Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Chair:  Viet NguyenYan Heras

Scribe: Phung Matthews
 

Minutes Approved as Presented 



Info

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."

Agenda Topics

Agenda Outline

Agenda Item

Meeting Minutes from Discussion

Decision Link(if not child)
Management

Review ANSI Anti-Trust Policy









Announcement
  • Da Vinci FHIR Education and Implementation event: April 26th- April 30th
  • Kick Off recording and presentation are available

Register hereEarly Bird Registration- April 5th, 2021


HL7 Process Update

FHIR Risk Adjustment PSS 

  • CQI WG approved the updated project title from FHIR Risk Based Coding to FHIR Risk Adjustment
  • The Payer/Provider Information Exchange (PIE) WG reviewed the updated PSS and approved to become an interested party instead of co-sponsor
  • Pending the Patient Care WG review for their co-sponsorship(scheduled on 4/12)
  • Will start drafting FHIR IG proposal

Project scope update name from Risk Based Coding to Risk Adjustment

PIE- reviewed on Tuesday and thought they did not have the expertise on it so moved from Co-Sponsor to interested party. 

Next, Patient Care will review and determine if they will continue to be a Co-Sponsor.

Moving forward for the HL7 process. Will need to start an FHIR IG proposal as it is separate from the PSS proposal. 


Discussion Topics

Data elements requirements for Risk Coding Report from Payer to Provider

Glossary

Update Confluence page for supplement information and examples.

Right now as an Introductory/scope, Data Elements, Glossary and Data Flow 

Goal phase 1- currently is defining standard methodology for Payers to communicate coding gaps to Providers. 

  • In scope- Payer communicate risks coding report to Provider group
    • Focus on CMS -HCC model first for MA programs but keep it agnostic enough to support other methods
  • Out of Scope- Payer process on communicating coding gaps, FHIR exchange from payer to CMS, attribution and how providers communicate back to payers. 

Glossary - will be used to determine best terms and definition. Will come back to the permanent, persistent, acute and chronic as it may not be industry consistent use of terms. 

Data Elements- use to capture the right data elements to be used in the framework of payers sending coding gaps to providers.

  • 3 buckets - timing data, administrative data, clinical data
  • HCC category codes- important to identify versions and which models that is being used.

Today discussion- go over Example scenario for data elements

Image Added


Image Added

Any changes in glossary terms? 

  • change HCC Code to HCC category
  • ICD code also is not specific enough- ICD9, ICD10, ICD11 and so forth
  • Keep SNOMED as it is important to the exchange 
  • Version is also important when reporting 
  • Rx HCC driven by medical claims for Medicare but on commercial side, they have different models for it. 
    • medication data- can be used in the suspect conditions
    • in HHS there are some diagnoses from commercial models


Joint commission- need to have it so it supports all risk adjustments. 

RXC- model on commercial side and will use pharmacy data

RxHCC- model on medicare advantage side, will use medical data not pharmacy. Estimate of financial impact based on a medical condition

Focus on diagnosis on Medicare and help clarify that pharmacy data and procedure would be out of scope. 

Focus on medical risk adjustment model starting with Medicare but can be used for commercial models. 

Structurally there is no difference between HCC and RxHCC. Only difference is deciding which to send out to the providers. Same evidence can be used to close both gaps. If using both, can be redundant. 

Goal- to have provider document accurate diagnoses whether it is risk adjustment or not. 

Image Added

Any data can be used to support the HCC category including DME. 

Do you always have supporting evidence when sending historic condition?

  • may have a claim number or identifier (unique to endpoint that is being queried) or in the body of the response

On RA status- when stating confirmed for historic condition, is it because it is on this current year or from last year?

  • may need to be agnostic for the model types 
  • most recent date related to diagnosis on when it was confirmed
  • do we want this to make it actionable to the providers? 
    • granularity on the model, should we consider pending?
  • keep focus on date of service and date of record



ManagementNext Agenda

Pick up next week on RA status


Adjournment
Adjourned at PM 03:57PM ET

Attendees

Present

Name

Affiliation


PresentNameAffilitation
PresentNameAffiliation
  •   
Stratametrics
  •   
Dale Davidson

  •   


  •   
POCP
  •   
Karl EverittEpic
  •   


  •   
BCBS Alabama
  •   
Thomson Kuhn

  •   


  •   
Providence St. Joseph
  •   
Patty Craig

  •   


  •   

Peter Muir



  •   
Matthew Longley

  •   


  •   
Optum
  •   



  •   


  •   

Brian Murta

Centene
  •   



  •   


  •   
POCP
  •   



  •   


  •   
POCP
  •   



  •   


  •   
Phranil MethaHealow
  •   



  •   


  •   
MultiCare
  •   



  •   


  •   
BCBST
  •   






  •   


  •   






  •   
Availity
  •   






  •   
Brent ZenobiaNovillus
  •   






  •   
Optum
  •   






  •   
Frank Vo

  •   







Action items

  •   
  •   

Create from template
templateName26902549
templateId26902549
title@currentDate @spaceKey Decision
buttonLabelCreate Decision from template