Uploaded image for project: 'FHIR Specification Feedback'
  1. FHIR Specification Feedback
  2. FHIR-38192

clarify conformance expectations are for prior auth attachments, not claim attachments

    XMLWordPrintableJSON

Details

    • Icon: Change Request Change Request
    • Resolution: Persuasive
    • Icon: Medium Medium
    • US Da Vinci CDex (FHIR)
    • 2.0.0-ballot
    • Patient Care
    • STU
    • Artifacts Summary
    • Hide

      Will provide guidance on how the current approach can be implemented for either Prior Authorization Attachments, Claims Attachments, or both.

       

      Show
      Will provide guidance on how the current approach can be implemented for either Prior Authorization Attachments, Claims Attachments, or both.  
    • Eric Haas/Jay Lyle: 7-0-1
    • Clarification
    • Non-substantive

    Description

      Throughout the guide both claim attachments and prior auth attachments are described without much conformance language around them, and the capability statements don't seem to differentiate which need to be supported.

      If we're gearing up this IG as something an attachments rule could point at, we should clarify that prior auth attachments are the thing that must be supported, and claim attachments are optional (since prior auth has a set of FHIR IGs that may be regulated, and claims do not).

      Attachments

        1. image-2022-10-11-08-29-43-440.png
          image-2022-10-11-08-29-43-440.png
          178 kB

        Activity

          People

            Unassigned Unassigned
            kjohnsen Kyle Johnsen
            Watchers:
            3 Start watching this issue

            Dates

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: