles
>to the industry achieving these milestones.
>
>Rachel
Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
lectronic addressing and
>routing. Rather, it's a problem of sourcing the data required. If this is
>the core fundamental problem (and I agree with you that it is) then how on
>earth does all this talk about electronically discoverable collaboration
>profile protocols solve it? Spending sc
he stumbling block. However, by the time
>there is any conscensous on what and how it should be done, I will already
>have distributed software and have overcome this issue payer by payer for my
>customers.
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Christopher J. Feahr,
er April 14, 2003 (privacyand security), October 16,
>2002, or testing by April, 2003, and full implementation by October 16, 3003.
>
>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/>http://www.rfa-edi.com
>
Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
rpret" the document returned.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Dick Brooks
>Systrends, Inc
>7855 South River Parkway, Suite 111
>Tempe, Arizona 85284
>Web: www.systrends.com <http://www.systrends.com>
>Phone:480.756.6777,Mobile:205-790-1542,eFax:240-352-0714
>
>
>-O
ard protocols (possibly in the ebXML CPP specifications)
for implementing this type of auto-authentication when you attempt to
access a URL?
3. How many data elements would be necessary in the repository record to
handle auto-auth... and what would they be called?
Regards,
Chris
Christopher J. F
han to a conventional HTLM "page".
So I guess I'm asking two questions here:
1. Do we say that the "CPP repository identification" element in our CPP
registry MUST be a "URL"?
2. Is "URL" sufficiently well-defined to encompass any form of document
address
;To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Thursday, 06 June, 2002 04:35 PM
>Subject: RE: registry and repository
>
>
>NCPDP has created a task group to assist in the routing registry
>endeavor. As the task group is made up of business and technical folks
>in the pharmacy industry, is there a primer document or something they
>can read to come up to speed with the work being done? thank you
Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
call, there were some defined terms put out a few months back, but I can't
>find them now. Anyone know who developed them and where they are?
>
>Dave Minch
>T&CS Project Manager
>John Muir / Mt. Diablo Health System
>Walnut Creek, CA
>(925) 941-2240
>
>
>-Origi
ve Minch
>T&CS Project Manager
>John Muir / Mt. Diablo Health System
>Walnut Creek, CA
>(925) 941-2240
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Christopher J. Feahr, OD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 5:18 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subj
not overlooking key elements and it may also facilitate an approach
to auto-configuration of the local EDI software.
Thanks,
-Chris
Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
mp; 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: Christopher J. Feahr, OD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 7:18 PM
>To: [EMAI
to investigate
>how healthcare could tap into using it.
>
>Rachel
>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
>ht
to the
provider. The CH/VAN community may have a slightly different set of needs
and may wish to create a different repository structure (using the same
universe of CPP data elements), but I suggest that would be out of scope
for this project.
How does this sound so far?
Regards,
Chris
Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
ess? What roll will the patient play, if any,
>to ensure the claim is sent to the proper insurance plan for payment?
>How does the Insurance Plan verify that the patient actually received
>the billed services?
>
>I didn't post this to the list, because much of it is out of scope, but
>I believe without answers to these types of questions, the CCP may not
>have many early adopters.
>
>-Ronald Bowron
Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
mpanies) - by restricting it to
>only those folks who possess a directory entry themselves or somesuch
>nonsense. Or the 837 claim could be changed to send the provider's
>routing and account numbers for EFT payments directly to the payer (I
>was surprised it wasn't there already), bypassing the Healthcare CPP
>directory altogether.
>
>William J. Kammerer
>Novannet, LLC.
>Columbus, US-OH 43221-3859
>+1 (614) 487-0320
Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
but a larger value for NormalResponseTime.
Thanks again for all the comments. I will be glad to accept/keep track of
these comments/issues about the "CPP elements"and to summarize them for the
time being on a second "sheet" inside the main spreadsheet at
http://www.novannet.co
Here's the link to my proposed CPP template/spreadsheet. (thanks, William):
http://www.novannet.com/wedi/CPP_Elements.xls
You may want to hold off on commenting until you have seen a similar CPP
template proposal that Dick Brooks has been working on.
Thanks,
Chris
Christopher J. Feahr, OD
eal time enrollments) in the future,
>but this is much more challenging achievement.
