Many providers are certified in more than one specialty, requiring the taxonomy code to be claim specific.
Such as an oncoloist, who is also, a hematologist. Or, an orthopedic surgeon, who is also, a podiatrist. This vendor needs to comply with the HIPAA requirement to process the taxonomy as sent on the 837. Julie A. Thompson From: "Chuck Wunderlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: "Melissa Schoen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Rhonda Carson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Dave Rein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Identifying Provider Taxonomy Codes on 837 Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 13:46:33 -0700 We use a standard software package used by many other payers for processing claims. Our vendor has chosen to only include the provider taxonomy code as a "static" field in the provider contract table, rather than accepting the code as billed by the provider on an 837. Therefore, we can only assign a taxonomy code to a claim in our database by a relational link rather than having the taxonomy code stored on the claim itself. I would like to hear what others think about the acceptability of this approach as opposed to requiring that the our database accept whatever taxonomy code a provider chooses to submit on the 837. ********************************************************************** 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. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ********************************************************************** 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.
