Chris: I'm just a populist at heart!
But I'm also a little confused! If you (a provider) have a standard claim transaction intended for a particular National plan ID, say 987654321, you would build a single 837 with the payer (or plan?) indicated in the NM1 within the 2010BB loop. You would not comingle claims for multiple payers or plans, like a CH might (as Bob Poiesz has illustrated). So, who else's ID - other than the payer's - would be in the ISA receiver field? There does seem to be a relationship when standard transactions go from provider to payer, unmolested, via a VAN or EDIINT software. I suppose if you've been told, via Kepa's "directory," that claims for PlanID 987654321 go to WebMD, WebMD might demand that their ID be in the ISA receiver field - but yet, they already know they're the receiver! In that case, it's almost irrelevant what's in the ISA receiver field - WebMD sounds like they're going to strip search the 837 anyway in order to combine your claims with those of other providers intended for whatever TPA or Payer handles PlanID 987654321. William J. Kammerer Novannet, LLC. +1 (614) 487-0320 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher J. Feahr, OD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "William J. Kammerer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WEDi/SNIP ID & Routing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, 09 February, 2002 07:46 PM Subject: Re: Using a hybrid DNS William, Thanks for your ongoing concern for us "little people (providers)", but the more I think about divorcing the payor/plan ID info in the transactions from the receiverID info in the ISA, the more I like it... because it embraces the models in use today in which there really is no relationship between these two addresses. If the industry is willing to adopt the distributed address directory model that Kepa is proposing, then the "little people" can either hound their office system vendors to include that capability... or the smart vendors will see the business opportunity and sell the address discovery process to the provider as a value-add...or the small provider can just shovel all of his claims to one clearinghouse and let the CH worry about routing them. Since the need to know where to send these interchanges is going to be so acute for the provider, I can't imagine a situation in which no one was willing to create a system that would do the address discovery for them. -Chris