>
>
>Dick Brooks
>Systrends, Inc
>7855 South River Parkway, Suite 111
>Tempe, Arizona 85284
>Web: www.systrends.com <http://www.systrends.com>
>Phone:480.756.6777,Mobile:205-790
n that the
>provider has some means of determining some ID of the plan or payer
>applicable to the particular patient. But to help things along, we may
>
>want to add searching by payer name as a requirement - to accommodate
>the situation where the patient knows the name of his plan or insurance
>
>company: refined searches in the registry can locate the actual CPP
>covering the plan to which eligibility inquiries can be sent.
>
>William J. Kammerer
>Novannet, LLC.
>+1 (614) 487-0320
Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
and advance shipping notices." (Ref "UBL and
>Industry XML Standards, 2 April 2002")
>
>Rachel
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Christopher J. Feahr, OD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 5:43 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTEC
who are
>working to make the CPP support traditional EDI in a first-class way.
>Except for the DeliveryChannel stuff in the CPP, you may be on your own
>for defining partner capabilities as they apply to EDI.
>
>Distributing PDF or Word documents seems perfectly okay to me, though I
&g
gt;
>I don't know that it informed any of the work that resulted in the ebXML
>CPP/CPA specification. The foundation for this was the work donated to the
>ebXML effort by IBM.
Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
way off into left field where you may not want to
>be....perhaps yet. Let's get the core of the CPP done first.
>
>Rachel Foerster
Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
t;502-508-1741 Fax
>
>
>
>**
>To be removed from this list, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Please note that it may take up to 72 hours to process your request.
>
>**
>To be removed from this list, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Please note that it may take up to 72 hours to process your request.
Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
-0400, William J. Kammerer wrote:
>Yes, definitely, I think we should "... jump right into the enumeration
>of the data elements now." - in effect, that might be a way of getting
>requirements into the open when you see what it entails. Can we take
>your discussion and musin
OASIS. OASIS will be an important organization for IBM
> >>and the industry as we all move to a common infrastructure for
> >>successfully conducting business on the Internet. * * *
> >>
> >>Robert S. Sutor, Ph.D.
> >> Director, IBM e-business Standards Strategy
Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
ct need for our recommendations. The
>recommendations will be of most value for providers and payers (and CHs,
>TPAs, billers and repricers) who wish to connect to each other directly.
>
>William J. Kammerer
>Novannet, LLC.
>+1 (614) 487-0320
>
>- Original Message --
ll those claims on behalf of the provider in that
>really difficult electronic format (and for only $.25 per claim - what a
>deal...).
>
>Have I misinterpreted the regulations? Anyone want to bet that these won't
>be the most common scenarios initially?
>
>Dave Minch
>T&CS Project Manager
>John Muir / Mt. Diablo Health System
>Walnut Creek, CA
>(925) 941-2240
Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
ms identified using today's tools.
>3. Transforming the problem statement(s) and requirements into a
>document that can be provided to the industry fast so that the industry
>can use it now.
>
>I propose that this group spend no more than the next 2 weeks to reach
>consensus on the p
ause the
>receiver VAN won't interconnect with the sender's VAN), and then to the
>receiver VAN. I have heard from many people that this complexity is not
>as strong in health care community since providers typically go to
>clearinghouses that are directly subscribed to by the pay
>acquisitions or near acquisitions.
>
>It would be a great idea if the clearinghouses that are out there
>contribute their experiences. Hope this helps things and does not cloud
>any issues.
>
>Ed
>
>Edward A. Hafner
>Chief Technology Officer
>Foresight Co
the payer (for a claim), but could just as well be a Re-pricer
>or Third Party Administrator - who I assume are not classified as
>"payers." Actually, the "real" payer (the insurance company behind a
>self-funded Employer plan) may never see standard transactions for a
>pla
t;the National Provider ID can be addressed later, because in fact, if a
>trading partner wants to be found, they'll list themselves under all that
>apply.
Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
her
>in the interchange. See http://www.gefeg.com/jswg/ if you're the least
>bit interested in the layout of the ISO 9735 EDIFACT interchange
>envelopes. But unfortunately, adopting ISO 9735 interchange envelopes
>is not in the cards, so we have to rule out this elegant soluti
CPP which contains the
>EDI addresses and ports. The whole concept of a "preferred" ID may give
>way to a more powerful notion whereby a receiver can be identified in
>the ISA by any of its known IDs (whose domains or type are allowed by
>the HIPAA IG).
Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
er, in that no one has to remember what kind of identifier
>this 9 digit number is - it's always a D-U-N-S!
>
>I don't really think it's necessary, though, to force all players to
>identify themselves using IDs from the same domain. Christopher J.
>Feahr, OD, ma
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?
olve 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
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
o 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
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
ssary to support the HIPAA scenarios involving "legacy" protocols
>and packaging. Dick Brooks is taking the lead in this, but it certainly
>sounds like you are interested in this stuff, too, so please join in!
>If the ebXML CPP people can't help us out with the imminent (
le to eliminate a lot of
>paper and in-person communication, and facilitate direct point-to-point
>exchange of standard transactions with providers.
>
>William J. Kammerer
>Novannet, LLC.
>+1 (614) 487-0320
Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
ued to go to theat destination.
>
>This could be used in an environment where a VAN/Clearinghouse is also
>acting as a re-pricer on specific claims.
>
>While I'm not sure why they would do it this way, rather than sending
>two separate ISA/IEA sets, it's possible.
>
>-RB
mbers between the 837
>and the
>277 Front-end Acknowledgement transaction to make sure the 277FE
>transaction would
>work) and this trading-partner-by-trading-partner variation will work as
>long as
>everyone clearly knows what's going on. I can send you a diagram of this
uot; dial-up connection
>types - to assuage fears of the open Internet's security "problems" or
>to simply support the PM systems out there already - with some means of
>describing scripts, logins, passwords, modem-settings, etc. etc. in our
>Electronic Trading Partner Agreement.
Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
68
>
>
>
>
>**************
>To be removed from this list, send a message to:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Please note that it may take up to 72 hours to process your request.
Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
>Raj Thuppanna
>770 444 4468
>
>
>
>
>**************
>To be removed from this list, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Please note that it may take up to 72 hours to process your request.
Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
lth Plan, and a table that ties the transaction, Health
>Plan, and payer (including TPAs and self administered Health Plans)
>together. I would further expect this kind of approach would be automated
>-- and fully integrated in each trading partn
1:51 -0800
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: "Christopher J. Feahr, OD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: BI Call Tuesday 3-19 3:30 ET
>
>Hi Marcalee,
>I have raised a couple questions within the routing group that William has
>asked
ensconced within the X12 transaction.
>
>I have not seen any convincing evidence that a provider needs (or wants)
>multiple IDs to identify his "EDI Server" or "front door" or "inbox" (to
>use Chris Feahr's terms). As a matter of fact, I can easil
- would be in the ISA
> > receiver field? There does seem to be a relationship when standard
> > transactions go from provider to payer, unmolested, via a VAN or EDIINT
> > software. I suppose if you've been told, via Kepa's "directory," that
> > clai
: RE: Web authentication for HIPAA
>
>
>Thanks for the thoughtful response. Pretty much the same principles I
>have.
>
>
>Further comment:
>
>We have possibly 25,000-40,000 providers needing access with an average
>of
>4-6 ids each; that's 200,000+ users right off the bat. Requiring
>tokens,
>readers, cards, etc. in that fluid (staff coming and going, moving,
>etc.)
>environment would be costly, cumbersome, overhead intensive (as any
>"client"
>solution is), and very challenging - in my view; and I don't believe
>the
>software-only certificates add much or any value beyond strong,
>enforced
>passwords.
Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
e messeges in this EDI Server, but who uses a
BA to SEND his messages. But it seems like the inbox concept I was talking
about here would be the same as the designated [incoming] EDI Message
Server. Do I have this right?
-Chris
At 07:48 PM 2/12/02 -0800, Christopher J. Feahr, OD wrot
t to my own mail server.
>
>Since this infrastructure is already in place for MX records, we could as
>well use it for EDI also.
>
>Kepa
>
>
>Christopher J. Feahr, OD wrote:
>
>>Speaking of semantics, we should figure out a standard term for the DNS
>>model th
ing white paper would use some terms that already
>exist in the WEDI glossary -- and if so are you proposing we "re-define"
>them in a Routing glossary or reference them in the WEDI glossary? Neither
>option is really desirable if we try to have a WEDI glossary
into the "DNS
table" in this proposed model?
