Loading...

XML

Word

Printable

JSON

Details

Type: Change Request
Resolution: Persuasive with Modification
Priority: Highest

Specification:

US Da Vinci CDex (FHIR)
Raised in Version:

2.0.0-ballot
Work Group:

Patient Care
Outstanding Negatives:
STU
Related URL:
http://build.fhir.org/ig/HL7/davinci-ecdx/branches/Sept2022Ballot/solicited-unsolicited-attachments.html#unsolicited-attachments
Related Page(s):

Solicited and Unsolicited Attachments
Related Section(s):
5.1.1
Resolution Description:

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.
Resolution Vote:
Eric Haas/Jay Lyle: 7-0-1
Change Category:
Correction
Change Impact:
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

Issue Links

is duplicated by

FHIR-38146 at least insufficient, probably unnecessary

Duplicate

is voted on by

BALLOT-39932 Negative - Celine Lefebvre : 2022-Sep-FHIR IG CDex R1 STU

Balloted

mentioned in: Page Loading...

Activity

People

Assignee:: Unassigned

Reporter:: Celine Lefebvre

Request in-person:: Celine Lefebvre

Watchers:: 4 Start watching this issue

Dates

Created:: 2022-09-13 02:18

Updated:: 2023-03-22 12:49

Resolved:: 2022-10-03 09:35

Vote Date:: 2022-11-14