Dave, Thanks for your detailed summary posts... very helpful! But I was under the impression that the ISA08 is always intended to be the ID of the "next destination" for the interchange, rather than the ID of the payor or "plan" (in the case of a claim), as you seem to be suggesting here. Am I misunderstanding you?
Regards, Chris At 06:36 PM 4/2/02 -0800, Dave Minch wrote: >5) Generate the transaction. The ISA08 would contain the ultimate >interchange receiver's EDI identifier (if I'm the provider and the >transaction is a claim, then the address is the payer's), and the other EDI >Address information from the CPP would tell me where to route the >transaction (payer itself, a third party administrator, CH, etc.) along with >the communication details of the actual receiver. It is then up to my >transaction generator software to be smart enough to group transactions >together into 1 envelop (ISA) when there are multiple claims for the same >payer. Following this logic, I would therefor be required to send multiple >transactions (multiple ISA/IEAs) for different payers using the same third >party admin or CH since ISA08 is the payer's, not that of the initial >transaction destination. > >I must admit that this is a new way of looking at the X12-837 message for me >- I was assuming that 1 ISA/IEA going to 1 place (like a CH) would contain >all claims going to that location, irrespective of the ultimate destination. >I like it - it gives me the added advantage of getting 997 acknowledgements >back by payer since they are in separate envelopes, but it requires that I >deliver many envelops to the same destination (I don't think this is any >great amount of added effort, is it??)... > >As a transaction receiver, it would be 1 step simpler in that the identifier >provided to me in ISA06 would be a unique ID, under which the sender would >have listed their CPP. So the steps would be exactly the same for the >receiver to respond to a sender, but the "identifier" used in step 2 would >be that found in ISA06. This tells me that there needs to be at least 2, and >possibly more identifiers that can be listed in a DNS that all point to the >same CPP. If that is the case, then the question of DUNS vs TIN vs NAIC vs >the National Provider ID can be addressed later, because in fact, if a >trading partner wants to be found, they'll list themselves under all that >apply. Christopher J. Feahr, OD http://visiondatastandard.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
