Hal,
You're correct....to a point. I totally agree that the
997 should always be sent and
required as a matter of business policy and that the 997 is
essential for tracking, auditing and managing one's EDI transaction life cycle.
The issue is that the 997 is neither mandated nor prohibited by HIPAA, and thus,
its use becomes a business policy decision rather than one of HIPAA compliance.
I believe this concept is a bit murky for many in health care struggling with
HIPAA.
Further, I have strong concerns/fears that many
vendors' systems will not employ fully functional EDI management systems and
thus the users of those systems will not have a reliable capability for either
generating or receiving a 997 nor even have the capability to put a timer on a
997 receipt in order to do transaction life cycle tracking and
management.
Rachel
Rachel
Foerster
Principal
Rachel Foerster & Associates, Ltd.
Professionals
in EDI & Electronic Commerce
39432 North Avenue
Beach Park, IL
60099
Phone: 847-872-8070
Fax: 847-872-6860
http://www.rfa-edi.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Hal Scoggins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 1:07 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Transaction acknowledgments 997All that is true. But the point is that ISA14 has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the receiver should generate a 997. A 997 should always be sent in response to the receipt of any EDI transaction.
-----Original Message-----
From: Julie A. Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 11:52 AM
To: 'Bill Chessman'; 'WEDI Transactions List'
Subject: RE: Transaction acknowledgments 997
Correct, the TA1 reflects a valid interchange, regardless of the validity of
the contents of the data included inside
the header/trailer envelope.
The TA1 does NOT confirm the content of the transaction, only the content of
the ISA is validated.
This is a good approach for initial trading partner testing, but not for
other levels of testing or production
The 997 does further details on the content of the transactions.
Julie A. Thompson
Vice President EDI Services
Concio, Inc. Silicon Valley California
http://www.concio.com
408-562-6611
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Chessman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 9:11 AM
To: 'WEDI Transactions List'
Subject: RE: Transaction acknowledgments 997
No. As pointed out previously, when ISA14 = 1, the receiver should respond
with a TA1 segment back to the sender.
Best regards,
Bill Chessman
Peregrine Systems, Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: Julie A. Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 9:02 AM
To: 'Martin Scholl'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Transaction acknowledgments 997
This means when the sender sends ISA14 = 1, the receiver should respond with
a 997 back to the sender.
Julie A. Thompson
Vice President EDI Services
Concio, Inc. Silicon Valley California
http://www.concio.com
408-562-6611
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Scholl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 6:13 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Transaction acknowledgments 997
It is my interpretation that a "1" in element 14 of the ISA segment
indicates whether the sender wants to receive an acknowledgement. This
should be the case for any EDI message, not only healthcare.
Martin Scholl
Scholl Consulting Group, Inc.
301-924-5537 Tel
301-570-0139 Fax
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.SchollConsulting.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wojnowski, Charlotte M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 4:21 PM
Subject: Transaction acknowledgments 997
> After reading the 834 IG, I received the impression that an 997 is
required
> to respond to the 834. Is this a correct statement? Is the sender
required
> to receive the 997? If this is the case with the 834, are the other
> transactions also set up the same way?
>
> Charlotte Wojnowski
> Caremark
> 847-444-6065
>
