You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
As of January 1st, 2024, new final rules issued by CMS require hospitals to post text files in the root directories of their public sites with metadata pointers to actual HPT MRFs. This is a huge conceptual win in principle, since in principle it removes a large part of the effort necessary to go from known hospital domain -> actual MRF file in hand, and makes that process much more easily automate-able.
However, so far I've checked 2 major hospitals in Philadelphia, and neither has either the required footer on their homepage, and AFAICT neither is hosting a text file to boot. Does anyone else have any insight compliance elsewhere? Any examples of hospitals that have posted the text files and footers so far?
Assuming nontrivial compliance begins imminently, I think it makes sense to adjust the HPT data schemas here to focus on hospitals domains and compliant text files, which can then be parsed and processed to generate secondary, dependent metadata (like the actual MRF urls). This should be tremendously helpful for avoiding stale data (as always, assuming compliance). Any thoughts on that proposal?
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
-
As of January 1st, 2024, new final rules issued by CMS require hospitals to post text files in the root directories of their public sites with metadata pointers to actual HPT MRFs. This is a huge conceptual win in principle, since in principle it removes a large part of the effort necessary to go from known hospital domain -> actual MRF file in hand, and makes that process much more easily automate-able.
However, so far I've checked 2 major hospitals in Philadelphia, and neither has either the required footer on their homepage, and AFAICT neither is hosting a text file to boot. Does anyone else have any insight compliance elsewhere? Any examples of hospitals that have posted the text files and footers so far?
Assuming nontrivial compliance begins imminently, I think it makes sense to adjust the HPT data schemas here to focus on hospitals domains and compliant text files, which can then be parsed and processed to generate secondary, dependent metadata (like the actual MRF urls). This should be tremendously helpful for avoiding stale data (as always, assuming compliance). Any thoughts on that proposal?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions