Re: Payers sure do like proprietary provider IDs! Do providers feel the same way?

Chris: D B uses the carrot of the DUNS number get you to use their eUpdate service to update your business profile. Since your company is listed, but you do not know your DUNS. they tell you to call 888.814.1435 Monday-Friday 8:00AM-6:00PM local time, or go to

RE: Payers sure do like proprietary provider IDs! Do providers feel the same way?

William, There is really no discernable pattern to when a provider gets assigned a unique identifier, but physical location does not appear to have anything to do with it -- it usually is more a matter of what plans a provider participates in (e.g. a few payers assign different provider numbers

RE: Payers sure do like proprietary provider IDs! Do providers feel the same way?

Dave, I think I did see a little discussion of the DINS+4, but it strikes me as a partially de-standardized standard intended to accomplish what you could also do by requesting a unique DUNS for every department, plan, or incoming message portal in your company. DB might not condone this,

using DDE infrastructure as a formal transport mechanism for EDI messages

Peter Barry has suggested that payors with elaborate, web-based DDE services could allow providers to upload standard X12 interchange messages right into a field in the DDE system. This does sound like an attractive option for such payors and a way to leverage a sizeable investment into a

FYI - Statistical info

This is an article from Computerworld Magazine email. It would be interesting to get this type of organization involved in these discussions. By LUCAS MEARIAN (March 25, 2002) Less than a year after it spent about $10 million to consolidate its storage-area network infrastructure, one of the

RE: FYI - Statistical info

David, I too saw this article today, and it does have some interesting information. However, I'm not at all clear on how you feel this article ties into the focus for this list. Can you draw the link for me? Thanks, Rachel Foerster Rachel Foerster Associates, Ltd. Phone: 847-872-8070

RE: FYI - Statistical info

Rachel, It was mainly just informational but large players often have unique insights and it would be interesting to get their input in these discussions. Regards, David Frenkel Business Development GEFEG USA Global Leader in Ecommerce Tools www.gefeg.com 425-260-5030 -Original

Re: What's the focus?

I gave an update on our objectives to the Business Issues workgroup two weeks ago where I attempted to summarize the results and decisions made on the teleconference and our progress to-date; see my message at http://www.mail-archive.com/business%40wedi.org/msg00280.html. I think the objectives

Re: What's the focus?

At the front of my mind always is the mess we have now with payer-assigned provider IDs. This is probably why I slipped and said [our] primary problem to solve is getting some consistent way of identifying *providers* as EDI participants.. Indeed, we want consistent ways to identify all

Re: What's the focus?

if I understand this thread, we MUST choose one of the legal ISA identifiers as a KEY to this (yet-to-be-defined) record that explains all of the 'collaboration details... including other ISA identifiers that might be acceptable? If so, I would vote for the Fed. Tax ID# for the registry key.

RE: What's the focus?

An organization can have many FTIN's especially if they are multi-state. Regards, David Frenkel Business Development GEFEG USA Global Leader in Ecommerce Tools www.gefeg.com 425-260-5030 -Original Message- From: Christopher J. Feahr, OD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March

What's the focus?

There has been a wealth of information posted to this list over the last several weeks. But, I'm beginning to be a bit concerned, and possibly, confused (it wouldn't be the first time!) that perhaps the discussion and information exchange has gone a bit off track. In looking at the original

What's the focus?

The issue that Williams touches on in the first paragraph below was intended, I believe, to be addressed by the use of the Provider Taxonomy Code such that a provider would have only one provider ID, but would use the taxonomy code to specify a specialty, etc. that the payer would then use in

RE: What's the focus?

I'm not sure I understand why the primary focus is only on identifying providers.? I saw nothing in the original business case document that limited the effort to providers only. Rachel Foerster Rachel Foerster Associates, Ltd. Phone: 847-872-8070 -Original Message- From: William

RE: Payers sure do like proprietary provider IDs! Do providers feel the same way?

Chris, You do pay DUNS for every DUNS number but I think the DUNS+4 is free or at least less expensive. I was just making a point that there is more to DUNS number. It would be more appropriate for the government to have a registry but the last time I worked for a government contractor the GSA