2024-01-10 Patient Cost Transparency Meeting

Agenda Outline	Agenda Item	Meeting Minutes from Discussion
Management	Review ANSI Anti-Trust Policy
Housekeeping	Welcome back and Welcome any newcomers!
Announcements
Project Update	PCT STU1.1Published! https://hl7.org/fhir/us/davinci-pct/STU1.1/ Remaining Tickets will be included in Ballot, targeting May 2024 cycle.	Happy to share this has been published. Please take a look. The "breaking issues" were actually to enable you to communicate the information needed, e.g. Benefitbalance slice Link to Change log: https://hl7.org/fhir/us/davinci-pct/STU1.1/change_log.html#high-level-changes-110
January Connectathon (Virtual) Kick Off was Dec 13th.	January 16-18, 2024 Registration now open: January 2024 Virtual Connectathon - Da Vinci Tracks PCT Usual Track Focus, plus testing the AEOB Summary, and other new areas from phase 2 efforts! Please reach out to Rick Geimer , Corey Spears andVanessa Candelora if you are interested in a specific testing area. We can help find partners for you. Track Proposal: 2024 - 01 Da Vinci Patient Cost Transparency (PCT) Track Orientation / Kick off - See PCT Track pagefor slides and recording. Fill out your surveyif you have not already! Online registration is available until the end of the day on Tuesday, January 16th, 2024	Next Week! RI is up and running and ready for people to come and test. This includes an addition for the AEOB Summary. The Summary shows the overarching cost and pertinent info for patient, with the ability to see the individual AEOBs (per "claim") Will also be updating the RI artifacts for v1.1 fixes and the AEOB Summary. Data Sharing coordination in advance is also happening with participants. Also looking at some fields that are required for the GFE (e.g. claim Identifier, Principle Diagnosis - Description, provider taxonomy, some may involve populating the EHR server with more information)
GFE Tiger Team - Providers Update (1min)	We are convening. Da Vinci Patient Cost Transparency (PCT) team is gathering providers and facilities to convene and discuss Good Faith Estimates and the process to coordinate with other providers and facilities for this No Surprises Act requirement. Format: 1-hour meetings every other week/2x per month for 8-10 weeks Goal: Convene diverse provider organizations to solicit, synthesize and define the data exchange needs of Convening Providers/Convening Facilities and Co-Providers/Co-Facilities to create Good Faith Estimates under the No Surprises Act. Our goal is not to repeat other conversations throughout the industry, but to leverage other conversations and bring people together around discovery of data requirements and workflow process. If you are aware of this conversation occurring somewhere else, please let us know. Please email DaVinci PMOdavincipmo@pocp.com with subject “Interest in Provider GFE Tiger Team.”
Phase 2: Requirements for Provider to Provider GFE	Continued Discussion on the Provider to Provider GFE Notification, Acknowledgement, and GFE sharing workflow. Goals for the call today (1/10/2024): 1) Update on Profiles for Phase 2 (see separate branch: https://build.fhir.org/ig/HL7/davinci-pct/branches/phase_2/ FYI - This is a current development branch. Note this link contains IG work based on consensus-building in this open forum, but because we are pre-voting in the HL7 process, this IG Version is not available through the "Publication (Version) History" 2) FHIR(r) Task Resource Elements & workflow, such as: Priority, Dates - Restrictions and Extensions Technical Discussion; Provider cannot be reached process	Corey walked through the new profiles in the development branch. When you are identifying co-providers and receiving the request, how are you Yes, any of those modalities can be supported, The convening provider using the coordination platform as a phone book. The co-provider wound use the practioner and organization resources that are in the coordination platform. Could be FHIR Subscriptions, Notifications. Will not be defining the general use cases for can identify codes or things that can be communicated - could include direct addresses. We'd add guidance for the use of the contact end point, to include addresses, for example, The strict time frames involved. Providers would need local availability to specific co-providers through the directory. They could know each other already. Have we defined all the responsibilities and the needs for the coordination platform? Reminded folks of the definition: Coordination Platform – The responsible entity designated by the convening provider to aggregate the GFE information across providers. This could be the convening provider’s practice management system, EHR, Cost Estimator tool, clearinghouse, billing services, payer, or other third party) Many of these organizations e.g. clearinghouse routes transactions, doesn't do provider to provider communication. Task.priority - The base FHIR resources has value options include Routine (4), Urgent (3), ASAP (2), Stat (1) Priority. Talked about how this is quantified (order) Do we want this in PCT if we have the dates and need to prioritize on the dates? Is there a need where an escalation to bump something up to the list Stanley raised his assumption that the convening provider or the coordination platform will set the date for when the co-providers portion of the GFE is due. Should this be part of the business process? Should this be part of the data standard for exchange? Task period - Lloyd would recommend using the Inter-version extension mechanism fro R5. No one thought priority was needed.

	Reminder: Cancelled for Connectathon on 1/17. See you on 1/24.
Chat
	Adjourned at pm ET

2024-01-10 Patient Cost Transparency Meeting - Da Vinci (2024)

References