Uploaded image for project: 'FHIR Specification Feedback'
  1. FHIR Specification Feedback
  2. FHIR-38603

trading partner agreements could be a barrier

    XMLWordPrintableJSON

Details

    • Icon: Change Request Change Request
    • Resolution: Persuasive with Modification
    • Icon: Highest Highest
    • US Da Vinci CDex (FHIR)
    • 2.0.0-ballot
    • Patient Care
    • STU
    • Solicited and Unsolicited Attachments
    • 5.1.1
    • Hide

      Delete

      "In all of these cases, the Payer will require a trading partner agreement for sending attachments based on predefined rules."

       

      This statement is inaccurate and misleading.

      Show
      Delete "In all of these cases, the Payer will require a trading partner agreement for sending attachments based on predefined rules."   This statement is inaccurate and misleading.
    • Eric Haas/Jay Lyle: 7-0-1
    • Correction
    • Non-substantive

    Description

      See sentence "In all of these cases, the Payer will require a trading partner agreement for sending attachments based on predefined rules." Is a trading partner agreement always needed for unsolicited attachments? Is this adding a barrier for sending unsolicited attachments? The more important part here is the payer's predefined rules saying when to send what.

      Attachments

        Activity

          People

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

            Dates

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: