I follow your reasoning, and agree as far as the example presented goes. I guess I am thinking of a specific case that I never could figure out the answer to. In this case, there were several layers of reporting activity above the adjudication and payment described. Ultimately, the electonic data was delivered by the health plan to Medicaid in an 837 format. I tentatively concluded that the entity was not a clearinghouse, and that none of the exchanges had the correct senders, recievers, and business purposes to be a HIPAA transaction. But it still puzzles me some, because if you only look at the origin and ultimate destination of the data you have either a claim or encounter data that has been translated, and I keep looking for the clearinghouse.
Thanks for your (as always) thoughtful and helpful response Susan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] ********************************************************************** 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. ====================================================== The WEDI SNIP listserv to which you are subscribed is not moderated. The 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 SNIP Issues Database at http://snip.wedi.org/tracking/. Posting of advertisements or other commercial use of this listserv is specifically prohibited.
