This page is part of the Da Vinci Coverage Requirements Discovery (CRD) FHIR IG (v1.0.0: STU 1) based on FHIR R4. This is the current published version in its permanent home (it will always be available at this URL). For a full list of available versions, see the Directory of published versions
Da Vinci is an HL7-sponsored project that brings together the U.S. payer, providers, and technology suppliers (including EHR vendors) to help payers and providers to positively impact clinical, quality, cost, and care management outcomes using FHIR-related technologies. The project organizes meetings (face-to-face and conference calls) as well as connectathons to find ways to leverage FHIR technologies to support and integrate value-based care (VBC) data exchange across communities. Da Vinci identifies value-based care use cases of interest to its member and the community as a whole.
The process that Da Vinci has adopted includes:
Additional information about Da Vinci, its members, the use cases and the implementation guides being developed can all be found on the HL7 website. Meeting minutes and other materials can be found on the Da Vinci Confluence page.
This implementation guide is part of a set of interrelated implementation guides that are focused on reducing clinician and payer burden. The Da Vinci ‘Burden Reduction’ implementation guides are:
The general flow of activity across all three IGs can be seen in the following diagram:
The guides overlap in the following ways:
All three implementation guides can be used together and intersect in that they perform business functions related to prior authorization. However the first two IGs also offer functionality that’s unrelated to prior authorization. The guides can function independently in a number of ways:
As such, implementers can choose to roll out these three implementation guides in whatever order or combination best meets their particular business objectives - though obviously coordinating with their communication partners so that there are other systems to interoperate with will also be important.
The CRD implementation guide defines the responsibilities of the two types of systems involved in a CRD solution:
CRD Clients are typically systems that healthcare providers use at the point of care including electronic medical records systems, pharmacy systems and other clinical and administrative systems used for ordering, documenting and executing patient-related services. Users of these systems have a need for coverage requirements information to support care planning.
CRD Services (or servers) are systems that act on behalf of payer organizations to share information with healthcare providers about rules and requirements related to healthcare products and services covered by a patient’s payer. A CRD Service will provide coverage information related to one or possibly more insurance plans.
This guide is based on the HL7 FHIR standard, as well as the CDS Hooks and SMART on FHIR specifications, which build additional capabilities on top of FHIR. This architecture is intended to maximize the number of clinical systems that conform to this guide as well as to allow for easy growth and extensibility of system capabilities in the future.
Implementers of this specification therefore need to understand some basic information about these specifications.
This implementation guide uses terminology, notations and design principles that are specific to FHIR. Before reading this implementation guide, it’s important to be familiar with some of the basic principles of FHIR as well as general guidance on how to read FHIR specifications. Readers who are unfamiliar with FHIR are encouraged to read (or at least skim) the following prior to reading the rest of this implementation guide.
This implementation guide supports the R4 version of the FHIR standard and builds on the US Core Implementation Guide and implementers need to familiarize themselves with the profiles in that guide. It also draws on content from the Davinci Health Record Exchange (HRex) and Structured Data Capture (SDC) implementation guides.
Implementers should also familiarize themselves with the FHIR resources used within the guide:
Clinical systems will use the specification and workflows defined by CDS Hooks to initiate Coverage Requirements Discovery with the payers. Implementers must be familiar with all aspects of this specification.
SMART on FHIR is expected to be used in two principle ways:
CDS Hooks provides a mechanism for payers to advise clinicians on coverage requirements as part of their regular workflow - when ordering medications, making referrals, scheduling appointments, discharging patients, etc. However, sometimes clinicians may be interested in learning about coverage requirements without going through the workflow steps within their EMR. I.e. they don’t want to actually create a referral, they just want to ask the question “what would the requirements be if I wanted to create a referral?
Discussion of how a SMART on FHIR app can be used to trigger CDS Hooks from within an EMR to perform such what-if scenarios is here. EMRs can use the general open source SMART app. Payers might also choose to develop their own using the open source SMART app as a base to inform their own development. This might be an appropriate option if there’s a need for additional elements to be included in certain resources to determine full coverage requirements.
When a server responds to a CDS hook, one of the possible actions is to allow the user to invoke a SMART App. Support for this option by payer systems is optional. Doing so allows the payer to provide a custom user interface to complete forms, navigate through decision support, review subsets of EHR and/or payer data, etc. The Da Vinci Documentation Templates and Rules implementation guide provides additional guidance and expectations on the use of CDS Hook cards to launch SMART Apps and how payer-provided SMART Apps should function.
The approach taken to meet the requirements of the Coverage Requirements Discovery use-case was selected after evaluating the various interoperability choices provided by FHIR. Specifically, the project team evaluated the possible architectural approaches as described in the HRex specification’s Approaches to Exchanging FHIR Data guide. The following bullets describe the path choices driven by use-case requirements: