Bob, I don't have any strong feelings one way or another. In the health care supply chain sector, the common practice has been to use the same values at both the ISA and GS levels.....unless the sender and receiver agreed to use the GS identifiers to identify, for example, a business unit or operating unit within a larger enterprise. This is how I implemented the use in 1985-87 at Baxter Healthcare. I believe that this is common practice in other industries as well, i.e., the same values at both ISA/GS......
For HIPAA, I could certainly envision a payer, for example, specifying a GS receiver code(s) for one or more adjudication systems and other GS receiver codes for other types of transactions. This is closer to the original intent. When this approach is used your EDI translator can then output the correct file to the correct backend adjudication system. Unfortunately, the original intent is not documented and all that we're left with in the standard is the data element name. It's just the old-timer's like me that remember some of this history!!! Personally, I think it's unfortunate that the HIPAA guides haven't provided for explicit guidance for the novices for not only the use of the ISA/GS identifiers, but also the other standard acknowledgments, such as the TA1 and the 997. As you know, confusion reigns!!! Oh well..... Rachel -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 1:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Trading Partner ID Rachel, I think that what has happened is that many people have not needed to use the GS for the original purpose. As a result, they have defaulted its function to being a restatement of the ISA values. That is different than morphing. Its fine to retain that default content when no other need exists. But it would be detrimental to assume that you could eliminate the other (original and primary) use and only leave the default. The fact is that these are not the sender and receiver ID. They are something different. I assume that by your "...but..." you are not in favor of retaining that original functionality (I apologize if I have misread that point). I believe that eliminating the "Application" capability from the GS would be a mistake. Bob "Rachel Foerster" To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: tcom.com> Subject: RE: Trading Partner ID 05/29/2002 02:09 PM Please respond to rachelf Bob, You are correct in your description and conclusion about the GS sender/receiver codes. In their first incarnation in the first X12 standard, they were envisioned to be identifiers for the two party's application systems....but their use has morphed, as one would expect over time. Rachel -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 12:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: WEDi/SNIP ID & Routing Subject: Re: Trading Partner ID Ok - pet peeve time. The GS segment does not have either a Sender ID or a Receiver ID. What it has is an Application Sender's Code and an Application Receiver's Code. These are very different. They are intended to be used for routing and translation map identification. We are using these elements to determine both routing and mapping. In some cases, we need this information to determine which application gets the data. In fact, I would say that the GS elements can not be standardized. Bob Martin Scholl <mscholl@martins To: WEDi/SNIP ID & Routing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> choll.com> cc: Subject: Trading Partner ID 05/29/2002 01:11 PM I have a conceptual problem with the different Sender and Receiver IDs. If I receive a transaction, I key the trading partner to the ISA_06 element. Under this number I record the transmission mode, like ftp or email or dial-up, passwords etc. Then I have another Sender ID in the GS_02. Should this be the same as ISA_06? The IG recommends to define this in the trading partner agreement. My feeling would be to make these numbers identical or could they identify different departments within the trading partner's organization? are they subordinate to ISA_06? Then in the 837 I also have this pesky 1000A loop with another set of Sender IDs. Again, I would intuitively think that this could be the same as ISA_06 and GS_02. For me the issue is: What do I use as a unique key to store trading partner rules and information under? What do others in the field do? Martin Scholl Scholl Consulting Group, Inc. 301-924-5537 Tel 301-570-0139 Fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.SchollConsulting.com
