Stream: implementers
Topic: ChargeItemDefinition and reference to Contract
Dimitar Dimitrov (Mar 18 2020 at 11:01):
Hi all.
I am trying to implement a billing part of the FHIR in our system. As far as I understand we should use ChargeItemDefinition(CID) with the corresponding context in order to assign a billing artifact to the encounter. So from the business analytics our requirement looks as follows:
We must have a list of Contracts with all the organization for reimbursement.
In the context of the encounter the practitioner will search for all ChargeItemDefinitions which are applicable with the corresponding contract. So for that reason the ChargeItemDefinition must have a relation to Contract in order to be searchable in that context.
From that perspective we have a few approaches.
- We can use an identifier with specific value or code which corresponds to the particular contract.
- We can use a jurisdiction with a CodeableConcept which corresponds to the particular Contract.
- Or we can use a ChargeItemDefinition.useContext.valueCodeableConcept to mark a specific Contract.
In these ways the choosing which ChargeItemDefinition is applicable, will be performed by search request against the FHIR database.
However we can use a completely different approach. We can load all the ChargeItemDefinitions in the client application (which is a WEB based app) and can use a ChargeItemDefinition.applicability with rules applied for each usage context. If we have a thousands of CIDs this will make the client application heavier to load.
Please share your experience with the billing engine implementation over the FHIR standard.
Thanks in advance.
Lloyd McKenzie (Mar 18 2020 at 14:02):
@Simone Heckmann
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
