Chuck, My interpretation is that until we can create a national registry that absolutely links a provider (via his/her unique, national person-ID) with all of the taxonomy codes he/she is licensed for, then you will have to deal with two separate taxonomy information fields: 1. "What classification the provider believes he is in" and 2. "What classification the payor believes the provider is in". Hopefully, these will be the same in most cases, but they could be different and also both be "correct".
-Chris At 01:46 PM 10/1/01 -0700, Chuck Wunderlich wrote: >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. Christopher J. Feahr, OD http://visiondatastandard.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268 ********************************************************************** 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.
