----- Original Message ----- From: William J. Kammerer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: WEDi/SNIP ID & Routing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 9:19 AM Subject: More Stuff and Questions on Routing Identifiers
> > I noticed that the 835 guide does not have the ABA Routing Identifier > listed as one of the permissible codes for the Interchange ID Qualifier > in the ISA. Wouldn't the ABA Routing Identifier typically be used as > the receiver ID for payment orders (835) to banks? Can you even route a > payment order through a clearinghouse (or VAN) to a bank, or do you > always have to "hook" up with your bank directly? There are two ways the healthcare remittance is handled: 1. The 835 is attached to the money document (ACH) and goes to the bank; the bank strips the remittance advice and forwards to the payee (provider). 2. The payer initiates the funds transfer to the bank and simultaneously creates a remittance advice which is sent directly to the payee (or his service bureau). The mechansm employed is stated by code value in element one of the BPR segment of the '835' document. (In healthcare, I have only seen method #2 used). However, there are also remittance transactions in which there is no money involved - there are notices and advice that a payee's credit/debit balance with a payer has been adjusted. > Can anyone help out here? Am I the only one who thinks the HIPAA IGs > use IDs in kind of a "loosey-goosey" fashion? Having worked on payer-end software, I will tell you the problem: Two years ago the "national payer IDs" and "national provider IDs" were "imminent" and plans were made to use them in the electronic transactions. They are not here yet, so other identifiers methods must be used. Which, in a way, is the whole reason for the subgroup on trading partner capability and identification. I just do not see why all payers should not be required to support something common, say, DUNS number. There are only two or three thousand payers so its not like we have to worry about getting numbers for the 350,000 providers in the US. One other problem vis-a-vis identifiers: Over the years, there has been misuse and abuse of the ISA identifiers by many firms (and not just in healthcare!). If we recall from our ANSI EDI 101 class, the ISA-IEA envelope was originally called "the communications envelope" and was to be used ONLY to insure the interchange was routed to the correct party. Applications identifiers were not to be found until the GS-GE envelope. Unfortunately, many firms did not obey these rules when entering the world of ANSI EDI, and I suspect they are now just trying to avoid correcting their systems. On the other hand, the new EDI-traders coming onstream because of the HIPAA have no such bad habits (yet); it behooves the interested to make sure the communications envelope is used only for that purpose. As an applications guy, I can tell you that if an interchange gets to me, it's pretty simple to split that interchange into functional groups and route to the correct appplications systems. (Damn, am I promoting the 'original intent' of the framers?). Those who used identifiers for other than the original intent? Tough. As the Pennzoil man says, "pay me now or pay me later." It is now later. Michael Mattias Tal Systems, Inc. Racine WI [EMAIL PROTECTED]
