Details
-
Change Request
-
Resolution: Persuasive
-
Highest
-
US Da Vinci DEQM (FHIR)
-
2.1.0 [deprecated]
-
Clinical Quality Information
-
Example Use Cases
-
3.4.4.3
-
-
Peter Muir/Molly Malavey: 20-0-0
-
Clarification
-
Non-substantive
Description
Wouldn't the claim take care of this? This sounds like extra work for the practice. The tone is that the physician relies on the payer as the “source of truth” for a patient’s treatment history. Payers can provide helpful info – for example, flag if a patient had recent imaging through another provider – but the practice’s EHR runs its own reports to ID care gaps. It seems unlikely that the practice will spend this much time pinging the payer to let it know a gap has been addressed (and double-checking, too!) unless the payer won’t/didn’t receive a claim for the service for some reason.
Existing Wording:
Since the payer system did not have this new data, the provider then used the DEQM Data Exchange profile(s) to submit additional data to the payer. Please see Colorectal Cancer Screening (COL) Use Case for details on how to complete the DEQM Data Exchange.
Attachments
Issue Links
- is voted on by
-
BALLOT-13629 Negative - Molly Reese : 2020-Sep-FHIR IG QMEXCHANGE R1 STU
- Closed