Skip to content
FonteumPublic-records evidence
Fonteum Data GlossaryTech

EDI 837: Definition and Healthcare Context

Full name: EDI 837 Health Care Claim Transaction

The EDI 837 is a HIPAA-standard electronic data interchange format for submitting health care claims. Three transaction sets exist: 837P (Professional, based on CMS-1500), 837I (Institutional, based on UB-04), and 837D (Dental). Maintained by ASC X12 and implemented under HIPAA Administrative Simplification, the 837 replaced paper claims for covered transactions. Clearinghouses translate provider billing software output into X12 837 format for payer submission. CMS requires the 837 for all Medicare claims.

Source file
Not reported
Published
Not reported
Retrieved
Not reported
Snapshot
Not retained for this reference page
Data as of
Not reported
Last updated: 2026-07-11Reviewed by: Dr. Jennifer Montecillo, MDGullas College of Medicine, 2019. Non-practicing medical reviewer.

How it’s used

  • CMS PECOS Medicare Provider Enrollment: providers enrolled in Medicare submit claims in 837 format to their MAC — PECOS enrollment and PTAN assignment are prerequisites for claim acceptance.
  • ASC X12 and HIPAA Administrative Simplification: the 837 is maintained by ASC X12 and mandated under HIPAA, replacing paper claims for covered electronic transactions.
  • Electronic remittance (835 / ERA): every accepted 837 claim is answered by an 835 remittance, the paired transaction that reports payment back to the provider.

Frequently asked questions

What is EDI 837?
EDI 837 is the HIPAA-standard electronic claim format for submitting health care claims. Three variants cover professional (837P), institutional (837I), and dental (837D) claims.
Is EDI 837 required for Medicare?
Yes. CMS requires the 837 EDI transaction for all Medicare claims submitted electronically. Paper claims are permitted only in limited circumstances.
What is the difference between 837P and 837I?
837P (Professional) is used by physicians and other outpatient providers; 837I (Institutional) is used by hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and other inpatient/facility providers.

What’s on file, by the numbers

Platform snapshot · 2026-08-30

13.4Mproviders & companiesProviders, organizations, owners, and facilities on file
26.2Msource-linked factsSource-linked field facts in the dated platform snapshot
90sources with dataDistinct snapshot source IDs with at least one positive record count
16fresh sourcesDistinct source IDs whose latest positive-data snapshot falls within the preceding 45 days
111sources integratedActive registry rows; integration does not establish a load
13state Medicaid jurisdictionsDistinct states represented in the state-exclusions serving table

Integrated, with-data, and fresh-observation counts are separate. No platform-wide source-completeness count is published. Completeness is source-specific and must be evaluated against the named source's expected scope. State coverage is a separate jurisdiction measure.

Source authority is record-specific

Use the issuer named on the record.

Fonteum spans federal, state, and global public publishers. A source page or returned record identifies its issuer and dataset where that metadata is available. A platform registry count does not assign every page to one authority or establish loaded, fresh, or complete coverage.

Browse source records and their stated limitations →

Reproducible by design

Inspect the evidence each published figure actually supplies.

Source and date

Research pages expose the named public file and observation date where those fields are available. Source-file SHA-256 coverage is separate; facts do not currently link deterministically to signatures.

Available derivation

Studies with a retained release and committed derivation link the SQL or method used. Other studies state the evidence and reproduction limits they actually have.

Daily observations

Dated table row-count observations can detect local drift. They do not imply that an upstream publisher released or Fonteum ingested new data that day.

Named medical review

Reviewed by Jennifer Montecillo, MD, medical reviewer. Non-practicing medical reviewer.

Read the full provenance and attestation methodology →

Request access