BFD-4661: Use derived NPI type for claim care team providers

[patrickgmayday]

JIRA Ticket:
BFD-XXXX

What Does This PR Do?

Replace me.

What Should Reviewers Watch For?

If you're reviewing this PR, please check for these things in particular:

What Security Implications Does This PR Have?

Please indicate if this PR does any of the following:

• Adds any new software dependencies

• Modifies any security controls

• Adds new transmission or storage of data

• Any other changes that could possibly affect security?

• I have considered the above security implications as it relates to this PR. (If one or more of the above apply, it cannot be merged without the ISSO or team security engineer's (@sb-benohe) approval.)

• I have created tests to sufficiently ensure the reliability of my code, if applicable. If this is a modification to an existing piece of code, I have audited the associated tests to ensure everything works as expected.

Validation

Have you fully verified and tested these changes? Is the acceptance criteria met? Please provide reproducible testing instructions, code snippets, or screenshots as applicable.

[bfd-sast]

Quality Gate passed for 'bfd-parent'

Issues
0 New issues
0 Fixed issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
78.3% Coverage on New Code
2.6% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube

[mel1-G]

I checked in prod and there are cases where records have both prvdr_srvc_prvdr_npi_num and clm_srvc_prvdr_gnrc_id_num populated so setting the npi type for just one isn't correct.

[patrickgmayday]

I just noticed I'm doing the following:

   bfd_srvc_prvdr_npi_type: Annotated[
        int | None,
        {EXPR: provider_npi_type_expr(ALIAS_PRVDR_SRVC)},
    ]
    bfd_srvc_prvdr_gnrc_id_npi_type: Annotated[
        int | None,
        {EXPR: provider_npi_type_expr(ALIAS_PRVDR_SRVC)},
    ]

should bfd_srvc_prvdr_gnrc_id_npi_type be using the same alias or have its' own?

[patrickgmayday]

I have one more follow up question: In cases where we have both provider Npi and generic Npi populated,

would we expect the following logic to change (with callers) to accommodate both, since this only uses getNpiType

public Optional<DomainResource> toFhirNpiType() {
    return getProviderNpiNumber()
        .map(
            npi ->
                (getNpiType() == NpiType.ORGANIZATION
                    ? createOrganization(npi)
                    : createBillingPractitioner(npi)));
  }