Details
-
Change Request
-
Resolution: Not Persuasive with Modification
-
Medium
-
US Da Vinci DTR (FHIR)
-
1.0.0 [deprecated]
-
Clinical Decision Support
-
Requesting Additional Information from the User [deprecated]
-
-
Bob Dieterle / Greg White : 18-0-0
-
Correction
-
Compatible, substantive
Description
From a payer, provider and a patient perspective, all of the information needs to have been reviewed by the submitting provider and the provider needs to be attesting that the information is true. The CQL is saving time and hopefully improving quality, but the CQL has no "responsibility" in terms of the data submitted to the payer as part of a prior auth request or claim submission (or local document retention for audit). Also, in some cases, some of the answers for a question might have been populated by CQL and other answers were selected by the human. I'd strongly suggest ditching the notion of the 'author' extension.