-Chris
Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
and maybe a
couple "go check their outbox" arrangements... all created in the interest
of [perceived] economy. Eventually (unless his vendor figures out what a
cash-cow the EDI-transaction business can be) the doctor's software may be
able to receive messages directly.
So what do we call each entity's incoming mailbox(es)?
-Chris
Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
a NAIC number, which may be used. Some clearing houses
>use our NAIC number to send claims to us. Some clearing houses use
>their own number that they assign to us. We are waiting to see what the
>government is going to assign to us. For information go to the
>following site.
eciated)
-Chris
At 09:06 PM 2/10/02 -0800, David Frenkel wrote:
>Take a look at this case study of New England Healthcare EDI Network.
>http://www.baselinemag.com/article/0,3658,s%253D2101%2526a%253D22263,00.
>asp
>Regards,
>David Frenkel
>Business Development
>GEFEG USA
>Gl
27; web sites to access a "drop-box" seems like "an
>impediment to frictionless e-commerce and an extra cost providers can do
>without." Where have I heard that before?
>
>Power to the "little" people! Just call me the Huey "Kingfish" Long of
>EDI.
Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
on
>other CHs since he can "talk" directly to the payers or their agents
>using the standard transaction sets.
>
>The "(clever) doctor" still could do all this stuff himself, or use a
>Practice Management system that handles all aspects of standard
>transactions
t seem to find the "off" switch for
this. I can "select all" and then got to edit > bullets and numbering and
select "none" to undo all list numbering... but I think there is also a way
to keep auto-number lists from being created. (it's just not leapin
ing to strip search the 837
>anyway in order to combine your claims with those of other providers
>intended for whatever TPA or Payer handles PlanID 987654321.
>
>William J. Kammerer
>Novannet, LLC.
>+1 (614) 487-0320
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Christopher J. Fea
messages to
>this list, I strongly suggested that this effort needed a glossary so that
>all of us can use terms that have the same semantic definition for all of
>us.
>
>Would you like to be the starter and keeper of this project glossary?
>
>Rachel
>
>-Original Message-
rly on and set recommendations for how these physical
>components should be handled in the Logical structure of EDI
>(Interchange, Functional Group, Transaction Set) and then establish
>routing standards at each logical level.
>
>Do you see this interchange routing method supporting multiple
>Transaction Set Receivers (PayerID's) within the same GS/GE? How do we
>address this if not via the VAN/CH example, or by expanding the routing
>scope?
>
>It's my understanding that the X12N standards support this today, and
>that the receiver must receive them, even if to report back that the
>transaction contains an invalid PayerID.
>
>Regards,
>-RB
Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
transaction sets (GS/GE, ST/SE) within an interchange control
(ISA/IEA) and sending a functional acknowledgment (997) back to the ISA
SENDER.<<
-Chris
Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
al. And
>I propose to do so without a centralized database that would be almost
>impossible to manage, but rather give each payer the control over their
>own "domain of authority" for their own PlanIDs.
>
>I hope this helps.
>
>Kepa
>
Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
.
>
>Rachel Foerster
>Rachel Foerster & Associates, Ltd.
Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
as single business 'documents' (i.e.
>one invoice in a transaction), health care in its wisdom defined a
>transaction that contained MULTIPLE business documents. That is causing us
>problems now. It adds levels of complexity that do not exist in other parts
>of the EDI community.
Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
laims within a single interchange... and also be the same
entity who stuffed them into the ISA envelope?
Thanks,
Chris
Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
identification codes for 837I
>
>
>Regarding the unique routing ID for the payor (NAIC code?)... whatever
>it
>is, MUST be maintained in a central directory. At least, that's my vote
>as
>a small provider. People walk through my door unpredictably with all
>sorts
>of insurance plans and if it was EASY/PAINLESS to determine where to
>send a
>standard elig. query and/or a std. claim, then I'd be less inclined to
>require the patient to pay cash and duke it out on his own with his
>insurance company. A central payor address/routing directory seems like
>
>a
>vital component.
>
>-Chris
Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
ion codes for 837I
>
>
> *** HIPAAlive! From Phoenix Health Systems/HIPAAdvisory.com ***
> Regarding 2010BC-NM109 (page 127) & 2330B-NM109 (page 410) of the 837
>institutional guide, what currently serves as a central repository for
>all of the payor identification codes
91 matches
Mail list logo
