Skip to Main Content
IBM Sterling

This portal is to open public enhancement requests for IBM Sterling products and services. To view all of your ideas submitted to IBM, create and manage groups of Ideas, or create an idea explicitly set to be either visible by all (public) or visible only to you and IBM (private), use the IBM Unified Ideas Portal (

Shape the future of IBM!

We invite you to shape the future of IBM, including product roadmaps, by submitting ideas that matter to you the most. Here's how it works:

Search existing ideas

Start by searching and reviewing ideas and requests to enhance a product or service. Take a look at ideas others have posted, and add a comment, vote, or subscribe to updates on them if they matter to you. If you can't find what you are looking for,

Post your ideas
  1. Post an idea.

  2. Get feedback from the IBM team and other customers to refine your idea.

  3. Follow the idea through the IBM Ideas process.

Specific links you will want to bookmark for future use

Welcome to the IBM Ideas Portal ( - Use this site to find out additional information and details about the IBM Ideas process and statuses.

IBM Unified Ideas Portal ( - Use this site to view all of your ideas, create new ideas for any IBM product, or search for ideas across all of IBM. - Use this email to suggest enhancements to the Ideas process or request help from IBM for submitting your Ideas.

Status Delivered
Categories Maps & Type Trees
Created by Guest
Created on Jan 9, 2018

Compliance Check App - Consistently create REF(D9) Segment in the 277CA to tie Claim Ack back to the original good/bad 837.

Our organization needs the capability for the HIPAA Pack's Compliance Check application to consistently generate a 277CA (005010X214) with a REF (D9) segment for both good and bad claims so that the 277 Claim Ack may be tied back to the original claim. Our interpretation of the TR3 situational notes in the X214 Implementation Guide is that the REF (D9) segment needs to be created with the REF02 value provided as received in the original 837, and that it shouldn't matter whether the claim was for a patient who is the subscriber or the dependent. The IG states that the 2000D loop is situational. The Compliance Check has been designed for performance reasons not to create the 2000D because it is not required, and that if all claims are accepted, that only the provider level is created and not the patient level. But without the REF02 segment for either subscriber or dependent level claims, we cannot tie the 277CA back to the good or bad claim it is acknowledging.
DeveloperWorks ID DW_ID105578
Link to original RFE
What is your industry? Healthcare
  • Guest
    Aug 27, 2019

    Delivered with ITX Pack for Healthcare 9.0.2

  • Guest
    Nov 14, 2018

    We plan to incorporated in a future release