Details
-
Change Request
-
Resolution: Persuasive with Modification
-
Medium
-
US Da Vinci CRD (FHIR)
-
1.1.0-ballot [deprecated]
-
Clinical Decision Support
-
CRD Card Types Value Set
-
-
Bob Dieterle / Rachael Foerster : 8-0-0
-
Correction
-
Non-compatible
-
Yes
Description
Following discussion of https://jira.hl7.org/browse/FHIR-36134, the question of "is our current config granular enough" came up. Skimming the card types http://hl7.org/fhir/us/davinci-crd/2022May/ValueSet-cardType.html I see a potential issue
prior-auth | Prior Authorization | Is prior authorization required or not (and possibly provision of unsolicited prior authorizations) |
Is very broad- I think we're likely to run into a scenario where a client wants to know if prior auth is required or not, but isn't ready for unsolicted auths (maybe they haven't implemented a way to write the ClaimResponse yet).
We should split up this card type- maybe spin off a new "unsolicited-auth" or "unsolicted-determination" type.
Attachments
Issue Links
- mentioned in
-
Page Loading...