- Original Message -
From: Robert Barclay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Just a warning about 837s. Even if the 837 claim passes the TA1/997/824
gauntlet it could still be rejected by a 277 Front End Acknowledgment before
reaching an 835. The billing should expect a response to all 837 claims
submi
J. Kammerer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: WEDi/SNIP ID & Routing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2002 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: our section of the paper wrt.
ProcessSpecification/Role/ServiceBinding/Service
> Dick:
>
> Unfortunately, in a message centric system like the
- Original Message -
From: William J. Kammerer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: WEDi/SNIP ID & Routing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2002 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: our section of the paper wrt.
ProcessSpecification/Role/ServiceBinding/Service
> Dick:
>
> Un
--
From: "Dick Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Christopher J. Feahr, OD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Dick Brooks"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Marcallee Jackson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
"Dick Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Dave Minc
714
-Original Message-
From: Christopher J. Feahr, OD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 4:44 PM
To: Dick Brooks; Marcallee Jackson; Dick Brooks; Dave Minch;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: our section of the paper
Dick,
I agree with the idea of having our CPP simply suppor
-1542,eFax:240-352-0714
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Christopher J. Feahr, OD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 3:37 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Marcallee Jackson; Dick Brooks; Dave Minch;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: William J. Kammerer
>Subject: RE:
in the 2.0 CPPA schema, I will need to know what these
>are. I think packaging of EDI in the manner of
>EDIINT AS2 was what Dick mentioned, but with a standard
>ebXML header. Anyway, I will need an overview of
>the required functionality, and sample BPSS instances.
>
>Thanks,
&
