hair: Viet Nguyen, Yan Heras
Scribe: Phung Matthews
Minutes Approved as Presented
This is to approve minutes via general consent. "You have received the minutes. Are there any corrections to the minutes? (pause) Hearing none, if there are no objections, the minutes are approved as printed."
Meeting Minutes from Discussion
|Decision Link(if not child)|
|Management||Review ANSI Anti-Trust Policy|
HL7 Connectathon 28 Sept 13-15
Please visit the connectathon page for videos on FHIR 101 and how to read an IG.
Our first track for the Sept Connectathon, please let us know who will be joining for testing.
|Risk Adjustment IG||Continuous Integration (CI) Build site: https://build.fhir.org/ig/HL7/davinci-ra|
Looking to construct the narrative on the IG and moving forward to building it.
Continue with business requirement and FHIR analysis discussion:
continue discussion on whether to use the operation or simple return call for the report. This was brought up at the CQI meeting. Their suggestions were instead of having specific return, have it be generic operation, can be applied for the evaluated measure.
Added parameters for the Get report operation.
Not all parameters may be supported by all vendors. Then we can use the overload for the scenarios. Identify the list of parameters for the overload,
These are the parameters for the ones who are submitted.
The overloads are for the servers to use, due to some parameters being optional.
Any number of overloads is a call to the same methods or functions but with different sets of parameters
Organization- may be harder to use as parameter since data quality on that is not accurate
For HCC- may need to pull list of codes for patient report as outreach.
Member Attribution IG may be used to find your list of members.
Generally, if you are a specialist, you would still need a PCP license to be attributed to the patient.
If provider wants to pull a report, is there a time where he would pull patients he is not attributed to? Rather than adding which patients to pull report from. Most likely would have a list of patients to pull patient from.
Which then may mean that practitioner or organization may not be needed as a parameter.
Also need to consider sensitive information shared among other providers.
May still require NPI to know who is requesting the data. Could we use the log in as identification/credentials?
Think of other roles that may need to pull risk reports, such as self insured employers and patients.
Use of reportID or measureID to restrict the information on what is on the report.
Other parameters to look for: Model versions (that is active during the clinical period, add to the Model parameter), hcc code (to allow passing multiple HCC codes)
Remove model and version as a parameter, as it would be placed in the results and the provider can filter it on their end/UI.
also remove evidence status and suspect type- as it should fall under the provider
Can we leave them and not state that the API should support them?
Brent Zenobia to Everyone
Can "practitioner" refer to either an NPI or a TIN?
oh I see, never mind
Brent Zenobia to Everyone
hccModel can't just be the most recent version of the risk adjustment model due to ESRD, PACE, etc. which run a version or two behind the most recent version
Viet Nguyen to Everyone
Would we apply something like the scopes like we do with OAuth?
Review Track Proposal: 2021-09 Da Vinci Risk Adjustment
Discuss Track Schedule
|Adjournment||adjourned at 3:58PM ET|
|Stratametrics||Dale Davidson||Rachel Foerster||Kimberly Bradbury|
|Karl Everitt||Epic||Tim McNeil|
|BCBS Alabama||Thomson Kuhn||Leah Hannum|
|Providence St. Joseph||Patty Craig||Dave Foster|
|Nick Radov||Bryan Briegel|
|Optum||William Harty||Preston Lee|
|Centene||Deidre Sacra||Gary Dickinson|
|POCP||Jay Baker||Rob Reynolds|
|Phranil Metha||Healow||Cigna Evernorth||Donielle Williams|
|BCBST||Christopher Marchand||Pranathi K|
|Madhurima Dhar||Cozeva||Vijay Sravani Thotakura|
|Availity||Kira Whitworth||Angie Finley|
|Brent Zenobia||Novillus||Travis Hendrix||Eric Liu|
|Optum||Zahid Butt||Kim Faison|
|Frank||Khushwinder Singh||Tushar Shah|
- Re-evaluate the name of this use case as "Risk Adjustment" does not define the payment aspect of the primary focus. Need to discuss with CQI WG as well.
- Add to Phase 2 - Ability to remove and provide a reason for status change. e.g. the patient no longer has the condition.