Uploaded image for project: 'FHIR Specification Feedback'
  1. FHIR Specification Feedback
  2. FHIR-36464

concerns with section 'impact on payer processes'

    XMLWordPrintableJSON

Details

    • Icon: Change Request Change Request
    • Resolution: Not Persuasive with Modification
    • Icon: Highest Highest
    • US Da Vinci CRD (FHIR)
    • 1.1.0-ballot [deprecated]
    • Financial Mgmt
    • STU
    • Technical Background
    • 3.5.1
    • Hide

      Multiple mappings are unavoidable.  A payer cannot always know with certainty given a particular SNOMED code what billing code will result or what modifiers might come into play.  This specification cannot dictate who is to perform the mappings.  The mappings will likely change and evolve based on real-time experience.  As payers see how particular SNOMED codes typically show up in claims, the mappings can be adjusted to reflect that reality.  As such, even if the original mappings are sourced from other organizations, they will eventually be maintained by the payer.

      If there are specific mappings available (particularly free mappings), we can certainly call the payer's attention to these.

       

      Will add the following language:

      "It is more efficient if mappings can be shared across payers and providers.  This implementation guide encourages industry participants to cooperate on the development of shared mappings and/or to work with terminology developers (e.g. AMA for CPT codes) to develop shared mappings as part of their code maintenance process."

      Show
      Multiple mappings are unavoidable.  A payer cannot always know with certainty given a particular SNOMED code what billing code will result or what modifiers might come into play.  This specification cannot dictate who is to perform the mappings.  The mappings will likely change and evolve based on real-time experience.  As payers see how particular SNOMED codes typically show up in claims, the mappings can be adjusted to reflect that reality.  As such, even if the original mappings are sourced from other organizations, they will eventually be maintained by the payer. If there are specific mappings available (particularly free mappings), we can certainly call the payer's attention to these.   Will add the following language: "It is more efficient if mappings can be shared across payers and providers.  This implementation guide encourages industry participants to cooperate on the development of shared mappings and/or to work with terminology developers (e.g. AMA for CPT codes) to develop shared mappings as part of their code maintenance process."
    • Bob Dieterle / Jeff Brown : 22-0-1
    • Clarification
    • Non-substantive

    Description

      Multiple mappings are problematic and lead to inconsistency. At the very least we suggest adding that mappings MUST be built by code system developers, and a note that there are organizations that maintain maps for these specific use cases (e.g. AMA). We do not want payers to create there own mappings. We also would lie to stress that the provider system needs to retain the message from the payer that "PA is not needed if billed XYZ code,".

      Attachments

        Activity

          People

            Unassigned Unassigned
            celine_lefebvre Celine Lefebvre
            Celine Lefebvre
            Watchers:
            2 Start watching this issue

            Dates

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: