Difference between revisions of "DESD PSS: Additional Attachments Templates"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with 'Return to Domain Experts Electronic Voting Summaries Please vote on the PSS for Attachments WG. Enter your name and WG along with your vote. 1 vote per WG. Poll open until O…') |
|||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Link to updated Project scope statement | Link to updated Project scope statement | ||
− | [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/desd/scmsvn/?action=browse&path=%2Ftrunk%2FDocuments%2FProjectScopeStatements%2F2013%2FHL7%2520Project%2520Scope%2520Statement%2520--%2520Additional%2520Attachment%2520Templates%2520-- | + | [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/desd/scmsvn/?action=browse&path=%2Ftrunk%2FDocuments%2FProjectScopeStatements%2F2013%2FHL7%2520Project%2520Scope%2520Statement%2520--%2520Additional%2520Attachment%2520Templates%2520IG%2520--v1.4.docx&sortby=date&view=log Attachments Additional Templates PSS] |
*Summary - Passed (15/0/0/5) | *Summary - Passed (15/0/0/5) | ||
− | **Number of participants: | + | **Number of participants: 15 |
**Most popular option: Affirmative | **Most popular option: Affirmative | ||
− | **Votes in | + | **Votes in favour: 15 |
− | **Comments: | + | **Comments: 5 |
**Non-participating work groups counted as abstaining solely for the purpose of counting quorum: 0 | **Non-participating work groups counted as abstaining solely for the purpose of counting quorum: 0 | ||
Latest revision as of 15:08, 18 October 2013
Return to Domain Experts Electronic Voting Summaries
Please vote on the PSS for Attachments WG. Enter your name and WG along with your vote. 1 vote per WG. Poll open until October 31, 2013.
Link to updated Project scope statement Attachments Additional Templates PSS
- Summary - Passed (15/0/0/5)
- Number of participants: 15
- Most popular option: Affirmative
- Votes in favour: 15
- Comments: 5
- Non-participating work groups counted as abstaining solely for the purpose of counting quorum: 0
' | Affirmative | Negative (with comments) | Abstain |
Craig Gabron (AWG) | OK | ||
Patty Craig (CQI) | OK | ||
Stephen Chu (PCWG) | OK | ||
John Walsh (Anesthesia) | OK | ||
Gaye Dolin (Child Health) | OK | ||
Suzanne Gonzales-Webb | OK | ||
Anita Walden (CIC) | OK | ||
Jim McClay (ECWG) | OK | ||
Amnon Shabo (CG) | OK | ||
Ken Pool (PHER) | OK | ||
Hugh Glover (Rx) | OK | ||
Melva Peters (DESD) | OK | ||
Ed Tripp (RCRIM) | OK | ||
John Rhoads (HCD) | OK | ||
JDL Nolen (AP) | OK | ||
Count | 15 | 0 | 0 |
Comments | ' |
Melva Peters (DESD) Wednesday, October 16, 2013 2:14:03 o'clock AM GMT-12:00 |
Section 3d must be completed with dates prior to submission to the TSC. Section 6 - Please add the date approved by the WG and the date approved by the Co-sponsoring WG. Review of PBS Metrics and WG for AWG: WGH - Healthiest in September 2013. PBS Metrics - 1 unpublished ballot and 2 idle ballots. |
Robert Dieterle Wednesday, October 16, 2013 12:54:41 o'clock AM GMT-12:00 |
Response to questions: 1)Medicare requires documentation that a service (e.g. lab testing, radiology, DME) was authorized by an appropriate licensed provider. This is true for all review/approval methods – prior authorization, pre-payment review, and post payment audit 2)timeline a) Notice of intent to ballot -- Nov 3, 2013 b) Submit for DSTU ballot -- December 8, 2013 c) Ballot period -- December 13, 2013 thru January 13, 2013 d) Present ballot at HL7 -- January HL7 meeting e) Reconcile Jan 2014 on |
Hugh Glover (Pharmacy) Wednesday, October 16, 2013 2:54:14 o'clock AM GMT-12:00 |
The risks identify "aggressive timescale" as an issue and say the sponsor's business needs are the driver but I didn't actually see any timescales identified. My approval is conditional on those timescales being completed before the PSS goes to the TSC. |
Stephen Chu (PCWG) Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:55:44 o'clock AM GMT-12:00" |
PSS Section 3a, third bullet point: "Completing the set of templates for completed and in-process orders required for documentation of provider authorization of the respective services. ..." Comment: It is unclear why for CMS (assume it is Centre for medicare/medicaid services) would require retrospective authorisation of completed orders? Relevant use cases include: retrospective authorization of emergency treatment, phone orders. Do CMS requirements cover these use cases? Are there other CMS requirements?" |
Anita Walden (CIC) Thursday, October 10, 201 10:02:28 o'clock AM GMT-12:00 |
The timeline section does look like it is completed. Will you provide the timelines for us. Thank you. |