Commerce Manager Vadilation

[maltu]

Which commerce Manager map preceds the acknowledgement generation map. I need to fail an input 837 File based on a NM1 qualifier for NPI edits, the failure should generate a negative 997.

I could fail the file by making edits in the xmail.mtt but that is not generating a negative 997.

Any ideas?

 

[dennysthemenace]

In the partner manager you have acknowledgemnt options and you can drill down your level of acknowledgement to record levels. Usually we set up to validate only up to ISA, GS and/or ST segments. You can change this option to go down to NM1 segment to generate a negative 997 if your NM1 segment is wrong. Hope this works.

 

[maltu]

I probably should have added this info as well, I'm trying to edit commerce Manager type tree to make this happen, have to identify which tree needs to be edited to reject NM1* SEGMENT if nm1*08 is not "XX" and generate an appropiate 997 as well.

I'm not making any changes in partner manager as this applies to all TPs.

Thanks

 

[dennysthemenace]

You have to see the message manager msd and the run maps there to follow the flow of data. I dont' use cmgr anymore and cant tell right away. xmail.mtt is being used by stampandsort map I guess and any validation errors are passed on to acknowledgement maps.

 

[maltu]

Thanks..I have started on that path...and maybe i'll have to look closer at the acknowledgement maps

 

[dstxaix]

Make sure you check with customer support that they will support you if you make code changes to commerce manager code. Hope it does not revoke the warranty....

Dont touch the trees or maps or msd without consulting IBM.

 

[eyetry]

Prior to IBM modifying the trees and maps did not void warranty. It might create support issues but....

Actually, depending on you version, you need to go into the 837 type tree and uncomment the code related to NPI qualifier codes. It's always been inthe trees, just commented out.

If you want to fail validation, create an 997 acknowledgment indicating the desired issue, you should be able to update the type tree accordingly. Changing the type tree and redeployig should resolve the issue.

FYI, not sure what you ultimatly want to do but not getting a provider NPI is not neccessarily grounds for invalidating an 837. For example billing and pay_to providers may be the same as the service level provider. The NPI only needs to be present in one of several locations. Which location depends on a number of conditions. So, depending on what you really wanted to do with you rules, you could end up being non-compliant by rejecting a file/transaction/claim because of a missing NPI vaalue.

 

[eyetry]

PS: sorry for the typos..... had someone bounsing in and out of here with an issue...

 

[janhes]

bounsing???

 

[eyetry]

 

[maltu]

Thanks for all the suggestions, at the current time i abandoned that approach, the trees are quite generic and the changes seem to impact other transactions..but if someone has tried anything similar..please update me how it worked.
Thanks again for all the posts...