Details
-
Change Request
-
Resolution: Persuasive with Modification
-
Medium
-
US Da Vinci CRD (FHIR)
-
1.1.0-ballot [deprecated]
-
Financial Mgmt
-
Use Cases and Overview
-
4.2.3
-
-
Bob Dieterle / Andy Stechischin : 8-0-1
-
Correction
-
Compatible, substantive
Description
In section 4.2.3 the IG explicitly calls for feedback on the imposed turnaround time requirements. I am concerned about the turnaround time requirements in all of this.
In section 2.3, item 5 it also says the CRD Service should query the EHR to see if coverage requirements have already been met to avoid alerting the provider about things already done. (item 5 is set as optional, yet the last sentence makes it sound mandatory).
Just with CRD, without the above requirements itself, a realistic business service might require interacting with multiple payer internal systems before collating the coverage requirements to present a response. When we add additional steps of network interaction with the EHR FHIR server, and analysis of that data, the total processing time can easily exceed a few seconds for the average request, and many many seconds for the outliers.
A provider placing an order in an EHR is not going to wait for a large amount of time like that for the CRD response to come back. Nor is it fair to the provider to make them wait. So I am concerned about how realistic it is to use a synchronous channel in this interaction.
From my experience with Web Services for radiology appropriateness checks, which are comparatively simpler than prior authorization requirement determination, turnaround times have often exceeded 45 seconds for outlier cases.
There is also a system scalability consideration. The proposed CRD service for any given payer will be hit for EVERY order placed for any of their patients. If payers skimp / don't set up their service for high availability and scalability, the result will be significant provider frustration.
So on the whole, I would like to express severe skepticism based on considerable experience about the proposed turnaround time expectation here.
Attachments
Issue Links
- is voted on by
-
BALLOT-32416 Negative - Christopher Schaut : 2022-May-FHIR IG COVREQDISC R2 STU
- Withdrawn
-
BALLOT-33525 Negative - Daniel Rutz : 2022-May-FHIR IG COVREQDISC R2 STU
- Withdrawn
-
BALLOT-33547 Negative - Thanos Tsiolis : 2022-May-FHIR IG COVREQDISC R2 STU
- Withdrawn
-
BALLOT-33569 Negative - Chris Courville : 2022-May-FHIR IG COVREQDISC R2 STU
- Withdrawn
-
BALLOT-33613 Negative - Daniel Zhang : 2022-May-FHIR IG COVREQDISC R2 STU
- Withdrawn
-
BALLOT-33657 Negative - David Sundaram-Stukel : 2022-May-FHIR IG COVREQDISC R2 STU
- Withdrawn
-
BALLOT-33679 Negative - Isaac Vetter : 2022-May-FHIR IG COVREQDISC R2 STU
- Withdrawn
-
BALLOT-33701 Negative - Amit Popat : 2022-May-FHIR IG COVREQDISC R2 STU
- Withdrawn
-
BALLOT-33723 Negative - Cooper Thompson : 2022-May-FHIR IG COVREQDISC R2 STU
- Withdrawn
-
BALLOT-33745 Negative - Danielle Friend : 2022-May-FHIR IG COVREQDISC R2 STU
- Withdrawn
-
BALLOT-32598 Negative - Hans Buitendijk : 2022-May-FHIR IG COVREQDISC R2 STU
- Balloted
-
BALLOT-33591 Negative - Peter DeVault : 2022-May-FHIR IG COVREQDISC R2 STU
- Balloted
-
BALLOT-33635 Negative - Michael Clifton : 2022-May-FHIR IG COVREQDISC R2 STU
- Balloted
-
BALLOT-33767 Negative - Vassil Peytchev : 2022-May-FHIR IG COVREQDISC R2 STU
- Balloted
-
BALLOT-33783 Negative - Doug Pratt : 2022-May-FHIR IG COVREQDISC R2 STU
- Balloted
-
BALLOT-33792 Negative - Dennis Patterson : 2022-May-FHIR IG COVREQDISC R2 STU
- Balloted
- relates to
-
FHIR-36284 Card response time
- Published
-
FHIR-36403 CDS Hooks performance description difficult to understand
- Published