You left out the GS-GE. The GE envelopes transactions of a certain function. The hierarchy is ISA-GS-ST-SE-GE-IEA.
Here is how complicated enveloping could potentially get... (File 1) ISA GS (837) ST (837 - 1) SE (837 - 1) ST (837 - 2) SE (837 - 2) GE (837) GS (277) ST (277 - 1) SE (277 - 1) ST (277 - 2) SE (277 - 2) GE (277) IEA However, in my experience, I generally see a separate ISA for each transaction type. So the most common would look like this: (File 1) ISA GS (837) ST (837 - 1) SE (837 - 1) ST (837 - 2) SE (837 - 2) GE (837) IEA (File 2) ISA GS (277) ST (277 - 1) SE (277 - 1) ST (277 - 2) SE (277 - 2) GE (277) IEA I believe the more torturous forms of enveloping go back to the days of modems and saving money at the VAN. It was probably a bit cheaper if you could wrap everything up in one package to transmit to the VAN. It would be very nice to receive one claim per ST-SE so that claim level rejections at the translator. But since the claims are subordinate to the provider one bad claim in an ST-SE will cause all of the claims in the ST-SE to be rejected. The 997 is a transport and syntax acknowlegdement that SHOULD (in my opinon) be a part of every X12 EDI relationship. In health care this appears to be some talk about using an 824, 835, or 277 in place of a 997. Apparently the 997 has some shortcomings in what it can be used to express. For example, HIPAA introduced a lot of business rules at the Notes level of the implementation guide. Violations of these rules cannot always fit into a 997, so there is talk about he other documents being used. Anthony Beecher EDI Consultant -----Original Message----- From: Bob Warner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 11:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Confused (surprise) Well, I thought I was beginning to understand transactions when I ran across the ISA/ISE set. It appears, from what I read, that this wraps all transaction sets so that, for instance, a set of 837 transactions will begin with an ISA record and end with an ISE record. Is this true? Also, although the 997 appears not to be mandatory, it sure is useful. Are all/most receivers going to implement this? Thanks, Bob Robert E. Warner Department of Human Services 3520 W. Oxford Ave Denver, CO 80236 Phone - (303)866-7301 E-mail - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ********************************************************************** 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. ********************************************************************** 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.
